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.

Please post discussions about Railway station names at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations).

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)

Read WP:CITEVAR — we should not change away from one citation style to another, unless we're harmonising multiple styles or restoring what's actually the original style. Some style guides have specific standards on this kind of thing: for example, MLA says to give just the town name, even when it's a rather obscure little place. Since I do my best to write in a {{reflist}}-friendly form of MLA, I omitted ", California" on Yankeetown Site and Hubele Mounds and Village Site when citing a book that was published in Walnut Creek; it's incorrect to change the bibliographic data to suit your preferences, and you're basically breaking the citation. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"America"

I could have sworn there was guidance on usage of this term somewhere, but have not had much luck turning it up. While the average citizen of the U.S. will treat it as the common name for that country, others will use it collectively for the North and South American continents. No doubt there is an impact from wp:ENGVAR, but it seems an obvious thing to spell out. Am I looking in the wrong place? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I once looked for guidance, and could not find anything other than the DAB page at America. There should be something here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I’ve always understood “America” to mean the United States thereof, and “the Americas” to mean the two continents. Does anyone refer to the continents in English as simply “America”? —Frungi (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a major discussion currently going on at Talk:America#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: I think you express things well. So far I've seen nothing to suggest that normal readers actually have any problem at all interpreting titles with the current single-comma form. To misread them would seem to require a greater degree of grammatical hair-splitting (or obtuse misreading) than I think a normal reader would bring to the consideration of a title. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:45, 11 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)

Should it be "Diana, Princess of Wales Hospital" or "Diana, Princess of Wales, Hospital"?  — Amakuru (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting example. I can't figure how to apply WP:COMMONNAME, because Google seems to ignore punctuation in search terms. The name on the Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Trust web site is "Diana, Princess of Wales Hospital", so would use that. It isn't a geographical reference, though, so I assume WP:COMMA doesn't apply to it. --Stfg (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Amakuru: That's an interesting parallel to the metro areas question. Is the article about a hospital named for Diana, Princess of Wales? Or is it about Diana who is the princess of a medical facility called Wales Hospital? Or perhaps Diana whom we disambiguate by specifying her association to the Princess of Wales Hospital?

There are various possible misreadings, but they seem very unlikely; to me, the intended meaning is clear without the second enclosing comma. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Stfg the two cases seem to be quite closely related to me. Both concern a proper noun "Rochester, New York" and "Diana, Princess of Wales" which has been formed using two other proper nouns and inserting a comma between the two. The metropolitan area and the hospital are both other nouns to which those aforementioned proper nouns apply. On the hospital issue, most sources seem to use the one comma form, but of course this is a British hospital so it's not entirely impossible that there's an ENGVAR issue here as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Dworjan: Actually it's only been claimed that the current title "leads to an improper reading of the phrase". I see no actual evidence that that's the case – that readers are actually having any difficulty reading the current title. Certainly if one wishes to speculate on ways that a reader might obtusely misread something, one can, and under such circumstances practically anything (including both the one- and two-comma forms) is potentially suspect, but I'm not sure that strained grammatical interpretations/misinterpretations reflect the reality of how readers are actually using these pages... and it's for readers that we choose titles.

One of my concerns is that a sizable number of commentators (notably even including some who support the rule) concede that the additional comma makes things "awkward", "clunky", etc., so I think we have to ask whether the benefit to be gained from applying the rule outweighs making the title awkward and clunky. For myself, I'm not convinced that it does, particularly given the absence of evidence that the current title is in practice at all problematic, the long stability of the current title form, etc. (And as I've elaborated before, I also have my doubts about whether the absence of the second comma in the title is even necessarily incorrect, given that we don't apply to titles all the same rules of grammar and punctuation as we do to prose sentences... and that good titles must meet other considerations beyond what may be correct punctuation elsewhere.) ╠╣uw [talk] 20:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, it has only been claimed that the grammatically correct comma would lead to improper reading of the phrase. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a comma, a comma that is supposed to be there. I don't see how that's "awkward" or "clunky". Multiple examples have been posted showing that without the second comma the title can be misread (Amakuru has just added another one above). Besides being necessary to properly label places it is also grammatically correct despite it not being a sentence. The rule states that parentheticals (which we all agree the state name would be), should be set off by commas before and after. The rule that people are misinterpreting is the one that says the second comma may be omitted at the end of a sentence or phrase. It is being read to somehow mean that if it isn't a sentence, the comma isn't needed. When what it is saying is that the second comma should be there, except in cases when nothing follows that second comma. We do have different rules of grammar and punctuation for titles and sentences, but those rules state to which they apply. So 'capitalization in titles', 'punctuation at the end of sentences' don't apply in all cases. But 'commas around parenthetical phrases' applies whether it is a sentence or not.

I don't see how "Rochester, New York, metropolitan area" is so horribly awkward and clunky as to make it unreadable as compared to "Rochester, New York metropolitan area". Especially since the second one is wrong. Not just "grammatically", but also in content. The second article title refers to a Rochester in the New York metropolitan area, not a Rochester metropolitan area in New York. Regardless of what grammar rules we apply, whether some construct is awkward or not, the plain fact is that the second construct refers to something different than the first. And that is why the comma is necessary. Dworjan (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As one of those guilty of calling the two-comma form "clunky", may I just say that I find the one-comma form even more "clunky", on my own private and admittedly subjective scale of clunkiness. I used it only to explain why I like the option to rephrase. --Stfg (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In simple terms, this should be the order of preference:

1. Rochester metropolitan area, New York—grammatically/stylistically correct, un-clunky and unambiguous (the Rochester metropolitan area in New York);
2. Rochester, New York, metropolitan area—grammatically/stylistically correct and unambiguous, but clunky;
3. Rochester, New York metropolitan area—grammatically/stylistically incorrect and ambiguous (Rochester in the New York metropolitan area?).

—sroc 💬 00:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

An alternative could possibly be Rochester (New York) metropolitan area, but I think both that and your number 1 fails WP:COMMONNAME. People do say "Rochester, New York, metropolitan area", unless of course the context is clear (e.g. when being in the vicinity), in which case people say "Rochester metropolitan area". And your number 3 would actually have 999 on my list.

I think it's time to close this discussion. The outcome is clear. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have 996 other options ;-p —sroc 💬 10:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Dworjan: You don't think it's awkward, and that's fine. I simply note that many others (including even a number who seemingly favor the rule) do say that it's awkward. As for your assertion of that it's a "plain fact" that the two constructions will be read differently, that again is an opinion that you're welcome to, but (as far as I can see) there's no evidence for that. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

We can debate whether or not the second comma is "awkward" but that is simply an editorial opinion. Editors have also pointed out that they feel the first comma is awkward as well. Whether we think something is awkward isn't the basis for titling articles. Now, if it was artificial, then yes, that would be a good reason not to use a particular form. Which is why I would not support "Rochester (New York) metropolitan area" because that is an artificial construct. It has been pointed out several times how someone who understands English grammar, and the standard format of placenames (when X Location is a part of Y Area then it should be written "X Location, Y Area", not only could misinterpret "Rochester, New York metropolitan area" as Rochester of the New York metropolitan area, but in fact should interpret it that way, and given that there is in fact a New York metropolitan area which is also much more well known than the Rochester, New York, metropolitan area, that interpretation is entirely possible. Which is why the first format "Rochester metropolitan area, New York" isn't good either. Because we have metropolitan areas that span state lines, an article titled with that first format would be referring to that portion of the Rochester metropolitan area within New York. Dworjan (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all except your last point: in the case where a metropolitan area crosses state borders, we name them both (e.g., Rochester metropolitan area, New York and New Jersey) just as we do for unincorporated communities (e.g., Glenrio, New Mexico and Texas) in accordance with WP:USPLACE. —sroc 💬 23:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What about “Rochester metropolitan area (New York)”, as we do for any other disambiguation? This is of course assuming that the area may be called “Rochester metropolitan area” in context. I don’t think there have been any objections yet to this form, except for one who didn’t seem to understand how Wikipedia does DAB. —Frungi (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction: One argument I’ve seen that could apply against this is the fact that we follow Wikipedia practice here rather than dictate it. So then I guess the question is, would anyone object to making it the practice? It suffers from no grammatical errors. —Frungi (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

So, if I've understood the discussion correctly (which is far from certain), the discussion is now about these remaining alternatives (in no particular order):

1. Rochester, New York, metropolitan area
2. Rochester (New York) metropolitan area
3. Rochester metropolitan area, New York
4. Rochester metropolitan area (New York)

Right? Then, how do we proceed? HandsomeFella (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I like 4 best, but by my reading, there seems to be the most consensus for 1 and 3. I guess the next steps are to determine which one of those we should use, and then go about moving the articles. —Frungi (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If the title uses a form similar to #1, then the second comma is necessary. Among reformulations to avoid that construction, my preference would be for #4. #3 is a bastardization of the comma convention in that no one commonly uses that form, whereas the justification for the comma convention is that people do commonly refer to "Rochester, New York" and as such it is a sort of alternate title that incorporates natural disambiguation. As an aside, I find many of the other extensions of the comma convention, as with neighborhoods, to also be uncommon aberrations. Similarly, #2 seems an extremely odd use of parenthetical disambiguation that would effectively render the pipe trick unusable for such titles. older ≠ wiser 19:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I like #1 best. I have started a poll below. If the participation is good, it could prove more effective than discussions/essays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandsomeFella (talk • contribs) 08:22, 16 August 2013

The point abouit the pipe trick is interesting. Here are the details:

• [[Rochester, New York, metropolitan area|]] generates Rochester
• [[Rochester (New York) metropolitan area|]] generates Rochester (New York) metropolitan area
• [[Rochester metropolitan area, New York|]] generates Rochester metropolitan area
• [[Rochester metropolitan area (New York)|]] generates Rochester metropolitan area

--Stfg (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a mistake in the poll: it doesn't include the option of Rochester, New York metropolitan area.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I second this comment. Just because the "no second comma" people haven't been engaged in this latest round of the interminable discussion, or haven't been continuing to comment on a daily basis, that doesn't mean they have conceded the point. It may just mean they got tired of the squabbling and moved on to other things. Please include that option in your table. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I just saw this comment: I guess the next steps are to determine which one of those we should use, and then go about moving the articles. Forgive me, Frungi, but I object to the notion that you can just "go about moving" hundreds of article titles based on the consensus of maybe half-a-dozen people toward the end of an exhaustive/exhausting discussion. What about the fact that currently none of the existing articles use any of these four formats - so that EVERY disambiguated metropolitan area article would have to be changed? Is current usage to be given no weight at all in this discussion? Whatever happened to "policy is supposed to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive"? Please see the discussion on this point below. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've got to agree with MelanieN about that. The poll below overlaps the proper RFC survey without subsuming it, and it can only generate confusion. I've removed my entry from that table, and I strongly suggest that the whole table be removed. --Stfg (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don’t think that was her point, but I have to agree, Stfg. But what do you suggest? Support for the two options in the original survey is about even. —Frungi (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's no mistake. There seems to be a stable majority against the one-comma option, and few new editors have arrived lately, and so it is not likely to change. That poll has already taken place, so to speak, and the one-comma option lost 7–14.

The latest discussions have only been re-hashing old arguments. After a couple of days with no new input to the section, we need to go on and implement. A discussion on alternate formats then arose, and I started the poll between these. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Current usage is grammatically incorrect, and there appears to be consensus for fixing that. There have been move requests in the past, including during this discussion, and the closing comments at Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area#Requested move 2 elected to wait until this discussion was resolved. Guidelines describe best practices, and that is exactly what we are trying to determine here. —Frungi (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you can categorically state that the current usage is "grammatically incorrect". That's part of the nub of the argument, I would have thought. And your assertion that "there appears to be consensus for fixing that" is based not on arguments, or an attempt to genuinely find consensus, but on a straw poll which, as Melanie says, was hardly conclusive.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If it would assist clarity, I'm fine with adding the status quo as a fifth option. My concern is with how the disambiguator in #3 and #4 is to be determined. As metropolitan areas sometimes cross state lines, would we have to list multiple states within the parentheses or after the comma? (It's not an issue with #1 and #2, because then the disambiguator applies to the city, which (with a very few exceptions) is only in one state. Powers ^T 17:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the disambiguator necessary when the base name is unambiguous? We require the state name for cities and towns, but do we also for areas named for cities? —Frungi (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

These are not named after a city but rather use the name of the largest city, or multiple cities, included in the area. Not quite the same. So using Vegas as an example it is either Las Vegas–Paradise, NV MSA which was changed this year to Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area. These are commonly shortened to use one city in the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion; I meant descriptive titles rather than proper nouns. Our “metropolitan areas” don’t always match up with statistical areas. So I’ll rephrase: Is the disambiguator necessary in unambiguous descriptive titles? —Frungi (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's "necessary" but the prevailing style across the Wiki appears to be not to disambiguate with a state name where it's unambiguous. Thus Albuquerque metropolitan area but Albuquerque, New Mexico.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I think option 3 (Rochester metropolitan area, New York) is the preferable option, as it provides natural disambiguation (using the accepted "[small area name], [larger area name]" convention) while avoiding the two-comma adjectival construction. —sroc 💬 13:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Poll

Give points on a scale of 1 to 4. Most preferred = most points.

Editor	Rochester, New York, metropolitan area	Rochester (New York) metropolitan area	Rochester metropolitan area, New York	Rochester metropolitan area (New York)
HandsomeFella	4 p	3 p	2 p	1 p
sroc	3 p	1 p	4 p	1 p
Total	7 p	4 p	6 p	2 p

Using one comma is not grammatically incorrect

Folks, there's a major misconception here that using one comma is "grammatically incorrect". This misconception underlies 90% of the opposition to using one comma. The problem is, it's just not true. Using one comma is perfectly acceptable from a grammatical standpoint. There are dueling theories at work here. One, the dominant one, is that "State" acts as an appositive, and therefore requires paired commas to set it off.

