Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19 Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006) Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/One international convention (August 2006) Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Is comma convention in conflict with other guidelines? (November 2006) Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/comma for all cities (November 2006) Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Summary of Discussion (Jan-Feb 2007)

Has there been a discussion already about Mumbai? IMHO "Bombay" is by far the more common name for the city (in english media) and the article should thus be moved/renamed. I thought I could find here a chapter about "naming conventions for India" but this is not the case. --Bernd-vdb (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need more than a "humble opinion". ;) This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the English Wikipedia. There are probably more English-speakers in India than in England, so their preference is also important. Here in the U.S., "Mumbai (formerly Bombay)" seems to be the standard name now. But if we had some statistics that might help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai is the name used in all British media. --Joowwww (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Mumbai. Aside from historical references, I never saw it called Bombay during the extensive coverage received recently. Combined with the preference in India to call it by it's real, proper name--Mumbai--thats where it should be. GoneAwayNowAndRetired (C)(T) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If most people expect to find the article unter "Mumbai", fine. In Germany we have a public library that counts the occurences of words in major media - and this prefers "Bombay" by 4:1. This source is cited regularly in WP discussion about naming conventions. But we also have slightly different rules in the de-WP. Anyway, it might be interesting to have similar statistics for the english speaking world available - do they exist? --Bernd-vdb (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics are useless when you have a name change. Now, if you can show data for today only and then exclude the cases where both are used, then maybe this might hint about current usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what is the timeframe from which the 4:1 statistics come from? Without knowing that, the information is useless. Kaldari (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Statistics are useless when you have a name change." Question is if we want to use the "official" name or the "most common" name. In the german language WP the rule is clear: the most common one - which is often different from "current usage". The rule is not so clear in the en-WP.

Regarding the time frame, I sent an Email to University of Leipzig and will report the outcome here. --Bernd-vdb (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They informed me the data is from 2005 and 2006. Question remains if the title of a WP article should be related to the name in the _home_ country - if the same entity has been named differently for generations. --Bernd-vdb (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm old enough to remember when "Peking" became "Beijing" in US usage. (It had been renamed by the local government at least as early 1949, but the US didn't give respect to Communist China's wishes.) A more recent shift has been from "Burma" or "Myanmar", but that too has been at least somewhat controversial because of the government there. The government of India is not considered illegitimate, unlike like those other examples. There are certainly millions of English-speakers in India, and perhaps even in Mumbai itself. What major media did the University survey? German, European, English-language? Is there a link to this survey? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed moving Harrisburg (disambiguation) to Harrisburg, which at present is a redirect to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Discussion of this proposal is on Talk:Harrisburg. --Una Smith (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is as difference of opinion concerning the interpretation of rules on the place name Duffield. This page used to be at Duffield but was moved to Duffield, Derbyshire when a disambiguation page was created at Duffield. This broke all the existing wiki links. As a compromise I have created a more complete Duffield Disambiguation page at Duffield (disambiguation) and pointed the empty Duffield article at the Duffield, Derbyshire page. Is this correct or should the disambiguation page be at Duffield even though this would break a number of links which would then need to be repaired.? Victuallers (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter for WP:Requested moves to determine by consensus whether the Derbyshire Duffield is the primary topic. Aside from that, it probably would have been better to move the disambiguation page that had been started at Duffield to Duffield (disambiguation) and then expand that to keep the edit history, but as there were so few edits there is little harm done. Unlike US city naming conventions, I believe UK city naming conventions would not support leaving Duffield as a redirect to Duffield, Derbyshire. So in any case, either Duffield, Derbyshire should be moved back to Duffield if it is determined to be the primary topic or else Duffield (disambiguation) should be moved to Duffield. I wouldn't worry too much about repairing existing links -- those can be adjusted accordingly depending on the outcome. older ≠ wiser 15:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt advice - oh and nice tag! cheers Victuallers (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been longed argued that one of the many reasons to not predisambiguate U.S. city names is because this reduces the usage claim these topics have for the name in question. Case in point: Norfolk, the city in Virginia, is automatically predabbed "by convention" to Norfolk, Virginia. This leaves the door open for putting some other topic at Norfolk, and weakens the argument that the Virginia city has a claim on it, and Norfolk should be a dab page. Indeed, there is requested move discussion on this issue active right now. Check it out. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal to make Norfolk a dab page failed due to lack of consensus, and so it remains the article about the county in England, mostly because the city in Virginia is predabbed at Norfolk, Virginia. Hopefully you supporters of the comma convention are happy about this (and other similar cases where conflicts with U.S. city names are ignored because U.S. cities are predabbed). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we solved this "comma convention" B.S. a few months ago? Only U.S. cities listed in the A.P. Stylebook's exception list are to be listed by 'city name' convention, all other cities are to be listed by 'city, state'. Norfolk, Virginia is not one of the exceptions. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and that's the problem. Because Norfolk, Virginia is supposed to be at Norfolk, Virginia and not at Norfolk no matter what, the argument is made that the U.S. city has no claim on the name Norfolk (by itself), and so the county in England is effectively the primary topic. So instead of Norfolk being a dab page like it should be, it's an article about a county in England instead. That's one of the many unintended consequences of naming most (non AP) U.S. cities according to the comma convention. There was another example of this fairly recently, but I can't remember that city name right now.

This is one reason why I believe all U.S. cities (not just cities on the AP list) should be at Cityname (like cities in most other countries), and only disambiguated with , Statename when there is an actual conflict with the name. In this case Norfolk, Virginia would still be dabbed at the same place, but the argument could not be made that it had no claim on the name Norfolk (by itself), and Norfolk would almost certainly be a dab page, like it should be. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other fairly recent example was Plymouth, which remains an article about the place in England rather than a dab page as it should be. Again, when the move of that page (to make Plymouth a dab page) was proposed, the fact that U.S. cities with that name, including Plymouth, Massachusetts, are automatically dabbed because of this guideline, was used to claim that the place in England was the primary topic and the name did not need to be dabbed. I believe it's fair to say that providing support for such arguments is a consequence not intended by most who continue to support the comma convention for U.S. cities, or at least for those cities not on the AP list. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Serge, but this is a remarkably poor example. The city of Norfolk in Virginia is certainly not primary usage for Norfolk; it is younger and smaller than the English county, and surely no more well known. So it must be dabbed, whatever this page says; the real argument for the proposed move is that the County of Norfolk is not the overwhelmingly most common meaning of Norfolk, which case is made by citing statistics of usage which include all the other Norfolks, like Norfolk Island. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read carefully, Serge is not suggesting that Norfolk, Virginia is the primary topic -- only that Norfolk (and Plymouth) should be disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 18:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to understand the point I'm taking here. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it reasonable that Norfolk should be a dab page, although there are arguments on both sides. But if it is a dab page, Norfolk, Virginia still has to be disambiguated, so the argument against predisambiguation is vacuous. (Shorter me: per Will Beback, below.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On further consideration, there is a shadow of an argument: English nationalists used the argument "Norfolk, Virginia, has no claim to be Norfolk, because it's predabbed." We do not write naming conventions to fight every sophistry nationalists will come up with; if we do, they will only find others. The correct approach is to argue that Norfolk has no primary usage, in our sense; or to revise the naming conventions to reflect reality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many places named "Norfolk" that I don't understand why it isn't a disambiguation page. While the county in England may have had the name first, it is now widely used.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point! Because many of the places named "Norfolk" are in the U.S., they are predabbed per the comma convention, and so considered to have "no claim" on the plain name.

If U.S. cities were not predabbed per the comma convention, then in decisions about whether the name in question has a primary use, or should be a dab page, U.S. cities would carry their due weight with respect to use of the city name, and would not be unduly discounted.

I've seen this problem surface time and time again, and it affects any category of names that are predabbed (dabbed by default even if there is no conflict) according to any convention. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But don't take my word for it, the comments at the (failed) make-Norfolk-a-dab-page proposal speak for themselves. [1]. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the comments in that discussion again, there are some winners...