The problem with that theory is that it's not an appositive, really. An appositive "points out the same person or thing by a different name," according to Garner's Modern American Usage. In other words, it requires a degree of identity between the two: "My brother, the dentist;" "George, the king of England;" "Route 12, the quickest way to get there." There is no identity, however, between "City" and "State." "Rochester" is not "New York" or vice-versa. The only way to get a degree of identity is to add a couple of words: "Rochester, (the one in) New York." Now, this or a similar construction may be how the comma convention originated (I'd love it if someone could find the history of the comma convention). But as I said above, this at best is a vestigial appositive reading.

The far better interpretation is that "City, State," at least in the U.S., is itself a single, unified name of a thing - that happens to have a comma included by convention. As such, "State" does not need a second comma to set it off, because "State" is an integral part of the name itself. Anyone who's hung around WP:USPLACE for five minutes knows this is one of the main arguments for defaulting to the comma convention in the first place. As a placename, it does not require an extra comma when it is used as a modifier, any more than "City" by itself needs one.

Bottom line? Stylistically and grammatically, one comma is a better option than two. Dohn joe (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Very well said indeed. Omnedon (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a point that “appositive” is the wrong word to use here. But that’s not relevant. The fact of the matter is that every style guide says to use two commas in a “City, State” construction. Some say that omitting the second one is accepted in informal writing, but since informal writing doesn’t seem suited to an encyclopedia, and since we base much of our style guidance off of established style guides, I thought this matter had been settled. —Frungi (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Dohn joe, this sounds like a novel theory. However, published style guides almost universally recommend paired commas. older ≠ wiser 18:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly when "City, State" is being used as a noun. However, we have only one guide that recommends doing so when "City, State" is being used as a modifier, and two giants of style (Garner and Chicago) that are squeamish about the second comma - and do not definitively recommend its usage. (Garner even says that some people will put in a second comma based merely on the theory that it is an appositive.) Dohn joe (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, both recommend avoiding the use of two-part place names as adjectives -- NOT that using one comma is OK. older ≠ wiser 18:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither one takes a position either way on one versus two commas. One reason they say to avoid the construction is because people will think they have to use two, not that the second comma is actually required. Dohn joe (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Both recommend to avoid the use of two-part place names as an adjective. They do not appear to take any authoritative position regarding grammar. I see no reason to ignore the nearly universal advice of style guides to avoid the use. older ≠ wiser 19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

But the point is that there is almost no guidance on the placename-as-modifier issue, and when two of the most well-respected guides do refer to it, they are silent. Dohn joe (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary. There is abundant guidance, nearly universal, recommending to avoid using two-part place names as adjectives. And the vast majority are clear that when two-part place name are used as adjectives, they should use paired commas. older ≠ wiser 21:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's "abundant", but I generally agree with the first part. But I've only seen one guide that addresses the adjective issue. Can you show other guides that do so? Dohn joe (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Do any style guides have specific guidance for MSAs? I'm not sure it that was listed above, this discussion is getting rather lengthy and some points are easy to miss. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The only relevant guidance I've seen is to omit the second comma when the state is given in its postal abbreviation (thus, no second comma after "Las Vegas, NV".) But nothing specifically in the context of MSAs that I recall. Dohn joe (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it was originally you, Dohn joe, who said it was an appositive in the move discussion on Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area#Requested move 2. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No, 'twasn't me - I got it from Frungi here. And several other editors, yourself included, have relied on that rule in calling the one-comma-version "incorrect grammatically". Garner refers to it as well in real life. Dohn joe (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don’t know if I was the first to use the word, but I was definitely one of the loudest. It was the best word I knew to describe the function. I accept that it was the wrong word (anyone know the right one?), but the function is similar enough that I think my points regarding it still stand. —Frungi (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You're certainly not the only one to use it. Like I said, Garner himself says that many people feel obligated to use the second comma on the theory that the state is appositive. Dohn joe (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok...so it isn't an appositive. Many of the style guides make specific recommendations on how to use commas when given a "City, State" construction. So why are we debating whether it is an appositive, a parenthetical, or a single multi-word entity? The style guides provide direction on what to do in this exact circumstance, so we should just be using those guidelines. Dworjan (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Again - I have only seen one guide that recommends the second comma when "City, State" is a modifier. Garner and Chicago punt on prescribing, but don't prohibit using one comma. If it is a single multi-word entity, that means it's not grammatically incorrect to use one comma, and thus it comes down to a question of style. Since most people here agree that the one-comma option is less awkward, we should be able to choose it. The MOS does not always pick just the most popular option when there are several possibilities. We should have that latitude here as well. Dohn joe (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Again - I have only seen one guide that recommends the second comma when "City, State" is a modifier. Do the others recommend using the second comma unless the pair is used as a modifier? Because I thought it was recommended without qualification. Anyway, if the best practice is to avoid such usage, we can do so easily: [[City metropolitan area, State]]. [[City metropolitan area (State)]]. [[Metropolitan area of City, State]]. Or is there some reason we should use [[City, State[,] metropolitan area]] rather than consider alternatives? —Frungi (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I never did think that "appositive" was the right concept here, but it's set off the same way. Some guides (e.g. this web page) treat appositives and states in distinct but similar rules. Dicklyon (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

To me the clincher, the conclusive evidence that the second comma is no longer required, is "Diana, Princess of Wales Hospital". If even the Brits are willing to accept this format - even about something named for their late beloved princess - then the second comma rule is dead. It is no longer a rule. It is as dead as "never end a sentence with a preposition" and "never split an infinitive", and we would be fools to rename hundreds of articles based on this former-but-no-longer requirement. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That may not be a very good comparison as it is both the formal and common name of a tangible entity. Many of these metropolitan areas are statistical abstractions. For those that are solely about the U.S. Census data, the article names probably should use the census names. For others that include a mix of census data and other information, the article should probably use a name based on common usage. older ≠ wiser 19:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I realize it is not directly comparable. I was using it as an argument to support the thesis of this section, namely, using one comma is not grammatically incorrect. To me the example of "Diana, Princess of Wales Hospital" shows that omitting the second comma is OK grammatically - and destroys all the arguments here based on "grammatical correctness". --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It destroys no arguments at all. One reason is that the meaning does not change by the missing comma in the "Princess of Wales Hospital" part. If you look at that separately, it has the intended meaning, because Diana was the Princess of Wales. In the case of the metropolitan areas, the "New York metropolitan area" is something entirely different than the "Rochester metropolitan area". HandsomeFella (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. --Stfg (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

One counterexample does not a rule break, especially in cases of possible ambiguity (cf. HandsomeFella). If what you say is true, then sources will all stop using a second comma and style guides will stop recommending it, and then—after the rule change proliferates, not before—we should change our style guidance to match. (This has not yet happened, and I sincerely doubt it will any time soon, but we’ll see.) It’s a similar situation to changing place names; we don’t (or shouldn’t) move an article the moment a new name is announced, but wait to see if it’s picked up by reliable sources. —Frungi (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, “never end a sentence with a preposition” and “never split infinitives” were never rules to begin with. —Frungi (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur. The "one comma" version is a grammatical error, and we shouldn't use it unless it becomes accepted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the one-comma version is not an error. Dohn joe (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's pointless to call it an "error", which really just depends on how you interpret the various rules and guidelines. What's clear, however, is that it is less preferred, and recommended against, by the majority of style and grammar guides. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Other than the one guide you found, where is it recommended against using one comma when a two-part placename is used as an adjective? Dohn joe (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean, "… when a two-part placename is used?", to which the answer is what Dicklyon said above. As I've mentioned before, the recommendation does not have that restriction; all they say about the adjectival construction is that it's best avoided entirely—which we could easily do here. —Frungi (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been pretty consistent in talking about the adjectival form, which has been separately addressed in style guides, including the one that dicklyon found, and Garner and Chicago. There's reason to believe that the comma guidance for the noun form and the adjectival form may be different. That's the guidance I'm looking for that no one has been able to provide beyond the three references mentioned above. Dohn joe (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you quote the guides that recommend the second comma distinctly and exclusively for when the construction is used as a noun, or that recommend against the second comma for any other use? Because I’ve read several of them, and I don’t remember that exclusivity at all. Again, what they do say—in all the guides that discuss the topic at all, if I’m not mistaken—is to avoid using the construction as an adjective, which seems like the advice that we should heed here. —Frungi (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In the analogous case of dates, yes. See Garner's Modern American Usage, pp.225-226, which describes the exact situation we find ourselves in. I won't quote the entire entry, but here are some interesting excerpts:

• "Stylists who use [the Month Day, Year] phrasing [as an adjective] typically omit the comma after the year, and justifably so: in the midst of an adjective phrase (i.e., the date), it impedes the flow of the writing too much."
• "The idea of the comma after the year, as it has commonly been taught, is that the year is in apposition, so the second comma is required....The more plausible argument - supporting the absence of the comma after the year - has two parts. First, the comma is really just separating the two numerals, so if a second comma isn't syntactically required, then it doesn't belong....Second, the comma after the date marks a nonexistent pause: when a full date is used adjectivally, a knowledgeable speaker of the phrase marches toward the noun instead of pausing after the year."
• "It makes little sense to punctuate a forward-looking adjective with a pause at the end of it."
• "Most usage books that call uniformly for a comma after the year in a full date, by the way, don't address the question raised just above. They show the comma without illustrating what happens when the date functions as an adjective. In other words, they illustrate the easy cases, not the more difficult ones."

Substitute "State" for "year", and "City, State" for "a full date", and you have our situation precisely. And yes, Garner does call the construction "particularly clumsy", so an alternative might work. But there's certainly no reason to move hundreds (thousands?) of articles and change article text to add a comma that is even clumsier when there's powerful authority against the need to do so. And for those worried about being in the minority, Garner explicitly says that stylists who use this construction typically omit the comma after the year. Dohn joe (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"It makes little sense to punctuate a forward-looking adjective with a pause at the end of it." Nevertheless, it's what we do. Either we speak with no pause at all, like "Rochester New York metropolitan", or we speak with two (however minute) pauses. No-one speaks with one pause (for a single comma). It's the same thing with dates: " ... the minister said in a June 10, 2011, interview ...". Another thing that can be observed, is that the intonation actually changes when we say it. The name of the state, and the year in the other example, is said with another pitch (slightly lower), and the previous pitch is reassumed after the state/year. This – how we speak it – actually supports the presence of a second comma. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:45, 20 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)

I removed the bit that gave priority to maps. I have no problem with "Consult maps and atlases..." but "If they are are in agreement, that is the modern name" is a step too far. Also, WP:SEVEN is meant to be humorous, not to be taken seriously, as is clearly mentioned in the disclaimer at the very top of that page. Athenean (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, the only way you're going to get any agreement on giving priority to one type of source over others is to state why those sources should have priority over the others. I think my proposal is getting a bit of acceptance, because it doesn't unequivocally state right and wrong sources, and it states why certain sources are better, and why other sources have limitations. If you want to come up with a way to state that when using encyclopedias the editor still needs to take care that the article is referring to the modern place, then I think we'd all agree to having that included. We just can't state "here's where you'll find the modern name of a place, other sources be damned." Even if that is true, it has to be phrased better. Dworjan (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to copy-and-paste that text from #2 to #1, not cut-and-paste it. I have restored it now. Please have a look at the numbered list, and notice how each ends with a similar sentence. #1 is the only one which does not have this, so let's fix that as soon as possible. I will wait a reasonable amount of time to see what you all think before going ahead and doing it myself.

About WP:SEVEN, yes, it is supposed to be funny, but it also is supposed to make an important point. Nationalists are inevitable and they can be counted on not to accept place names from time to time and to cause much disagreement and resorting to this guideline. Many of you will be familiar with the cases with the Sea of Japan, the Persian Gulf, and other such cases, but not all such places are famous and many may not be noticed by so many people as those. Now, of course, there may be other reasons a person might refuse to accept that the name of a place has already been found, but you will agree that WP:SEVEN is one of the big ones. That is why this guideline spells out reasonable stopping point at which we can say that the name has been found, such as "when absolutely all the sources agree, use that name" again and again on WP:WIAN, except the new map one, so please fix that today. Otherwise, people such as nationalists will be able to block decisions by insisting on more and more convoluted and problematic research long past the point that objectively the answer has already been found.

However, I probably shouldn't have used that edit summary. A better summary would state that it is unreasonable to keep looking for the modern place name once you've found complete agreement on all the appropriate maps. Chrisrus (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As I suggested upstairs, the line "... it is widely accepted" should probably be removed from all the bullet points, if only on a copyediting/repetition basis. Either have it apply to everything or nothing. I would also suggest to Athenean (and a few others no doubt watching) that if a few Greek and classical-nostalgist editors hadn't so vociferously objected to calling a modern Turkish island by its generally accepted – and yes, official Turkish, as it so happens – name, this huge flame-up would have never have occurred, the broader issue could have been approached a bit more rationally and everyone on this page would have been spared a lot of spillover grief. N-HH talk/edits 21:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to do the same thing differently, that's fine. But right now the way it does it is this: We give each way of finding the name of a place a little sentence after it, saying at what point one can have gotten the answer. I would just like to do the same for the atlases and such. If we give the reader some idea of the threshold point at which the name can be reasonably determined for the encyclopedias and all the other routes to the answer the guideline user presumably seeks, you can't rightly deny the same to the atlases and such. Please answer this question: Why should all routes to the answer have a sentence setting about reasonable thresholds except the atlases and such? Chrisrus (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Second, please consider whether it would not be better to avoid direct reference to any specific case here. I can imagine that this might explain some of the opposition to such reasonable edits as these, it might be best, don't you think, to focus ourselves on any place about the name of which there is disagreement, and helping the guideline user the answer he presumably seeks, no matter where in the world it may be. Chrisrus (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on this whole conversation, I will soon add a bit to WP:MODERNPLACENAME to the effect of "To find the modern name of a place, follow WP:WIAN but check for modern usage in context." As always, feel free to edit, but please do not revert without somehow achieving the same goal in some other, perhaps even better, manner. Second, I will add to WP:WIAN a sentence to the Atlas route item just like those all the other routes have, giving the guideline user some kind of reasonable threshold for modern place name determination. Up to this moment, we had only been thinking about setting it at %100 agreement, but please let's think about whether it would be an even more helpful guideline if we were to set that threshold at a slightly different point. The purpose here is to improve the advice we give here to those trying to definitively determine the modern name of a place. Chrisrus (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest move

A couple of days ago Chrisrus changed the order of the possible sources listed under "Widely accepted name". That section used to list encyclopedias first, followed by maps and atlases. With this edit Chrisrus moved maps and atlases into first place, ahead of encyclopedias, with the edit summary Less problematic before more problematic sources. (see talk). I don't remember any consensus being reached here that maps and atlases are less problematic or encyclopedias are more problematic. And I don't remember any proposal or discussion to change the order of those listings in the guideline. IMO this looks like just another attempt by Chrisrus to impose their notion that maps and atlases are the most important source for this purpose. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I also reverted the two latest edits by Chrisrus because one introduced the notion that atlases may be the only determining factor for a name, despite the lack of consensus on the matter, and the other was instruction creep. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

<<--Begin edit conflict with my reply not indented below. Replies indented beyond this point not read by me at this reading, so sorry if they turn out to be already dealt with.Chrisrus (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)-->>

I do think we could add If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted. to the maps and atlases section. That is the same wording as for "standard histories and scientific studies," identifying them as a way to establish that a name is widely accepted. It is not quite as strong as the wording used for current encyclopedias, namely If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I just added it per your suggestion. Thank you Melanie. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming more problematic. We provide one example of an acceptable map/atlas and yet we say if they agree. So any others have to agree with the preferred one? How many have to agree? Changes to the guideline should not be made until after a discussion has run for a while and suggested changes can be worked out and understood! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed it for reworking. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The statements "(The edit) introduced the notion atlases may be the only determining factor for a name" and implied "that atlases are the only cirterion for determining a name” to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)&diff=568241607&oldid=568233482 are both factually incorrect. That edit did not change the fact that in WP:WIAN atlases are clearly only one of many methods for arriving at the modern name of a place, not the only one. No justification for the revision is found here, because that edit demonstrably did not introduce or contain such a notion.

“Too much instruction creep. Looks too formulaic and could actually hinder consensus” to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)&diff=568241731&oldid=568241607 does not justify reverting that edit either.

First, to call the addition "instruction creep" is to call the edit "unnecessary". Yet its revision removes all help arriving at the modern name of a place. Are you calling any such help unnecessary? The widely used name, WP:WIAN, offers such help, so if it's necessary there, why not here? All we have to do is direct the person asking "what's the modern name of this place" to the place where we offer help finding the widely used name, and say "do the same, except hold for modern vs. historical usages in context. The removal of that addition leaves the modern place name section merely advising use of the modern place name and justifiying that advice, but giving no help at all how such a name might be found. The purpose of the edit is to help the guideline user find the modern name of a place in a good, efficient way. The modern section like the widely used section should both offer help finding names, not just one of them.

Now, there may be many cases of "instruction creep" in these guidelines; much that could be tightened up or eliminated. But addition of help finding the modern place name cannot be rightly termed "unnecessary" as that help is a necessary part of WP:MODERNPLACENAME.

Secondly, calling that edit "too formulaic" begs some explanation, please. I know that's a bad thing to say about a pop song or some such, but it's not always a criticism. Imagine calling a mathematical problem or a chemistry thesis "too formulaic", "formulaic" is a good thing for a guideline to be. Surely if the goal is to provide ways to find the modern name, providing something that could be called "formulae" for doing so is exactly what the guideline should do. I've heard the term "too formulaic" used to criticize art for being dull and unimaginative, but this is a guideline, not a pop song or something demands novelty to achieve quality, so it's unclear how being "too formulaic" is a valid critique in this context. If the "formulae" for arriving at the widely accepted name are good enough for the guideline, why should the modern place name section not use them as well, while checking for modern/historical usage in context?

Third, How is having recommendations as to how to determine the modern name of a place going to "hinder consensus". Without this addition, the guidelines are left with no path at all to the modern names of places. Imagine there is disagreement at an article about the modern place name. You come here looking for help finding the answer. Without this addition, the guideline just instruct users to use the modern names of places and explains why and so on, but says nothing at all about how to arrive at them. The user is given no help. This would leave the guideline users with no help at all out of disagreements that might arise as to what the modern name of a place is, thereby potentially delaying consensus needlessly.

As for "No consensus for the interpretation as "less problematic"" to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)&diff=568242669&oldid=568241731 Problems with encyclopedias not present with atlases include the following:

1. Appropriate maps will contain all pretty much all places over a certain size, whereas encyclopedias only have articles about a much smaller number of notable places.
2. Encyclopedias must be checked for such things as historical vs. modern usage in context, a a problem not encountered if you choose the appropriate maps.
3. Other problems include the lack of a handy index in which every modern place name mentioned anywhere in the entire work.

To put the encyclopedias before the atlases is bad reference-librarian-style advice. A good reference librarian would send the modern place name seeker to the atlases before the encyclopedias. It's widespread common practice for very many very good reasons. Please be reasonable.

Therefore, I will restore all three edits. The mere existence of disagreement is not enough. The disagreements must make sense, be germane, address real concerns, and not rely on demonstrably untrue claims to fact. Disagreement may be caused by many things, not all valid: someone having their back up or nose out of joint, or something, or the very real and serious phenomenon that the jocular essay WP:SEVEN refers to, as is well-known at such articles as Sea of Japan and Persian Gulf, and/or many more possible reasons for disagreement to these edits might exist apart from them not constituting guideline improvement. So unless the disagreement is not mere disagreement but rather based in good evidence and valid reasoning, it should be ignored. Chrisrus (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, please note again the notice at the top of this guideline page: Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. You do not have consensus for these edits, and right now you have three people opposing them. Your own opinion that you are right, or your feeling that you have made your case to your own satisfaction, is not consensus. You need to STOP making changes in the guideline page without first getting some kind of consensus for the new wording at this page. That behavior on your part is becoming disruptive. If you unilaterally restore these changes of yours, or if you persist in altering the guideline without consensus, I am going to be tempted to go to AN/I and suggest that you should be topic-banned from this guideline and talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Melanie that you cannot edit-war your changes against consensus. Your arguments have failed to persuade editors and you cannot unilaterally impose these edits on a longstanding guideline without solid consensus and thorough examination of your edits. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As we currently sit I see us as sitting on opposite sides of a divide. It is apparent that the if-then formula of "check the maps and if they agree then you have your modern name; if not then..." and so on won't be accepted no matter how exactly it is tweaked. That being the case, I'm going to propose my earlier wording as a starting point we can work from, as it tends to emphasize maps and atlases , while not providing any proscriptions against using particular sources. It allows the editor to choose from several options where to look for relevant information on the modern name of a place, but explains why some sources are good and some are not necessarily as good. The thing is that this is a "Guideline" and as such we want to "guide" an editor to a good outcome, not force them through a procedure.

[Earlier proposal copied here for clarity. I know it is only a rough starting point, but hopefully it is a starting point that produces more productive debate.]"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) 22:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your approach, especially with your statement: The thing is that this is a "Guideline" and as such we want to "guide" an editor to a good outcome, not force them through a procedure. which was exactly what I was thinking about when I called the previous approach "formulaic". Plus I would like to point out that the approach taken so far to edit-war the changes into the guideline is completely unacceptable and makes a mockery out of BRD. In addition no one should prescribe solutions to naming disputes by edit-warring against consensus. This is not how guidelines are created. As was noted before, any new proposal must be given ample time to be hushed out and gain consensus before it gets added into the actual guideline. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeating what I said above: I support Dworjan's proposed wording. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. Copy-editing nitpick: I would remove the word "and" before "atlases". --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I also find it much better than what I removed recently. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not right. You have not addressed the substance of any of my points about the grounds on which my recent edits were undone, about how each was improper or incorrect. Please address the substance of what I said and engage in proper substantive dialogue.

As to how I have done things, there has been no edit-warring at all. It was all done standard bold, revert, discuss (substantively), repeat. Each following edit I have made has been different from the last because it has taken into account criticisms and such from this thread. I have listened, responded, listened, and responded, each time taking into account the valid points and arguments and making it acceptable. So you cannot rightly say that I did not take it to the talk page first after the initial edit. There is a procedure of bold, revert, and discuss, that makes Wikipedia, the encyclopedia which anyone is free to edit, work. If no one substantively addresses the points I've made above, after allowing a reasonable amount of time to lapse and carefully reading and taking into account all disagreement present on this talk page and doing my best to properly address and accommodate them, I will go back and try again. You may not rightly revert an edit based on the existence of talk page disagreement per se, it depends on the content of that disagreement. So please reply substantively to the points I've made as I do you the same courtesy. Chrisrus (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see MelanieN’s 22:02 comment above. The issue here isn’t that you’re being bold in editing an article; it’s that you’re neglecting to determine consensus before editing a guideline. And to echo her: please see the notice at the top of this guideline: “Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.” In other words: Discuss, come to a consensus, then edit. And maybe let someone else make the edit, which isn’t unlikely if there is truly a consensus.
On a side note, please see WP:INDENT. —Frungi (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Exactly my points. Thank you Frungi. The only thing I can add is a change to Melanie's number of opposing editors. I think as it now stands, it is five editors opposing the proposed edits, not three. In addition I would suggest to Chrisrus, that instead of walls of text trying to rebut everyone, to please propose your edits before you add them anywhere, for detailed discussion of each proposed sentence. People have told you that before but you keep adding stuff to the article without anyone's prior agreement. That's not the way consensus works. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem there. It isn't bold, revert, discuss, repeat. It is bold, revert, discuss until there is consensus, then implement. Once a bold edit is reverted, nothing should change on the main page until there is a consensus on the talk page as to what the main page edit should say. Right now there is disagreement as to what this article should say regarding determining modern place names. So long as that remains the case, there is no reason to edit that section of this article. We're here, on the talk page, having a discussion about what that section should say. When somebody types something up here that the other interested editors all say, "yeah, ok, that works for me", THEN we edit it into the article.

You want the article to reflect that maps should have the first place in line when determining the modern name of a place and if they agree, then you stop looking. The other editors say that isn't acceptable. So simply tweaking the wording in the article isn't going to be enough to gain consensus. Let's all keep the discussion on the talk page, come to a wording we can all agree is acceptable, and then put it in the article. Dworjan (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we may have consensus for Dworjan's wording. (Chrisrus's support was half-hearted, but he did call it "progress". Everybody else who has commented has endorsed it.) The next question is, where in the article should it go? And what should we do about restoring "maps and atlases" to the numbered list of possible sources? IMO we could restore the version that was removed, but then I didn't really understand what people's problem with it was. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with Dworjan's wording, although personally would perhaps be a bit less sceptical about news media sources, since they tend – with due regard to possible bias, as noted – to be a good guide to up-to-date contemporary usage. To clarify though: is this intended to go into the Modern Name or the Widely Accepted Name section? I'd also point out that amid all the kerfuffle, and the expansion and subsequent reverting of text, we've actually lost the initial addition to Widely Accepted Name re atlases, such that it now says nothing about them at all. I know we're still trying to agree any precise supplementary wording but that start was not controversial. Plus I'd repeat that the guideline, with or without any additions, probably needs a thorough copyedit to avoid duplication both within and between subsections. N-HH talk/edits 10:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I was also uncomfortable with Dr. K's removal of the maps and atlases item from the checklist. Since you seem to feel the same, I have restored it while we discuss. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see Vegaswikian's comments above when I actually added your proposed text that the "name is widely accepted": This is becoming more problematic. We provide one example of an acceptable map/atlas and yet we say if they agree. So any others have to agree with the preferred one? How many have to agree? Changes to the guideline should not be made until after a discussion has run for a while and suggested changes can be worked out and understood! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC). I happened to agree with his remarks and that is why I removed the whole atlas/map bit for further refinement. I am still uncomfortable with the way it is phrased and I agree with Vegaswikian that it needs further clarification and work and that it should not be added to the guideline page in its current form but I will not revert you addition. However I do believe that half-cooked or half-baked edits should not be added to the guideline if others have expressed reservations about their phrasing. I believe that only additions which have received wide consensus and have been worked upon and refined on the talkpage should appear in the main guideline page. The main guideline page should not be used as copy-editing field for works in-progress and to showcase as yet untried proposals the phrasing of which is still in doubt. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, N-HH added maps and atlases "as per apparent talk page consensus"; I too thought we had consensus that maps and atlases should be mentioned as a possible source. I then added what appeared to be a standard comment for the items in the list. What is the problem you have with it - is it the fact that just one example is given? I will re-remove it if you prefer, but let's promptly work out what it should say and put it back, since we did have consensus that maps and atlases were worthy of mention there. Or maybe we should replace the whole (misleadingly) numbered list format with a prose section like Dworjan's? --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Melanie. I think as Vegaswikian suggested we should rework the phrasing to make clear if the atlas in the example is our "approved" atlas and if other atlases are of lesser value. Also we should clarify how many atlases constitute a good sample for making a determination about the name and name a few others as examples. In addition you make a very good point about the way we present this information in numbered or prose form. I am ok with Dworjan's proposed addition in any format, although I agree with you that the numbered format may be misleading, at least to someone who doesn't read the qualifier in the text. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We did have consensus to include a clear and concise exposition of the suggestion that atlases were a suitable reference work to mention. The fact that this was then embellished and expanded in a way which did become controversial does not mean we have to remove it outright. Babies and bathwater and all that. Otherwise we will reach the position – which we seem to have done now – where we can't even make a small improvement but instead get bogged down in interminable debate as soon as someone wants to make an additional change or propose an alternative one, which becomes a pretext for never changing anything at all. This could literally go on for ever.