• But do [Americans] say "Norfolk" when they mean "Norfolk, Virginia"? This one confirms one of my oldest arguments, that predabbing per the comma convention gives non-Americans the wrong impression that the names of U.S. cities include the state name. This is one reason why I've long held that not only should U.S. city names not be dabbed when they don't need to be dabbed, but if dabbing is necessary it should be with the state in parenthesis to avoid the confusion that this comment exemplifies.

• Norfolk [the county] has clear precedence in terms of establishment and use of the name on its own (with Norfolk, Virginia being the established name for the USA settlement). Emphasis added.

• All naming conventions and best practice seem satisfied presently. This one is a bit subtle, but I think the clear implication is that since the U.S. city naming convention is satisfied with all U.S. Norfolks at Norfolk, Statename, the English county can keep Norfolk.

• The move would inconvenience everyone familiar with the naming conventions who expect English counties to be at <name> and US places to be at <name, state>. My emphasis. This one is explicit about what I'm talking about.

There are other comments associated with opposing the move to make Norfolk a dab page that cite these other comments in agreement.

Keep in mind that the issue here is not Norfolk per se, but the unintended consequences associated with the practice of predisambiguation, including the pervasive problem that this example so clearly illustrates. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The style sheet (or as many like to say here, predisambiguation) is not the problem. The problem is the utter failure of primary usage being a consideration in these cases. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Vegaswikian. I don't see how the naming convention really affected the outcome. Due to the number of similar names, Norfolk, Virginia would have that name regardless. That dispute is over when to make a disambiguation page the main link, which has nothing to do with this guideline.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it seems pretty obvious to me. It seems to me that many if not most of those opposing were considering primary usage (at least informally, some explicitly), but just did not count U.S. cities as a competing "use" for the name in that consideration because of the U.S. comma convention. All other uses are so relatively obscure that the argument that the county in England is the primary use can certainly be made, and was made (again, discounting all places names that have been predabbed with the comma). The only other contender for "primary use" being considered was the VA city, and its claim on the plain name was discounted as indicated by the above comment. I mean, from their perspective, yes, Norfolk (disambiguation) is a long list, but so is Paris (disambiguation), but that does not preclude the French city from being at Paris.

In other words, all relatively obscure uses of Paris (or Norfolk) are dabbed whether Paris (or Norfolk) is a dab page or not. In the case of Paris, nothing is left that is not relatively obscure. But in the case of Norfolk, we have the VA city as well as the English county that are arguably significant uses. The VA city was not discounted in that consideration because it was obscure; it was discounted in that consideration because it was required by naming convention to be at Norfolk, Virginia regardless.

Consider this comment:

I'm not claiming that primary usage is never an issue. Naming conventions should always be used unless there is a clear reason (for example primary usage) why in a particular instance they should be. There are, as you say, many cases where such clear reasons do exist and articles have been rightly moved away from where naming conventions say they should be. My point is that in this case there is no such compelling reason.

If you don't see that what he's essentially saying is that the naming conventions call for the English county to be at Norfolk and the U.S. city to be at Norfolk, Virginia (not at Norfolk - so there is no conflict), then I don't how else to explain it. If the U.S. conventions stated that U.S. city names should be at Cityname and only dabbed with a comma when necessary, then his argument would not hold for the conflict would be obvious. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question to ask him is "Is the English county the overwhelmingly most common use of Norfolk, say 80-90% of all usage?" If it is, it should be at Norfolk. If it isn't, cite WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, and explain the nuisance that everybody looking for any of the other Norfolks goes through. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few of us, most notably Vegaswikian, did explain all that, to no avail. Essentially to them it is a practical matter: nothing else conflicts with Norfolk, so it is primary usage. I'm not defending their interpretation of the guidelines. I'm just saying it is natural, understandable and most notably, inevitable. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not inevitable, except insofar as nationalism is inevitable. But, more to the point, occurences like that are one of the prices paid for being an encyclopedia anybody can edit; getting back at idiots by setting down Roolz in WP-space is not helpful, and should not work. Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, no matter how many people are drawn out of article space into the cul-de-sac of rules-mongering. The next time there's a RM for Norfolk, tell me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean given human nature, it is inevitable. Yes, in this case, nationalism is probably a factor, but I've seen other cases, like in submarine naming, where the conflicts with the name of the ship were simply ignored because the article title was at some title other than the plain name of the ship based on a predisambiguating canned format. This is a general problem that afflicts any group of articles for which there is a convention to always name them something other than their plain commonly used and easily recognized name, even if there is no conflict with that plain name.