More broadly, having looked into the page in more detail, I can't help but think that that whole page could be cut back by about 80%. The guideline is repetitive, confused and over-long, both between and within its constituent sections. All it needs to do is set out the broad principles – ie WP follows whatever a place is called today, in most contemporary English-language sources, while noting alternative and historic names as necessary – and then perhaps set out a non-numeric bullet-pointed list of recommended sources and tools, ie atlases, databases/factbooks and encyclopedias (with specific suggested publications named) together with broader search tools such as Google News, Google Books and Lexis-Nexis searches (while noting their flaws and limitations). N-HH talk/edits 21:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

ps: also, re Vegaswikian's comment and Dr K's endorsement of it. First, Vegaswikian was commenting on the embellished/expanded version of the original addition re atlases. Secondly, regardless, I don't understand the objection. Even with the additional sentence, it said: "Consult .. atlases such as the Times Atlas .. if they [ie atlases as a whole or by implication the majority of them] agree .." (my emphasis/parenthesis). In what way is that at all confusing or illogical, or does it suggest there is a "preferred" atlas, as is being suggested? N-HH talk/edits 21:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason I removed the section was to address Vegaswikian's concerns that the "embellished" version was unclear. I can't speak for Vegaswikian and perhaps he could clarify his thoughts on this, but in my view, one of the problems is that both the original and expanded versions mention consulting "atlases" in plural while providing only one example. But if they use plural they should provide more than one name. A similar phrase is found in the encyclopedia sentence of the guideline where three of them are recommended, so that could create confusion when compared to the atlas sentence, although, granted, the atlas sentence does not explicitly recommend the Times Atlas of the World. Second, for the embellished version of the atlas sentence, there is no mention as to what constitutes majority agreement. In the encyclopedia sentence three are mentioned as enough. Could the clarity of the atlas instruction also be improved in a similar manner so as to avoid arguments as to what constitutes majority-minority of atlases? However, I would have no objection to the simple version which just states that atlases should be consulted, if it is corrected by adding more names of atlas examples or if the one existing name is removed. Also I believe that before we introduce something to the guideline we should remove the bugs on the talkpage rather than doing copyediting after the fact. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I started commenting to quiet the edit war. My comments basically are in line with the explanation provide by Δρ.Κ.. The various proposals inserted into the guideline all have issues. I have not voiced an opinion on what the guideline should say. I have pointed out what I see as issues with the wording that was inserted. As I said using atlases, majority and only listing one is very confusing. How do we determine consensus of atlases? Is it 2 out of three? Five out of seven? Who chooses when we only mention one in the guideline. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with N-HH on both counts: the page is overly complicated, and the process here for getting even minor changes made has become cumbersome. I'm going to start a new section below for suggestions, one at a time, to start to fix those two problems. I solicit your input and hope it will be simple, yes-or-no-or-how-about-this-instead. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Melanie. That's a great idea and I think the process you propose is fair and without pressure. I will respond to your bullet points below as soon as I get a chance. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There still seems to be a slight blind spot about the meaning and import of the phrase "such as" and about the fact that it is quite normal to specify one example when talking about a plural category. Confusion over that seems a little odd. Plus there's no reason people couldn't have simply added one or two others subsequently (which I was kind of assuming they would). Whatever, it's somewhat moot now. N-HH talk/edits 10:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your points. I was the one who originally added Melanie's clarification to the effect that "The name is widely accepted". But when Vegaswikian commented about the clarification creating yet more problems, I saw that the whole segment needed more work and I withdrew it, thinking it would be better to iron out the bugs on the talkpage rather than doing it live every time someone came with a better idea. In an environment where edit-warring was present, even good-faith modifications can be construed as edit-warring. I had that in the back of my mind and I didn't want to do any live editing or anyone else getting caught in that. Was it the perfect solution, consistent with all the nuances which could have been preserved? Perhaps not, but it was my judgment call at the time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that explains it. In that case, could we please return it to for the time being? When they finish the overhaul and are ready to put it in, they can take it out at that time. In the meantime, people will still be being advised to check atlases and such when they want to find the name of a place, in addition to all these other ways. Chrisrus (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The most reasonable place to advise looking for place names first: atlases or encyclopedias?

(Note: this was posted as a whole new section at the bottom of the page; I am moving it here to keep the conversation about this point in one place.)

I will undo this edit soon, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)&diff=prev&oldid=568242669, on the grounds that it does not constitute guideline improvement. Let me explain:

The edit, as you can see if you click on it above, consisted of moving the atlases below the encyclopedias on WP:WIAN, so that the user is sent to the encyclopedias before being sent to the atlases and such. The edit summary reads "Per talk. No consensus for the interpretation as "less problematic."

Yet if we look at the talk page, we can see many points made clearly repeatedly why it's better to send the user to the atlases before the encyclopedias, and there has been no substantive counter-point to these.

There was the "What Would a Good Research Librarian Advise?" point about whether a good research librarian would send someone looking for a place name first to the encyclopedias or to the atlas stand and help him select the appropriate ones. She should advise the atlas stand first, for many good reasons, as stated previously repeatedly, with no clear counter-points to any of them. Sending such people to maps before encyclopedias is utterly rational, logical, sensible, and long-standing widespread practice for very good easily understandable reasons given repeatedly above and here again, not addressed well if at all above, let's see what happens below. Sending place name seekers to encyclopedias before atlases is bad reseach librarianship, and therefore this edit does not constitute guideline improvement.

The point has also been made that, having found the appropriate atlases and such, you don't have to go through and carefully check each usage in context for such things as modernness, primacy, and commonness, which is necessary with encyclopedias. That means atlases are less problematic in that way. This has been brought up repeatedly. Has anyone disagreed with that? Has anyone agreed that they are more problematic in this way? What kind of consensus are we waiting for? Simple absence of disagreement in any form, substantive or not? That is not a realistic expectation where WP:SEVEN-type issues and such are present. Where is the specific counter-point here on the talk page for that? Only empty disagreement is found, the existence of which may be ignored.

Also, the point has been made above that atlases and such are less problematic because they tend to have the names of pretty much every place over a certain size, and encyclopedias only have articles about certain notable places. The place he is looking for might not be mentioned in passing in other articles, but this will be harder to find in an encyclopedia than the handy place name indexes with coordinates in atlases and their modern electronic equivalents. This point also shows that encyclopedias more problematic. Where is the valid counter-point to on this talk page?

Now, I will allow a reasonable amount of time for some rational reason that, given these points, it is better for this guideline to advise place name seekers to check encyclopedias before atlases instead of the usual other way around, or some other rational reason my undoing this edit will not constitute guideline improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I’m not sure that anyone has supported your arguments (do correct me if I’m wrong), so I’d recommend against citing them in further arguments (especially in the passive voice) if you want to be taken seriously. Second, you’re complaining that the order of a list that is explicitly “not listed in any particular order” was changed? If you think the order does matter, you should probably propose the removal of that phrase before you worry about the order itself. (Note—carefully—that I did not say “you should probably remove that phrase”.) —Frungi (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Here I see something of a substantive addressing of the points I was making. It does seem strange to worry about the positioning on a list that is said to be "in no particular order". However, it would be more helpful to the guideline user to have some idea of the logical places to check first, and if that's not available or if there is no clear answer found there, they the next logical place or places should come next, and so on. That would be a very helpful guideline for the people who are trying to find the names of places. I hope this is being dealt with in the overhaul, I must read up on their progress but I'm afraid that's it tonight. I do want to thank you, however, for this place here where you don't seem to ignore my points and actually address them and stick to the important matter at hand.

I agree with Frungi. Your method of asking rhetorical questions inside walls of text and then threatening your interlocutors that you will edit-war your proposed text into the article is not in any way constructive. Editors in the section above have already started agreeing with Dworjan's wording. You should wait for consensus to arrive at an acceptable version before you make any unilateral additions to this guideline based on your own walls of text and the consent of no one else. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You are saying, just because everybody disagrees with you, you are right and therefore you can decide wht the guideline says? Agathoclea (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: At the top of the guideline page there is this sentence:

This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow,...

Do you assert that your edits constitute an English Wikipedia naming convention based on your own decision and nobody else's? Do you also assert that your edits are ...a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow,... even though there is not an iota of consensus about your edits? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Whether anyone should or should not edit anything or should or should not respect a guideline, request, or rule depends on if it constitutes improvement or not. I have explained why this edit seemed to me to do so, above. It is for you at this point to address those or make counter-points or such. If you've got good points, I'll respond to those. If you want to talk about me or how I do things, there should be an appropriate forum for that. Chrisrus (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Improvement in the community’s view. Which is why it says to discuss if in doubt. Clearly, for whatever reason (which it is up to you to make sure you understand), the community has in many ways disagreed with your idea of improvement. This is why we often discuss before making changes that seem like a good idea at the time. For instance: I thought it would be a great idea, even a stupidly obvious one, for the guideline to say we should follow grammatical rules regarding commas, even though it was fairly clear that some people disagreed. But rather than just add in a line or two about it without discussion (or even while people were actively disagreeing), I waited until there seemed to be a consensus that it would indeed constitute an improvement, and then added it. —Frungi (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't in doubt, and still am not, because while there has been disagreement, there has been no explanation for why it wouldn't, given the points I have made, constitute article improvement. Please tell me how sending then to the maps before the encyclopedias wouldn't improve it, addressing the specific points I have made. You'll be the first one to do so. It's not enough for there to be disagreement, the disagreement has to be substantive. Opposition to your comma edit with good reason and clear evidence should have kept you from making or re-making it. If it was just "No, ice cream has no bones!" or "No! You didn't support my edit" or "No, the comma is not in widespread use in English" or anything of the sort, then you ignore that. So tell me, how would placing the maps before the encyclopdias be a bad thing for the users, given the reasons given that it would be? Chrisrus (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you were right about the redirect RE:MODERNPLACENAME being too long. I've just made this redirect here WP:MPN. That was a good point. Chrisrus (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I’ll clarify: in doubt that it reflects consensus, that it is improvement in the community’s view. The majority of the reaction to the majority of your actions here has been disagreement and reversions, and no rational person could possibly construe that as consensus. That redirect, on the other hand, seems very common-sense and uncontroversial, and I actually considered doing it myself. —Frungi (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

True or false:

1. This guideline helps people find toponyms.
2. One good way is to check maps.
3. It should tell them one good way is to check maps. Chrisrus (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chrisrus, I and most others here have agreed that maps and atlases should be included in the guidelines in some way. We are trying to find the right way to say that, while (IMPORTANT!) not making any further changes in the guidelines until we reach consensus on what to say. If you would participate in the attempt at building consensus for a new wording, instead of simply repeating "maps, maps, maps" like a mantra, we could get the maps and atlases back into the guidelines - along with some actual guidance for readers. Since you have up to now ignored the attempts to build consensus, we have been talking around you, but we would be glad to have some constructive input from you. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we found the issue. It is a toponym vs exonym issue. Personally I agree with toponyms but various policies and guidelines often favour exonyms. I like the approach deWiki has to that matter. They say even when there is a exonym but the term gets only used very rarly (some mathematical formula which counts the number the term gets used against a total figure) they prefer the toponym as title usually benefitting backwater places. Agathoclea (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, scratch that, try this:

True or false:

1. This guideline helps people find place names.
2. One good way is to check maps.
3. It should tell them one good way is to check maps. Chrisrus (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

How to improve, clean up and simplify the guideline

Please indicate how you would feel about these suggestions, hopefully with a simple "agree" or "disagree" or "how about this instead". And please add any other suggestions for cleanup, wording, etc., hopefully without a lot of discussion. Let's try to keep this area clean and easy to read so we can actually reach some conclusions here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: I would like to use bullet points instead of numbered items in the section "Widely accepted name".

Comment: I see Frungi has already implemented this one. --MelanieN (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it seemed uncontroversial to me, given that they’re “not listed in any particular order”. —Frungi (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. N-HH talk/edits 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternate Suggestion-rather than break it down by each type of source, and 'rank' it that way, I propose we break it down by their suitability for finding the modern name without much analysis or interpretation. So encyclopedias, atlases, maps, etc all under the first bullet of 'sources that are almost always good' (or some better wording); newspapers and magazines under the second of 'sources that are generally good, with due caution to the possibility of bias in some'; and google book/scholar searches under the third of 'sources that would require more indepth analysis to be useful'. So break it down by reliability, include good examples of each type, and a sentence or two explaining why they are placed where they are. Dworjan (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. This seems like a better solution than the current list. —Frungi (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I'd be happy with a split like this. As noted previously, I'm more positive about media, as it is often more up-to-date (and rather than sifting through the 1000s of individual publications and stories that might be thrown up in a search, it might be worth highlighting that access to the style guide or usage of the major wire services, eg Associated Press and Reuters, can give a quick simple pointer to the way the media is picking up on changing names). N-HH talk/edits 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The style guide is also a good idea. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree I like this too, and if it was implemented it would make all of my suggestions below moot; they are just tweaks of the existing wording. So rather than implement the minor suggestions at this time, let's see what the actual alternate wording would look like. Dworjan, want to take a stab at it? --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Depends It doesn't matter per se how it is done, but a place name seeker should be directed to the less problematic authoritative sources first, and if those are not available or do not agree, they should be advised to check the more problematic ones. As long as this is achieved, it doesn't matter how.Chrisrus (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have made a first attempt at a rewrite of the Widely accepted names section. See below. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: I would like to add, in second position in that list, "Consult appropriate, current, authoritative English-language maps and atlases or their modern digitized equivalents. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted."

Agree—maps should definitely be listed. No opinion on the positioning. —Frungi (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So a GPS is OK as a source (modern digitized equivalent)? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

See my above suggestion. We can't agree on which sources are the best (maps vs. encyclopedias) but I think we all agree that the two are equally reliable sources for modern names. Then they'd be positioned in the same place. Dworjan (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with this but presumably it is superseded by the above suggestion? N-HH talk/edits 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy you seem to agree that Atlases and such should be included. Please note that while we wait for this process, they are have been deleted, and replaced repeatedly, leaving them now absent. Maps should come first because they are less problematic than encyclopedias in such ways as including all places over a certain size, lacking the need for checking usage in context, and handy indexing. Sending place name seekers to maps before encyclopedias and such is widespread common practice and good research librarianship. No one has yet explained why encyclopedias should come first and atlases second. Why should it be encyclopedias first and then maps second instead of the other way around? Chrisrus (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: what would you think about removing ALL of the evaluations of those items: "it is the widely accepted English name", "it is widely accepted," "it is presumably widely accepted," "it is probably widely accepted."

No strong feelings, but I don’t disagree. —Frungi (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree-I think rather than say anything that says "and this is when you have your answer", we just present the sources and state why they're good, or what might make using them a little more problematic. Dworjan (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. If we keep the list roughly as it is, these can surely definitely all go as redundant and repetitive. N-HH talk/edits 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree Per the above comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Disagree If you can achieve the purpose of these phrases elsehow, then I'd agree. The point of the guideline is to help people find the proper place name efficiently and effectively in cases where there is some disagreement about that. They want a definitive answer, so we should help them to know when they have found it. We can set them all at unanimity if that's reasonable, or leave it intentionally vague if we want to such as "a clear preference for one name is found" or "the great majority" or some such. The important thing is to not have them keep looking if they've already got the answer. This is very important because otherwise people with WP:SEVEN-type issues or other such issues will continue to disagree no matter what, so we need a path to a definitive answer or else they'll continue to raise the bar indefinitely. This is exactly the kind of help this guideline is looked to for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see my reply below. —Frungi (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: I would like to remove the guideline "If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted" as overly prescriptive.

Strongly agree. —Frungi (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. This is far to prescriptive and numerically precise, while actually being impossible to evaluate in reality. N-HH talk/edits 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Makes sense. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree I have no idea how they are going to get that number; it may be impossible. Give them a more reasonable standard. Surely we have to give them some reasonable idea when this route to modern place name has arrived at an answer. Just give them some reasonable point to stop looking, they have their answer. "A clear preference is evident" or some such. Chrisrus (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

---

As I said, I have no strong feelings either way toward the suggestion to remove the stating of the obvious (“If all the sources use a name, the name everyone uses is proooobably widely accepted”). I just want to try and explain it a bit: I think the idea behind removing it is to reduce redundancy—it says, “Here’s a list of ways to find the widely accepted name,” and then several (but not all?) listed ways say, “This is a way to find the widely accepted name.” We can probably trust editors to be smart enough to work that much out for themselves. Anyway, this is likely moot since this list seems to be on the way to being replaced, but I just wanted to try and clear that up. —Frungi (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing pieces

Now, the WP:MODERNPLACENAME user doesn't get any help whatsoever finding the modern place name seeker. Two days ago, there was a redirect with a caveat to several good paths to modern place name determination at the end. This can no way be a constructive edit. Now it just tells the reader to use them and why, but not how find them. How does this improve anything. The guideine user is poorly served by this destructive edit. What service is there to the modern place name seeker in the removal of the redirect and caveat from WP:MODERNPLACENAMEto WP:WIAN? Please explain how the reader is served by this action or undo it.

And also, WP:WIAN doesn't mention maps at all anymore. What's up with that? How is it reasonable for the reader to be advised to seek place names in encyclopedias (and even other Wikipedians?!?!!!) but not maps? What kind of help is that for a place name seeker? This is poor research librarianship indeed. What self-respecting research librarian doesn't tell a place name seeker to check a map? What agenda other than service to the guideline user could motivate such an action? Please get to the bottom of this and return this "check a map" advice to its proper place right away and put and end to such destructive editing. Chrisrus (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please review the Talk page before asking questions that may already have an answer. Improvements to WP:WIAN (including the inclusion of maps and atlases) are being discussed at #How to improve, clean up and simplify the guideline.
As for MODERNPLACENAME, I honestly have no idea what you mean by your first sentence, and I’m afraid I have no idea what destructive edit you’re referring to; the only recent changes to that section have been your own additions and the rather speedy reversions of them. If you mean your own additions, please be clear about that rather than using the passive voice, as that’s confusing and may be perceived as misleading. Anyway, the final paragraph of that section still has the recommended sources from User:N-HH’s edit last week, telling the reader how to find them. —Frungi (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear improvements are in the works. Let's hope to see them soon. There's no reason to delete important stuff users need while we're waiting.

Suppose today someone clicked on WP:MODERNPLACENAME seeking advice in finding them, he wouldn't know to look to WIAN, he wouldn't get any help finding them at all, even though there it is just a few sections above. Let it stay while we wait saying "see WIAN, but hold for modernness" as it was. How does it constitute guideline improvement, service to the user, to remove that while we wait?

Suppose today someone looked to WIAN for advice on seeking a place name. He'd be told to check encyclopedias and sent to lexis/nexis, but he wouldn't even be advised to check a map? What poor research librarianship. Why does that have to be removed while we wait? No self respecting guideline on how to find the names of places neglects to mention maps atlases.

Don't care if N-HH or I or you or who made what. That doesn't matter. What matters is the guideline user. The only concern, only measure of edits, is whether they improve or harm the article in terms of service to the reader. The MPN seeker can land there directly using the WP:MODERNPLACENAME link and not find a way to the proper place on WP:WIAN. And the WP:WIAN user is told to look for a name of place in all kinds of places, but not to check an atlas? Think about that, no-self respecting place name finding guideline should be without atlas advice. It's a shame. This is not about you or me, this is about them, the users, and the guideline itself, how good it is. How can a place name finding guideline with no mentions of atlases and maps be as good as one that does? Chrisrus (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, what deletion are you referring to? Can you provide a diff? —Frungi (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The removal of the “maps” item from WIAN was discussed at #Latest move. Please see there for explanations and discussion; in short, it was removed because it needed further improvement pending discussion, and guidelines should not have sentences or paragraphs that are in a state of flux. And just to reiterate, please provide a diff showing your concerns over MODERNPLACENAME (am I the only one who finds that shortcut a bit too long?). —Frungi (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Attempt at a rewrite

We've been trying to improve the section "Widely accepted name". We seem to have consensus that 1) current maps and atlases should be included and 2) the section as currently written is awkward and bloated. So here is a first draft of an attempt to replace the current Widely Accepted Name section with a reorganized and simplified version, following the suggestion made by Dworjan. More examples of acceptable sources are needed; please add them to the draft. I didn't include all of the detail currently in the section; please compare and see what else should be kept. For major changes, let's discuss below before changing the draft, but this is by no means intended as holy writ and I expect there will be substantial rewriting before we reach consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Widely Accepted Name: first draft

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following sources may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name. It is important that the sources be from the appropriate period, namely, the modern era for current names, or the relevant historical period for historical names. For modern sources, the source should be published after 1993, to ensure that post-Cold War changes in usage are duly reflected; other, later limiting dates may be appropriate for some parts of the world.

• Sources that are almost always reliable: respected, authoritative, current, English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta), atlases, gazetteers such as those listed at Gazeteer#List of gazeteers, and maps, whether printed or electronic.

• Sources that are generally reliable, with due caution to the possibility of bias in some: major authoritative English-language news sources, either individually or via Lexis-Nexis, taking care to use only current references and to avoid sources that might have a political or nationalistic bias.

• Other sources that are generally reliable, with due caution to the fact that they may be dated, not relevant to the period in question, or written by a non-native speaker of English: standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question (examples: Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies; Library of Congress Subject Headings; and Oxford dictionaries).

• Sources that require individual analysis to be useful: books and articles such as those found at Google Scholar or Google Books. They must be looked at individually for accuracy, possible bias, and appropriateness of period.

• Search engines that can provide reliable results, if parameters are properly set, and with due caution to the fact that some references may be out of date, not relevant to the period or location in question, or written by a non-native English speaker: Google Books and Google Scholar.

• Search engines that must be considered with extreme caution, if at all: raw counts from Google and Google News.

Discussion:

Why lump together the encyclopedias and the maps? There are some important differences between them. Maps are less problematic in several important ways, including the fact that they do not require much inspection for usage in context for such things and modernity and primacy, they include pretty much every place over a certain size, the ability to locate the place and name quickly by name index and/or coordinates, and the fact that it has long been widespread common and professional practice to recommend using maps to find the name of places, not encyclopedias. Is there some reason in favor of lumping encyclopedias and maps together in this way? Chrisrus (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Cartographic onomatology methods and criteria are not necessarily the same as those of encyclopedias or even other media. They may be indicators of the usage of a form of a name but by no means in and of themselves establish the widely accepted common name in the English language. The fact that you keep calling the maps "less problematic" bears no weight in this discussion. We are not looking here to find versions of placenames easily but to find the most widely used modern name in the English language. It may be easy to find a name of a place in a map but it only provides the name version which is used in cartography. It does not in any way guarantee that the cartographic name is the most common name or that cartographic onomatology is a superior indicator of the common name and for sure it does not supersede or replace other common name indicators. The fact that some obscure places can only be found in maps and not other sources is a special case which only applies to obscure places and cannot be generalised to deduce any overall supremacy of maps as onomatological sources. That is a logical fallacy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chrisrus, please accept the fact that your point has been made and you have achieved most of your goal. There is consensus to mention maps and atlases, and they will be added to the guideline. There is consensus that they are a reliable source; this draft lists them among the best sources. There is NOT consensus that they are more reliable than encyclopedias, nor is there likely to be. If you have specific suggestions for how to tweak this draft, please share them. We need more examples of atlases and map sources that are suitable as sources (is National Geographic one?); please suggest some or add them to the draft. If all you can do is keep insisting that maps and atlases should be valued above all else, please do it in some other section. This section is for discussing and improving the draft. And everybody else: I would prefer this section to be results-oriented and focused on finding wording we can all agree on - preferably not just another place for philosophical discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dr. K, if they are not the same, why lump them together? My point is that they are not the same, so therefore shouldn't be lumped together, and your point is that they are different, so how is that any argument that they be lumped together? You have not given any reason why they should be lumped together. If they are not the same as you maintain, then please agree that we should list them separately. Chrisrus (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I agree, as long as no further arguments are made about the supremacy of cartographic over encyclopedic onomatology. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

They are “lumped together” because they are each “almost always reliable”, and this list is sorted by the level of reliability. Not sure why this needs to be pointed out. —Frungi (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I hadn't read the draft in detail. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Would current editions of travel guides like Fodor's be acceptable sources? And which class would they be in, the same as maps? —Frungi (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed "travel guides" and left it out because I wasn't sure how "authoritative" they were. There are an awful lot of them, and (speaking as someone who travels a lot) they are riddled with errors, even Fodor's. What do you think? And if added, would they be in the same class as encyclopedias and atlases, or in one of the less authoritative groups? --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I’ll have to take your word on that, and it sounds like they’d belong in the same category as books in general. Speaking of which, I propose changing the wording to something like: books and articles, such as those found at Google Scholar or Google Books (addition bolded). Otherwise it’s sort of excluding physical books and such. —Frungi (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea; I've changed it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned by the use of "extreme" caution regarding Google Books and Google Scholar results, and lumping them together with raw Google searches. While raw Google searches contain a lot of garbage and should indeed be treated with extreme caution (if at all, in fact), in my experience I have found Books and Scholar searches to be generally good predictors of the widely accepted name. Of course, the key here is that such searches be properly conducted, with the right parameters. So what I propose is to create and additional bullet for Google Books and Google Scholar results ("Searches that are generally reliable, with due caution to the fact that they may contain results that are dated, not relevant to the period in question, or written by a non-native English speaker include properly conducted Google Books and Google Scholar searches."), and use "extreme caution" only for raw Google searches and Google News results. Athenean (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm adding a version of that, but I don't know how you could set parameters to exclude non-English speakers! I find these searches shaky at best, but maybe I'm just not good enough at setting search parameters. Feel free to rewrite the item I added; you clearly have a lot more experience with this type of search than I do. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. My only suggestion is a slight expansion to include the reasons why things are in the lower categories. So expanding what you have posted I would propose:

Widely Accepted Name - second draft

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following sources may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name. It is important that the sources be from the appropriate period, namely, the modern era for current names, or the relevant historical period for historical names. For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed.

• The best sources are disinterested, authoritative reference works, such as: current, English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta); atlases (examples: Times Atlas of the World); and maps (examples: ), whether printed or electronic.

• English-language news media can also be very reliable sources. Due caution must be given to the possibility of bias (for nationalistic, religious or political reasons) in some, but major, global sources are generally reliable, such as: major authoritative English-language newspapers (examples: The New York Times or The Washington Post); wire services (examples: Reuters or Associated Press); or databases such as Lexis-Nexis.

• Other sources that are generally reliable, with due caution to the fact that they may be dated, not relevant to the period in question, or written by a non-native speaker of English include: standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question (examples: Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies; Library of Congress Subject Headings; and Oxford dictionaries).

• Sources that require individual analysis to be useful: books and articles such as those found at Google Scholar or Google Books. They must be looked at individually for accuracy, possible bias, and appropriateness of period. Even books and scholarly articles written after watershed events may use historical place names in the context of the work.

• Sources that must be approached with extreme caution: raw counts from search engines including Google, Google News, Google Scholar and Google Books. Even sudden events that result in widely recognized name changes will take time to be reflected in such searches, as they will still include all references to the place before the event; and relatively obscure places that have a major impact on history during a particular time period will continue to show disproportionately large search returns for the location's name during that period.

Dworjan (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks, that's a good improvement. You might see if you can adapt your final bullet point into two, to distinguish between properly conducted Google Scholar and Google Books searches on the one hand, and raw counts from Google and Google News on the other hand, as suggested by Athenean. I took a stab at it in the first draft; maybe you can find a way to integrate that distinction into your draft. --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with the wording "The best sources...", this is exactly the problem of giving precedence to atlases and maps that has been plaguing this discussion all along. I also think far too many caveats have been added with regards to books and other scholarly works. All publications that meets WP:RS, whether atlases, news organizations, books, or scholarly papers should have equal weight. This latest version is even more skewed in favor of atlases and maps. I am also unhappy that my suggestion was totally ignored. Properly conducted Google Books and Google Scholar searches are a good way of ascertaining the usage level of a name. They are used ubiquitously in naming discussions throughout wikipedia. Athenean (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to come up with a way to tweak it to reflect that google books/scholar searches can be good. They may all be reliable sources, but that doesn't mean they are all equally useful for ascertaining a place name. They're not placed in order of reliability but in order of simplicity of use. Reference works are a matter of opening and finding what you're looking for. News sources require more effort to avoid biases and separate out older works. Books and papers require analysis of the work to determine when it was written and in what context the name was used. And broad searches like Google Books and Google Scholar require a lot more analysis to separate the chaff from the wheat. It would take a lot more work to come up with good and useful results from such a search than from checking the encyclopedias or atlases. Its not less reliable, its just more time- and effort-intensive. They are useful for naming discussions throughout wikipedia, but here we need to keep in mind that there are further constraints on the search (namely time period and context of the name) than are normally found on the typical naming discussion. Most other naming discussions don't depend so heavily on the context of the use of the name. Dworjan (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

They may all be reliable sources, but that doesn't mean they are all equally useful for ascertaining a place name. They're not placed in order of reliability but in order of simplicity of use.. I disagree. "Simplicity of use" =/= "useful for ascertaining a place name". All sources are "useful for ascertaining a place name" in a naming discussion. A naming discussion takes all reliable sources into consideration in naming a place and then it decides on the most common occurrence of the name. The ease of finding a name within a given source bears no relation to its usefulness or the validity of the name version contained within it.

Most other naming discussions don't depend so heavily on the context of the use of the name. Most discussions depend on time context to varying degrees. Micromanaging the guideline so that we can target one or two specific examples that we may think are more period-intensive than others and in the process deprecating whole groups of reliable sources based on arbitrary criteria such as "ease of use" will create many more problems down the line than it tries to solve. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest replacing "best sources" with "almost always reliable" - avoiding the value judgment. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Thank you Melanie. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This was written and intended to highlight different reliable sources useful in determining a modern place name, and explain why some cannot simply be taken at face value. I'll happily change "best" to "almost always reliable," but I thought you had just finished saying that all the sources are reliable... I don't know why you think I'm targeting one or two specific examples, because I'm not. I was in fact doing the opposite. I was trying to think of what problems could come from each type of source and point those out so future editors could avoid them. Google Book searches may be considered reliable, but that does not make the result of a Google Book search useful for a naming discussion. That's the point of what I wrote. "Here are a set of reliable sources for determining modern place names, and here's what you need to do to avoid misusing them in your efforts to determine a modern place's name". If you want to come up with a way to rewrite things that point out the different sources and how to properly use them in determining a modern place name, then go for it. No where in there does it say not to consult all the sources or to stop after one or two steps.

Simplicity of use has got to be a component of determining whether something is useful. A set of parts to build a robot arm might be "useful" for changing a tire, but would you put it in the same sentence as a tire iron? And while most naming discussions may depend on time context, this is one of the few situations where names may change literally overnight, and still have the previous name used for some time afterwards. Dworjan (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

but I thought you had just finished saying that all the sources are reliable... No, I didn't say that. I wrote about "groups of reliable sources", like GBooks for example or GScholar. I realise that some of them, although reliable, may refer to names in a historical context and therefore have to be rejected. That's not a problem. The problem is if we declare the whole group "inconvenient", "not simple to search" etc. All source groups should be equally considered in a WIAN discussion without applying convenience as a criterion to somehow deprecate some of them. Also comparing groups of sources to tools doesn't work for me because I think that all reliable sources should be considered and if some sources need analysis, that fact alone should not disqualify them from full consideration. Having said that I have no inclination to make another proposal. I think that most of your guidelines dealing with the interpretation of GBooks searches are ok. I also think that this process will eventually lead to an improved guideline through the input of the editors here and I think that the draft can be improved through consensus without needing a rewrite, at least not by me. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Geez I wish I could convince you all not to allow anything that has to be waded through by hand unless absolutely necessary for some clear rational reason. Have you seen the results of such allowances in practice? It's so tedious and prone to so many POV issues to check those things in context. I understand it sounds good to leave things open to any means to the answer, but in practice it's condemning people to pointless, needless search-result interpretation fests. You are asking objective Wikipedians who really don't care about the name of some obscure place to do as much to do as much work as a person with WP:SEVEN-type issues that make them highly motivated and biased and it's just never going to happen. Leave that job to the professionals, that's what they are paid for. Let them publish their conclusions what the most widely used modern or period specific place name is, and we just report it. It's so much more to what Wikipedia is all about that way then telling us to do that research in from the bottom-up ourselves.

@Melanie, I did as you asked and tried to find a list of WP:RS encyclopedias/atlases, but haven't been able to find one, yet. The person at our Humanities help desk didn't seem to know of one, and dis-recommended encyclopedias. She said the thing we're looking for is called a gazetteer. It's a reference table of place names published or updated frequently for exactly this purpose and used by professional journalists and geographers and cartographers and so on. I'll keep looking a bit tonight but I think you are right about National Geographic Society being another good example to add to the Times Atlas of the World. That's one for UK and one for the USA so those are the main varieties of English. If the list gets much longer it should maybe housed elsewhere and we could link them to it so as not to bloat this guideline section. Perhaps at the bottom of the page? I'm going to check for help from an appropriate project in getting a list of authoritative widely-accepted professionally recommended for this purpose gazetteer publications and such. Chrisrus (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chrisrus: Huh? After all this drumbeating for atlases and maps, and all your insistence that maps and atlases absolutely must be the first or only thing we consult - you can't actually tell us what atlases and maps you have in mind? Then what the heck have you been talking about? --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

About looking up what experts have decided is the modern or period-specific, widely-used English-language name of a place in the proper publication, not having users try to make that determination themselves, which is unprofessional and subject to bias. Chrisrus (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

And yet, despite your month-long advocacy of this position, you can't tell us what "proper publication" you are talking about? While you try to figure out what you are actually proposing, I am going to add the Wikipedia list of gazetteers to draft #1 - and I would encourage Dworjan to consider adding it to draft #2. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. and I deleted the placeholders for "examples" since nobody has come up with any. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that took about ten seconds: why don't we just add to the first bulleted item, "or up-to-date gazetteers such as those listed at Gazeteer#List of gazeteers?" I am perfectly willing to add that to my version (draft #1) immediately. For most purposes I now prefer draft #2, but I would still like to see some mention of Athenean's distinction between the different types of search. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, about linking there, that's a good idea which could be developed further. Some of those links might not be appropriate. For example, there appears to have been some linkrot on the list. About the idea that we should ask users to figure out themselves which name is the most widely used or modern via original research, that is quite un-Wikipedian, subject to bias, and unprofessional. Leave that up to the experts. Chrisrus (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

We do leave it to the experts, when possible:

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, …

The rest of the section is about what to do when the alternative would be to do nothing until a neutral and reliable source makes such a statement. —Frungi (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Widely Accepted Name - third draft

Chrisrus (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"To settle disagreement among Wikipedians as to which name is most modern or widely used in English, consult the proper publications or databases in which experts publish and update this information. The best sources are disinterested, authoritative reference works, such as: current, English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta); atlases (examples: Times Atlas of the World); and maps (examples: ), whether printed or electronic."

Horribly vague. The current text and both proposed drafts all include specific and general examples of what sources to consult. —Frungi (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it needs to point the user to those sources. We can some of those above, and we can ask www.arl.org Association of Research Libraries. But so far so good? No having the readers try to figure out for themselves what the proper name is as suggested in the current text and the drafts above. We take our answers from experts, only, not try to figure out for ourselves which is more common and modern and primary using problematic Lexis Nexis searches of all media and Google Scholar searches and so on, trying to arrive at the answers ourselves through original research conducted by Wikipedians. We are not professionals or experts, and the process is too subject to error and bias. Chrisrus (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see my reply immediately above this subsection header. —Frungi (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

How about now? Chrisrus (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If you're not going to describe your changes to a proposal, please use <ins> and <del> markup to make your changes apparent. —Frungi (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. If you're not following this thread real time, I copied and pasted the second sentence from the second draft and said "how about now"?. Earlier responses in this thread had been based on the first sentence, only.

The point here is, even though work remains to further improve this draft, unlike the other drafts at least it doesn't send the user off to do original research, it leaves that task the experts, and this draft as written does provide paths to the answer the user seeks. Chrisrus (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's also silly to refer to "disagreement among Wikipedians" in guidance. Just state the guidelines. But I've forgotten how we got here or why we think a change might be needed anyway. And Chrisrus, it has never been WP policy to "take our answers from experts, only". We try to be neutral, which is hard if one is going to get into arguments about who is an expert. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I have taken it into account, below, in a new version, below these replies.

When there is disagreement about place names, people look to these guidelines. They aren't much needed otherwise. It happens regularly mostly because of WP:SEVEN issues, which are unlikely to ever go away, and should be anticipated. Having wikipedians determine the most widely used name on our own from raw data seemed like a reasonable idea, but turned out to be problematic, and isn't necessary if we just leave that up to the experts.

On Wikipedia, as you know, articles are supposed to be based on material that has been published by sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Anything controversial or challenged should be cited to reliable sources, not previously unpublished data or synthesis of data done by Wikipedians. While you or you may actually be the experts on this or that in your real lives, here you are a user name, maybe your teenage son logging on while you are out shopping or some such, so we can't cite the say-so of Wikipedians. Chrisrus (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"To determine the primary, most modern, or widely used in English place names, consult the proper publications or databases in which experts publish and update this information. The best sources are disinterested, authoritative reference works, such as: current, English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta); atlases (examples: Times Atlas of the World); and maps (examples: ), whether printed or electronic."

Widely Accepted Name - fourth draft

--MelanieN (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following sources may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name. It is important that the sources be from the appropriate period, namely, the modern era for current names, or the relevant historical period for historical names. For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed.

• Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current. Examples include major English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta); atlases; gazetteers such as those listed at Gazetteer#List of gazetteers; and maps, whether printed or electronic.

• English-language news media can also be very reliable sources. Due caution must be given to the possibility of bias in some, such as for nationalistic, religious or political reasons. However, major global sources are generally reliable, such as: major authoritative English-language newspapers (examples: The New York Times or The Washington Post); wire services (examples: Reuters or Associated Press); or databases such as Lexis-Nexis.

• Also generally reliable are standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question (examples: Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies; Library of Congress Subject Headings; and Oxford dictionaries). However, due caution is needed in case they are dated, not relevant to the period in question, or written by a non-native speaker of English.

• Sources that require individual analysis to be useful include books and articles, such as those found at Google Scholar or Google Books. They must be looked at individually for accuracy, possible bias, and appropriateness of period. Even if a book or scholarly article was written after watershed events that resulted in a name change, it may use historical place names in the context of the work.

• The Google Scholar and Google Books search engines can provide helpful results, if parameters are properly set. But even a widely recognized name change will take time to be reflected in such searches, as they may still include references to the place name before the change. Also, relatively obscure places that have a major impact on history during a particular time period will continue to show disproportionately large search returns for the location's name during that period.

• Raw counts from Google and Google News must be considered with extreme caution, if at all.

Discussion

Although the broad warning re raw search numbers at the last point is valid, I wouldn't equate News searches with full Google. The former have the advantage of being time limited in default mode (so are up to date) while the latter of course includes hundreds of blogs and personal and activist websites. Yes Google News numbers and results need analysis, and any initial indications can and will often be rebutted, but they are a good starting point, and quick and easy at that. Also, if we're going to recommend certain news sources at point 2, and suggest running Lexis-Nexis searches, presumably to look at the numbers, it seems a bit contradictory to later say, more or less, "but not a Google News search". Apologies for not pointing this out re earlier drafts, but I rather dropped out here. N-HH talk/edits 09:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about Lexis-Nexis too. Would you list it and Google News in the next-to-last category, then, and give the "extreme caution" warning only to Google hits? Also, I should add "see Search engine issues below" since there is quite an extensive section already in the guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, looking at it again, I think the suggested newspapers should include the Times of London and possibly other non-US sources of similar reputation. --MelanieN (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure really of the best way to deal with this, but I'd even rank News higher than Books for this sort of thing, given that the latter includes, for example, children's books and doesn't auto-exclude older publications (and even with recently published books, they are often going to be about history, whereas newspapers and other media are more usually covering the modern context). There's also a case for including it at the end of the current media section, eg "Google News search results can provide a quick guide to the relative predominance of alternative names across the media as a whole but, as with all raw Google numbers, should be used with caution". Also, on another point, should we also not name/recommend individual atlases? My original suggestion was the Times Atlas; I'm not familiar with other authoritative ones. N-HH talk/edits 10:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

ps: when it comes to search tools rather than specific individual sources, this is quite a useful tool for comparing the use of terms in Google Books. N-HH talk/edits 14:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. I could certainly add "Google News and Lexis-Nexis search results can provide a quick guide to the relative predominance of alternative names across the media as a whole, provided the search parameters are properly set, but as with all raw Google numbers, they should be used with caution" to the media section if others agree. And I should mention ngrams as a searching tool. (Question: can you set the Google News search parameters to be for items in English only?)

About the specific example of the Times Atlas, I originally included it, but someone said there should be more examples, and no one was able to come up with any others, so I eliminated the mention of examples. I would be glad to put it back, alone or with others, if that is the consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose In cases of disagreement, please do not advise place name seekers to conduct original research. Instead, have them consult the proper peer-reviewed reference materials in which experts publish and update their findings as to the primary, modern, wide-used names of places. Chrisrus (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

When you are able to tell people what "proper peer-reviewed reference materials" you are talking about, we can add them to the guideline. In the meantime, and without such specification, this advice is (frankly) worthless, and I think we should ignore it until you come up with some specifics. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Should this guideline have them look it up or figure it out? Chrisrus (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Support I feel comfortable with the wording and the overall calm spirit of the draft guideline. I have not looked into it in minute detail but imo it represents a real improvement. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Widely Accepted Name - fifth draft

I have incorporated the recent discussion as well as the excellent sources found by Chrisrus. --MelanieN (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following sources may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name. It is important that the sources be from the appropriate period, namely, the modern era for current names, or the relevant historical period for historical names. For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed.

• Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current. Examples include major English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta); atlases (examples: The The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, the Oxford Atlas of the World); gazetteers (examples: Cambridge World Gazetteer, Columbia Gazetteer of North America, Omni Gazetteer of the United States of America); and maps (such as those from the National Geographic Society), whether printed or electronic. For modern country names, The World Factbook [46] maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency is current and continuously updated. For spelling of place names, a good reference is Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary.

• English-language news media can also be very reliable sources. Due caution must be given to the possibility of bias in some, such as for nationalistic, religious or political reasons. However, major global sources are generally reliable, such as major authoritative English-language newspapers (examples: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times of London) or wire services (examples: Reuters, Associated Press). Google News and Lexis-Nexis search results can provide a quick guide to the relative predominance of alternative names across the media as a whole, provided the search parameters are properly set, but as with all raw search numbers, they should be used with caution.

• Also generally reliable are standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question (examples: Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies; Library of Congress Subject Headings; and Oxford dictionaries). However, due caution is needed in case they are dated, not relevant to the period in question, or written by a non-native speaker of English.

• Sources that require individual analysis to be useful include books and articles, such as those found at Google Scholar or Google Books. They must be looked at individually for accuracy, possible bias, and appropriateness of period. Even if a book or scholarly article was written after watershed events that resulted in a name change, it may use historical place names in the context of the work.

• The Google Scholar and Google Books search engines can provide helpful results, if parameters are properly set. In particular, a Google Ngram Viewer search of Google Books can provide valuable insights. But even a widely recognized name change will take time to be reflected in such searches, as they may still include references to the place name before the change. Also, relatively obscure places that have a major impact on history during a particular time period will continue to show disproportionately large search returns for the location's name during that period.

• Raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all.

• See also Search engine issues below.

Discussion

Association of Research Librarians

This process is too subject to bias and non-professional; we should seek an answer at some greater authority than us.

On Wikipedia, there are regularly issues such as whether the article Sea of Japan should be moved to “The East Sea of Korea” or any number of such cases with nationalist issues. These patriots often come well-armed with facts and reasons and authorities, and we say “well, none of that matters, because we just go by the most used English name, and the modern name, except in cases of articles like New Amsterdam. But how to establish definitively that one name really is most widely used when a place, unlike the Sea of Japan, is not used widely, commonly, or frequently mentioned? This is the dilemma.

Let's ask an authority like the Association of Research Libraries or some such. We explain the dilemma and what advice they give to place name seekers, and go with whatever they say. Chrisrus (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

we should seek an answer at some greater authority than us. Exactly. That’s why the list in WIAN (and the proposed replacement) suggests a number of different reliable sources. But if you think we could benefit from learning the methods used by someone else, feel free to go ahead and ask. —Frungi (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, what do you say to this:

Dear Appropriate Person at the Association of Research Libraries:

How would you recommend Wikipedia settle disagreements over geographical names?

We regularly need powerful citations that a geographical name is primary, modern, and widely used in English-language publications. We need a procedure for settling such disputes efficiently and effectively. Are there, for instance, publications or databases where experts publish, update, and make accessible their peer-reviewed determinations as to the primary, modern, and most widely used English-language names of geographic places?

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Some Wikipedians

What are you suggesting - that we send an email every time we need a title? That's not how Wikipedia works. And if you are simply saying we should ask this organization where to look, then ask them already, and tell us what they say, and then we'll have something to talk about. All this fuzzy talk about "asking the experts" is getting us absolutely nowhere when it comes to drawing up a usable guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Just once. All we need is their recommendations of places to send place name seekers. You are right about asking them already, though. Read on:

Thoughts:

1. We create a dedicated Gmail or Hotmail account for this purpose alone, and set the password to "password". Then we use it to send this one email, that is all. What do you think about this idea?
2. Who should we send this message to? Here are some choices: http://www.arl.org/about/staff Chrisrus (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just use your own email address and let us know when you’ve sent it; I made an edit to the letter, but no one else seems to have any input on it. As for where to send it, you really should have these major details figured out before making this kind of proposal; it was your own idea, after all. —Frungi (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we get back to trying to agree on a wording for the Widely Accepted Name section? Let Chrisrus go ahead and contact his experts, and if he finds anything useful (such as gazetteers, that was helpful) we can add it to the guideline. In the meantime I'll try to come up with a version that incorporates the discussion since the first and second drafts, and then let's see what further changes are needed. I am hopeful that at some point we can wrap up this discussion, improve the guideline, and get back to writing an encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I used the "contact us" email and got the following reply:

This type of question is not in ARL's bailiwick (we provide professional services to research libraries, but not advice on details like this.) However, as a communications professional, I would turn to the Chicago Manual of Style to answer such a question. Here is what the current edition of the Chicago Manual recommends:

8.43 Names of places—additional resources

For the spelling of names of places, consult Merriam-Webster’s Geographical Dictionary. Since names of countries and cities often change, however, even the most recent edition of such a reference work cannot be current in every detail. Moreover, not all writers will be in agreement on the proper form of every place-name (e.g., some will insist on Burma rather than Myanmar). For country names, the US Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/)—continually updated—is a good place to start. For historical works, writers and editors should attempt to use the form of names appropriate to the period under discussion.

The CMOS also points to these additional reference sources:

1. Cambridge World Gazetteer: A Geographical Dictionary. Edited by David Munro. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
2. Columbia Gazetteer of North America. Edited by Saul B. Cohen. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000.
3. Omni Gazetteer of the United States of America. Edited by Frank R. Abate. Detroit: Omnigraphics, 1991.
4. Oxford Atlas of the World. 16th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
5. The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World. 12th ed. London: Times Books, 2007.

I hope this is helpful.

Best,

Kaylyn Groves, ARL Communications Program Officer

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 August 2013‎

Nice. We can definitely add some of these specific sources to the first item in the draft, right? —Frungi (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I will work on a fifth draft including these suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 20 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)

Apologies for the delay replying to this. If Indian English sources use the term less often than international sources, then clearly that isn't a contender for "Indian English" usage. However, if all English sources in India say one thing, and all English sources in the USA and elsewhere say another thing, then for former qualifies for "Indian English". And in that situation, in my opinion, the Indian version should trump the USA version regarding articles on Indian topics, per WP:ENGVAR. As I've already said, this clearly doesn't apply to the Mumbai and Kolkata examples, and I'm not familiar enough with the Indian situation to come up with a version that it does apply to. It just worried me that wording that could apply indiscriminately to other more clear cut situations would be inserted onto this page against the spirit of ENGVAR. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

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

As an even more general point, and especially when we don't have any such clarity anyway, I'm not sure we should be doing even more to encourage WP topics to be divvied up into nationalist/linguistic ghettoes but should be looking at reflecting overall real-world usage for a world-wide readership here. That's what WP:COMMONALITY is about, separately from WP:COMMONNAME. We're stuck with genuine and fixed differences of spelling and grammar, hence WP:ENGVAR. We shouldn't be inventing even more distinctions and then, in turn, extending special rules to accommodate them. N-HH talk/edits 13:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In the main, I agree with you, but for me there are still exceptions to the general rule, per my above comment. Ben MacDui 18:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken in your assumption above, Ben, that the proposal will promote "Anglo-centric conservatism". If you take the Bombay/Mumbai example, and assuming you think "Bombay" is the conservative option, it has to be said that the previous wording, with its focus on local usage, would be more likely to yield "Bombay" as a result. Apologies if I'm understanding you wrongly. Formerip (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

FormerIP, you say that as if using "Bombay" would be automatically wrong under any circumstances. But actually that is the nub of the matter. If a large majority of Indian sources continued to use Bombay (which they don't, but hypothetically speaking), while international sources mostly used Mumbai, then we could say that Bombay is now "Indian English" usage and therefore would be the correct form to use. I don't think that is the case, so it's a moot point, but it sounds like you're automatically ruling out Bombay for reasons other than just usage within India.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm making a guess than Ben is worried that the proposal might be part of a stealth attempt to get Mumbai pagemoved to Bombay. I'm pointing out that the proposal could not have this effect. I don't have a strong view of my own on Mumbai/Bombay other than "follow policy". Formerip (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

  IMO the harm in incorporating the state in the disambiguator is trivial at best, in all imaginable cases. The only claimed harms so far are that the name becomes a little longer, and that a legalistic and controversial reading of WP:precision is violated. Um, so? Are we perhaps missing the point of all this? Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 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, and important, but it's not just B2C. See #Prescriptive/Descriptive below. Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 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)

  Agree, in that there seems to be no imaginable scenario in which a reader could be impeded by the omission of the state in these cases. Again, the only reasons for including it yet suggested are consistency, and compliance to a particular reading of policy. Andrewa (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is the perfect standard to go with. It is a clear standard, and one which would be easy to write down and follow. "Places, buildings and locations in the United States which require city disambiguators, should also include the state name, unless the city is recognizable enough that dropping the state name is commonplace. The title of that city's wikipedia article should be used as the guidance to determine whether the state name should be included or omitted." Dworjan (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. For almost any city, it is commonplace to drop the state name. How does that criterion help anything? And why are we thinking a standard is needed? Dicklyon (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Umm, almost every article on wikipedia about US cities includes the state in the title, so it is the opposite of commonplace to drop the state name. A standard is needed so we don't have chaos. So every single article about locations within US cities doesn't have to have its own individual debate about whether the state should be included in the disambiguator, and each of those debates doesn't come to a different consensus. If wikipedia is going to look professional and organized, similar subjects, in similar situations should be titled the same way, not left to individual discussions. Dworjan (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree totally. First, you didn't mean "commonplace", apparently, but rather something about wikipedia article titles; so your proposed wording was wrong. Second, there's no evidence that we've had chaos on account of this so far. Third, it is not appropriate to try to elevate one of the 5 titling criteria (consistency) to trump all the others. I think we've done pretty well so far deciding these things. If we want to change, we should have a big RFC on a proposed wording, supported by a long list of articles that are named according to the stated convention, and another long list of articles that we'd want to fix to conform to it, so we could work on understanding the implications of such a change. I'm not convinced anything like this is needed; see WP:CREEP. Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fine, you caught me, I wasn't perfectly precise in my wording. Well, except for that second sentence that explains exactly what I meant by commonplace. So how about "Places, buildings and locations in the United States which require city disambiguators, should also include the state name, unless the AP Stylebook declares the state name unnecessary (unless they are not the primary or only topic for that name) [which is per WP:USPLACE]. The title of that city's wikipedia article should be used as the guidance to determine whether the state name should be included or omitted."

Having read WP:CREEP, I disagree. With several articles apparently under discussion to be moved, there is a (#1) actual problem to solve, and guidance on how to title these articles would prevent these may disparate discussions from continuing to come up in the future, thus providing a (#2) real, positive difference, and it (#3) would not prevent the dropping of the state name where it is considered acceptable in titles. Dworjan (talk) 21:22, 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)

Interesting thoughts, but should this impact be a major consideration? Yes, any change will involve some collateral work, but is this disruptive as Wikipedia uses the term? Isn't it rather an investment in a better encyclopedia? It does no harm to assess the scope of this work, but is there any reason this work is particularly urgent?

See below for descriptive vs proscriptive. Important IMO, obviously. Andrewa (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be very disruptive if it means we end up with hundreds of disputed page move requests as a result of what we decide (and there is that potential). That's why I urge everyone to go cautiously and think about the consequences of whatever we come up with. It's one thing to examine the the issue in the abstract... but we also have to be practical. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

We need to come up with a policy that provides the guidance to title articles in such a way that the titles are concise, yet clear and unambiguous. And that's what we're doing with this discussion. If the results of this discussion to come up with the best titles is at odds with current usage, then yeah, that'll mean a bit of leg work, but past ambiguity is no reason to prevent us from coming to a good solution now. I don't see how we'd have disputed page moves as part of the implementation of any new guidelines. Move requests would be submitted for affected articles as, "per guidelines established after discussion on Naming conventions (geographic names)" Dworjan (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on Doncram's comment (below) it might be more than just a "bit of leg work"... we could have people wanting to change the titles of 5,000-15,000 articles! That absolutely would be disruptive. That's why I urge caution... think before we act. A course of action may seem logical and practical in the abstract... but it can have very disruptive consequences when actually applied. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think a good rule of thumb would be that if a placename is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it's probably okay to use it by itself in disambiguation. So Pensacola works for things in Florida, but New Britain doesn't for things in Connecticut (but would for things in Papua New Guinea). As always, there can be exceptions when context is clear: so, "Famous Connecticut thing" (New Britain) (where "Connecticut" itself is in the title) should be sufficient. If someone wants to use (City, State) or (City, Country) where it's not strictly necessary, I think we should allow that leeway. Dohn joe (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree, good summary, and good new point regarding leeway. And there even seems to be consensus developing on this direction, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment There are somewhere in the range of 5,000-15,000 usages of (City, State) in names of NRHP-listed places, about half having articles and about half being set up as redlinks for articles to be created. I set up most of the >3,000 disambiguation pages for these. It is obvious to me that using "(City, State)" is usually best for these. If you use just "City" sometimes, or if you use just "State", then that raises bizarre questions for readers: is this the only one in the state, but there are others of the same name in other states? etc. Is it an island, or what? If you use just "City, State" it is clear you are simply referring to a U.S. place. I would totally oppose changing/renaming/moving 10,000 NRHP articles that are very stably named. Nothing needing to be fixed here. --doncram 22:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at Talk:Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Forida)#Requested move - re: disambiguation. Note two things in particular there. Firstly, two editors are arguing that the disambiguator should be reduced to simply {Pensacola), thusly: Per WP:NATURAL, use only as much additional detail as necessary; and The "Florida" is just unnecessary verbiage, which WP:PRECISION says to avoid. Secondly, another editor (me) is arguing against this: I've come to the view, see discussion below, that the default should be to use the longer disambiguator - in this case (City, State) of course. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I agree with User:Doncram. The disambiguation phrase should be the same as the title of the article for that locality. This is the only way for an article creator to know how they are supposed to title their article. Thus Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Florida) and Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut) should be the names, based on the article title (which is based on USPLACE). This is straightforward and consistent and simple. It removes the need for any research or argument, such as to determine whether Pensacola, Florida is the primary topic for Pensacola or whether New Britain, Connecticut is the primary topic for New Britain. In fact, it was exactly to avoid this kind of uncertainty and endless argument that USPLACE was agreed upon in the first place. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a very useful rule of thumb to me. It's workable IMO and would have solved the problem at Talk:Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain) which started all of this! But if adopted two questions remain.

Firstly, how to add this to the rules so that the (now three) users who are citing these rules (rather than user experience) as the reason to keep the disambiguator there to simply (New Britain) are happy that we're complying with policy in going with the longer disambiguator (New Britain, Connecticut) instead?

Secondly, there seems a consensus to stick with the longer disambiguator at Talk:Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Forida), despite Pensacola seeming to have the the primary meaning of, and being the name of the article on, the locality. This would violate that rule of thumb.

I'm still inclined to go with the longer name by default. Andrewa (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are replying to. If you were talking to me, I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. My "rule of thumb" is NOT "disambiguate by primary topic"; quite the opposite. My rule of thumb is "disambiguate by the name of the article." The article is called "Pensacola, Florida" so the disambiguated name would be Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Florida). Similarly Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut). No need to worry about whether "Pensacola, Florida" is the primary meaning of "Pensacola" or not. It's the name of the article so it's what we use. So for US places we will use the "longer name" (i.e. "city, state") except in the 30 or so named exceptions specified at USPLACE, because that is how the article is titled. For most of the rest of the world we will use the "shorter name" if that is the name of the article (Mainz; Genoa; Adelaide) and a longer version only if that is what the article is called (Stratford, Ontario; Hartford, Cheshire). --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm replying to you, and yes, I think I understand what you're saying, but you seem to have misinterpreted what I said. Primary meaning only arises because, if Pensacola, Florida were not the primary meaning of Pensacola, then that would be a very, very strong case for moving the article currently at Pensacola to a disambiguated name, and so it wouldn't be a good example.

I'm quite happy to go with the article name rule of thumb that you propose. I think it would be simpler and better to say that the longer name is the default and a case needs to be made before shortening it, but the important thing is to cover the cases similar to the New Britain case, where all roads seem to lead to the same conclusion except one... two experienced editors say that policy currently prohibits the longer name. That's what needs fixing. Andrewa (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the source of our confusion/miscommunication here is that in your earlier comment you seemed to think Pensacola was the name of the article about that city. It isn't. It's Pensacola, Florida. Thus my rule of thumb, as you call it, calls for Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Florida). --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, yes, my bad, Pensacola is a redirect to Pensacola, Florida. The logic of what I said isn't affected, but it makes the phrasing a lot trickier. And your rule does cover that case well, far better than one based on primary meaning would. Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Prescriptive/Descriptive

Several editors above [47] [48] raise the point that policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive (proscriptive), and I could not agree more. But is this itself supported in policy? Where?

And where should this be discussed? It is IMO the most important single issue currently facing Wikipedia, and very relevant to this particular discussion, but I fear I may already be getting off-topic for this particular talk page. Andrewa (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

A Guideline is by definition prescriptive, although less strictly than a rule. Chrisrus (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. A guideline may also give examples, and could in theory contain no prescriptive component at all. So it's certainly not by definition prescriptive. Our article guideline to which you link has several issues, and is unlikely to be the last word on the subject. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I to assume that you are suggesting that the Wiktionary definition, to which the article links too, is offered as evidence that a guideline must be prescriptive? That's not what it says at all. In particular, an explanation to guide one in ... determining a course of action is dare I say describing a descriptive, rather than prescriptive, approach. Andrewa (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it shows that a guideline is something people look to to help them decide what they should do. It's not a description of what people do do. It's like a rule, but it's vaguer, and more of a choice whether to follow it; less absolute than a rule. It's like advice, or, as wiktionary says, a "rule of thumb."

"Some people steal" is an objective statement of fact about the world; a descriptive, not proscriptive statement, and therefore not a guideline. "Do not steal" is a proscriptive statement more like a rule, and "Try not to steal unless the situation gives you no better option" is also a proscriptive statement, more like a guideline. Proscriptive statements are about what one should and shouldn't do, and a guideline is a particular type of proscriptive statement. Descriptive statements like "some people steal" can't be guidelines because they don't proscribe. Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The relevant definitions are in project space on Wikipedia. I recommend that anyone unclear on the meanings read through WP:Policies and guidelines, but in short: guidelines describe best practice as determined by community consensus. (Note that it uses the word “describe”.) Statements that describe best practice generally use imperative language. Hope that helps. —Frungi (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is missed here. This is not about the language of the guideline "People say you should not steal" vs "You should not steal" but the process in which the guideline develops. Somebody steals - a large majority of people object - we write down a codified summary so that next time someone steals we don't have to get the village together for a big bruhaha. Similarly here whatever has been decided out in the village (ie RM AFD ect) should be recorded. When general practise divulges from what is codified the code has to be adjusted. Sadly over the last few years a new breed of wikipedians has arisen. Those that by focusing on the pages that describe the rules they can control what others have to do. This is particularly evident when they try to make a change for which there is no consensus they try to remedy the situation by changing the rules and then force the larger community to accept it because "it is in the rules". Agathoclea (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Besides what Agathoclea says (with which I agree), I am in disagreement with this proposal because it's unrelated to this page. This is a naming conventions page for cities, countries, regions, etc. — it's not a naming conventions page for buildings! Imagine if participants at WT:CSD decided to issue naming convention on some topic as part of the speedy deletion policy. It would be absurd, because the names of articles in a certain realm aren't within the purview of the speedy deletion policy: technically those names would be policy because they're part of CSD, but that's an absurd way to go about it. In the same way, names of buildings and names of things on their scale aren't the geographic names for which this page is set up, and it's absurd to try to create rules for them — especially when creating those rules would be highly prescriptive and very very far from being descriptive. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with much of this. One of the problems here is the two (now three) editors seem to be are arguing that the rules (as they interpret them) must be followed, regardless of the negative effect this may have on the reader. This is a danger, I'm not sure that it's a new danger, but it's certainly a current issue. There have been some attempts at discussing the behaviour of at least one of these three, who is themselves very active in editing policy, but the response has been negative so far.

Modifying this quideline is something of a bandaid solution to this, which I think arose when one of them cited Naming conventions (geographic names) as the rule that justified what the rest of of us see as unjustifiable in terms of reader experience. The other reply to this, of course, is consensus here that Naming conventions (geographic names) already fails to support what is claimed, and I think we've got that above.

Clarifying the more pertinent rule at WP:disambiguation so that it's clear that Naming conventions (geographic names) doesn't even apply in such cases is probably a better way to go, see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Precision of disambiguators and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposed addition to guideline to eliminate ambiguity. Andrewa (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a very helpful reminder about WP:Policies and guidelines, so much so that I repeat the link here. Your point about imperative language is I think that its use in English does not necessarily indicate a prescriptive approach? If so, agree with that too. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rule of thumb

Based on my discussion with Andrewa above, I am proposing the following as a simple, workable rule of thumb: The disambiguation phrase should be the same as the title of the article for that locality. The result in practice would be that most US places would be disambiguated by (City, State), while most places outside the US would be disambiguated by (City) if the city is the primary topic. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It needs to also exclude the use of ambiguous terms. The fact that a primary article exists does not make the proposed disambiguation effective. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, how about The disambiguation phrase should be the same as the title of the article for that locality, unless additional information is needed to prevent ambiguity. (I can't offhand think of an example where this would come up, but I can see it is possible. The "rule of thumb" would still apply to the vast majority of articles.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, that is OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: In many cases, this proposed approach is overkill because the name of the state (and not also the name of the locality) is ample for purposes of disambiguation. Consider the case of "Springfield High School", which is ambiguous primarily because many different communities named "Springfield" have eponymous high schools. Names in the form Springfield High School (Oregon) and Springfield High School (Tennessee) are sufficient for disambiguation; it is unnecessary (and looks rather silly) to expand them to Springfield High School (Springfield, Oregon) and Springfield High School (Springfield, Tennessee). If the name of the locality is part of the article title, the locality name should not also be included for disambiguation unless the state name alone does not suffice for disambiguation (as in the case of Ohio, where there are multiple Springfield High Schools). --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I think the city name is already omitted (by convention rather than any rule) when it would be redundant; we don't say Downtown San Diego, San Diego. But when it isn't a case of redundancy, I think we do include the city even if there is only one of whatever it is in the state. Take the case of Lincoln High School; the city is listed even if there is only one such school in the state, for example Lincoln High School (McClellanville, South Carolina), Lincoln High School (Sioux Falls, South Dakota). --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

School names are disambiguated inconsistently. Sometimes it's done with state only, even when including the city wouldn't result in redundancy. I think there may be some disambiguated by city alone, though I could be wrong on that. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) +1 Disambiguators, like titles in general, should be concise. I'm afraid this rule of thumb would "fix" many titles that don't need it. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)And if it does 'break' something, whatever is broken is offset by clarity and information for readers. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A title can't, and shouldn't, convey everything about a topic. In almost all of these cases, a full place name is going to be present in the first sentence anyway. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. But the title should not be misleading, and in the case that started all this, that's exactly what it was. And three editors are still defending this misleading name in the name of conciseness (see below). That's what needs fixing. The policy and guidelines should not support this, and trickier still, they shouldn't be easily misinterpreted to support this. Andrewa (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that too, just to be clear. Many of the pages at Liberty High School are named just as they should be, as several states have multiple schools by that name. My proposed rule of thumb is to disambiguate by state when practical, city and state otherwise (or city, county, and state as necessary in those freak cases). --BDD (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I don't know that a hard-and-fast rule works here. I think we should allow for all three potential disambiguators: 1) "Placename", when "Placename" is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; 2) "State" (or "Province" or "Region" if we want to make this guidance more universal); and 3) "Placename, State". Sometimes, 1) or 2) will be sufficient to disambiguate, and will be more concise. Sometimes, we'll need 3). The one caveat I'd make is that when a U.S. placename is used to disambiguate, 3) should probably at least be a redirect. That would cover the people who link to "City, State" automatically. Dohn joe (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be good to have examples of cases where each of these three potential disambiguators is appropriate. The obvious cases of the longer (place, region) disambiguator are the two particularly relevant RMs, which should hopefully close in two or three days, but consensus already seems clear to me, in favour of the longer disambiguator in each case. Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut) is the more interesting for two reasons. Firstly. it seems the more obvious. Secondly, three editors vigorously argue there for the shorter disambiguator, each purely on the grounds of their minority reading of policy. That's what needs fixing. We don't want another yogurt/yoghurt debacle.

So, we seem to have two examples where the longer disambiguator is preferred. Would this rule of thumb reduce the controversy surrounding these, and do we have examples of the other two cases? Andrewa (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Depending on how the discussion over the Las Vegas (Amtrak station) goes that could be another example. However that is changing focus to a bigger issue with rail stations in general. In the end that might not be a big help. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. And Springfield High School (a DAB) currently provides several examples of both long and short form disambiguators, as pointed out above, and also of alternative, natural disambiguations. Are any of these (long or short) currently sub-optimal, in terms of reader experience? Which ones if so?

But at the risk of flogging this to death, would it really matter if any of the shorter disambiguators at Springfield High School were lengthened? I'm not saying instantly change them all! I'm just saying, if the standard was the longer (place, district) form (with exceptions where that's especially silly, such as New York rather than New York, New York), it seems to me that's a lot simpler, with no downside other than it does assume a certain amount of common sense. And yes, eventually this would mean moving a lot of articles, but there's no hurry, and the guideline could explicitly say this - anathema as such a suggestion may be to the legalists among us. Andrewa (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, but would it really matter if the short ones stayed short - especially when the placename is in the title of the article already? My point is that a standard is not necessary here. All three options should be available as disambiguators, and this guideline should not be used as a reason to move any articles - except when a nonWP:PRIMARYTOPIC placename is used by itself. "Pensacola" really should be sufficient as a disambiguator. Again - as long as there's a redirect with the longer name as well. Dohn joe (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree with all of this. My support for the longer disambiguator for Pensacola is just an attempt to be consistent, so we can have a simple, workable rule. Either form is acceptable in this case IMO. So if we come up with an equally workable rule that allows the shorter disambiguator there, so much the better. Andrewa (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually the SHS dab page seems to follow a standard. Disambiguate by state only. If there more multiple schools in the state, disambiguate by city, state. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. And this might be a useful rule too. It would have avoided both of the specific problems we have had. Andrewa (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

RMs have closed

The two RMs have closed, on schedule, and in both cases the result is the (city, state) format. There was one additional hiccup, and we can all blush I think... the closing admin noted that Florida was misspelled, and corrected it. [49] [50] Andrewa (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Las Vegas (Amtrak station)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)

Königsberg to Kaliningrad - should a historic name retain a wikipedia article?

Kaliningrad#Proposed_merger_-_K.C3.B6nigsberg_to_Kaliningrad Proposed merger - Königsberg to Kaliningrad -There seems to be a content fork here created in 2006. Claims that Kaliningrad was built "on the site of" Königsberg were used to deny the simple truth that they are simply two names for the same Russian city, as these two definitions support. Ka·li·nin·grad (k-lnn-grd, -gräd, -ly-nn-grät) A city of extreme western Russia on the Baltic Sea near the Polish border. It was founded in 1255 by the Teutonic Knights and joined the Hanseatic League in 1340. Called Königsberg, it was an important Prussian city and the birthplace of Immanuel Kant (1724). Transferred to the USSR in 1945, it was renamed Kaliningrad in 1946. Population: 426,000. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Kaliningrad (Russian) [kəlininˈgrat] n (Placename) a port in W Russia, on the Pregolya River: severely damaged in World War II as the chief German naval base on the Baltic; ceded to the Soviet Union in 1945 and is now Russia's chief Baltic naval base. Pop.: 427 200 (1999 est.) Former name (until 1946) Königsberg Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged. 5.28.89.25 (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but this discussion should be kept in one place, such as Talk:Kaliningrad where it currently is ongoing. --Jayron32 02:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)