A variant manifestation of this problem is that for articles that belong to name classes that are predisambiguated often the plain name ends up not existing at all (not even as a dab), or if there is a dab or another article at the plain name, the article is not linked from it. These are hard to find, because basically you'd have to go through, for example, all cities in Idaho, or all Russian subs, and make sure that each such topic is properly represented from the plain name (the plain name is either a redirect, or if it is a dab page, there is a link to the city from the dab, or if it is article about another topic, verify that that topic is primary and the topic in question is linked from the article in a hat note).

Another example: for a time all TV episode titles for some series (like Lost) were predabbed by including the TV series name in parens after the episode name, whether the plain episode name had conflicts or not. The result was that often there would be an article at, say, Episode Name (Some Series) But the plain Episode Name would be a red link. This was all quickly fixed when the guidelines for TV episodes were changed to only dab with series name when there was a conflict with the plain episode name.

Again, getting back to human nature, there is no motivation to go through this process for articles with predabbed titles because it's natural to think that since a topic is at the "proper" (according to some predisambiguating naming conventions) title, there are more important things to do. So this stuff falls through the cracks, and articles like Norfolk remain as articles instead of being turned into dab pages. These are the unintended consequences that naturally result when we adopt predisambiguating naming conventions, whether it's for submarine names, TV episode names, or the names of U.S. cities... --Born2cycle (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short, yes, nationalism might have been the motivation to resist the move in this case, but the fact that the U.S. city naming guidelines dictate that the chief competitor for the name (the city in VA) be predabbed per the comma convention was certainly the excuse given, and probably the main reason, that the resistance to the proposed move succeeded. After all, other similar efforts (also likely to have been motivated by nationalism), such as the great resistance to moving the city in Ireland from Cork to Cork (city), did not succeed, arguably because no specific naming guidelines called for other uses of the name in question (e.g. cork) to be at titles other than the plain name (e.g. Cork). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere in the naming conventions that says just because an article's name is pre-dabbed that it can not be considered in the move request for another similarly named article... WP:NC(CN), WP:PRECISION, WP:PRIMARYUSAGE seem to be more concerned about the entry into the Search box than the actual name of the article. As an example Danzig is a redirect for Gdańsk, rather than a redirect to Danzig (band) or Danzig (disambiguation). If the argument that Norfolk, Virginia has no claim to Norfolk had any validity, then Danzig certainly wouldn't be pointing to Gdańsk because of the article's current name. All in all, the faulty logic of other editors is not the fault of this naming convention, but rather of the editors making the argument... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the fault of the closer who bought into that logic. Editors can make any argument they like, valid or not. The closer is suppose to sort it all out. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated instances can be blamed on those responsible, but when problematic behavior becomes common, it's time to accept that such behavior is the norm given the system as it is, and to look for a change in the system to solve the systemic problem. In this case the systemic problem is the practice of unnecessary disambiguation, and the solution is to stop that practice. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Bobblehead, I am not claiming that the argument that a predabbed article (like Norfolk, Virginia) has no claim to its plain name (e.g., Norfolk) is logically valid - I'm saying enough people believe such arguments are valid, implicitly if not explicitly - that it has a real significant effect on how editors behave with respect to naming articles, creating appropriate redirects, making sure proper links are created on dab pages and in hat notes on primary use articles, etc., and that effect results in far more problems than would exist if no articles in Wikipedia were predabbed (dabbed even when there are no conflicts with the plain name), but were only dabbed when necessary to avoid actual conflicts. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)True, true. The closing admin does need to take the argument's into consideration. But then, based on the closer's comments on their talk page, it looks like they didn't factor in either sides' arguments because no one proved that the county in England was not the primary topic. Not sure how that would have been done, since it's much hard to prove something isn't the primary topic than it is... In the example case, I don't see how having CityName, unless otherwise necessary, would have prevented the closing admin from coming to the same conclusion. Based on the other comments in the discussion, this seems more like another Boston, Lincolnshire vs. Boston, Massachusetts fight than a "But no other article is using it" fight.. Just, in this case, there is no clear Primary Topic with which to resolve the problem. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't see how having CityName, unless otherwise necessary, would have prevented the closing admin from coming to the same conclusion." Whether not having the comma convention for U.S. cities would have prevented the closing admin from coming to the same conclusion is a separate question. My point is not about the close, but about all those arguing and voting oppose, and the effect of not having the comma convention on them, their arguments, and their votes that ultimately swayed the closer. Not having the comma convention for U.S. cities would have prevented those on the opposing side to make arguments based on the premise that the VA city must, by convention, not be at Norfolk. That's just plain, logical fact. They would perhaps have still tried to rationalize, but would have much less to work with, and much less with which to persuade others to also oppose the proposed move. The closer's assessment would likely have been moot, since, as was the case with Cork, in the end reason would have prevailed. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serge, my point is that even if this convention allowed Norfolk, VA to be at Norfolk, the move discussion would have failed, because those that supported the move failed to show there wasn't a primary usage. Additionally, as almost all the other discussions between UK/US names have shown, most of the arguments used to keep a UK name at a location are primarily done for nationalistic purposes (i.e. "Boston, Massachusetts is named after Boston, Lincolnshire, so therefore Boston, Lincolnshire should be at Boston!!!!!!"), removing this naming convention will not change that. It will just mean a different argument than "Norfolk, Virginia will be located at Norfolk, Virginia regardless of this article's name" argument will be used to keep the article at the base name. The constant fighting over the Boston redirect and the location of the city of Cork are perfect examples of this. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 13:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Bobblehead, yes, those that supported the move failed to persuade enough of the others that there was no primary use for Norfolk. But why? Many of them discounted the claim of the only other significant potential use of the name, the VA city, because this naming convention dictated that that article not be at Norfolk. So from their perspective, there was no other significant use of Norfolk, so of course arguments that the one significant use was not primary failed. If this convention mandated that the VA city be at Norfolk, and that additional precision be added to the title only when necessary for disambiguation, it would be a completely different situation. Do you really not see that, or are you pulling my leg? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an underlying reasonable assumption that is made about naming conventions, especially about those that are specific to some area of articles (like this one is with respect to U.S. cities), and that is this: naming conventions specify where articles are supposed to be. The implied corollary to that is that articles are not supposed to be at places other than where the naming conventions dictate.

When we apply this reasoning to this case, we see that the VA city is supposed to be (according to this guideline) at Norfolk, Virginia and is not supposed to be at Norfolk. How can we argue with that?

At the same time, the county in England is supposed to be at Norfolk, unless it conflicts with some other relatively significant use of that name that is also supposed to be at Norfolk (which the city in VA is not).

Even though they don't state it exactly like that, that is essentially what those who discount the claim of conflict with topics that must be predabbed are arguing, and understandably so. It's a very practical and reasonable argument that is given credence solely by the existence of specific guidelines, like this one, that mandate predisambiguation.

And, because articles subject to predisambiguation are "supposed to be" at their predabbed titles, and are not "supposed to be" at their plain names, editors of these articles naturally pay less attention to how the article topic is represented at the plain name (making sure the plain name redirects to the article, or the article is linked in a hat note or on a dab page at that plain name) than they would if the article was "supposed to be" at the plain name.

This is one of the reasons I oppose predisambiguation in any guideline in general, and in the U.S city guideline in particular. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of one more way to explain this point. With this convention the way that it is, the only real candidates for Norfolk are:

1. an article about the county
2. make it a dab page

However, if this convention did not mandate predisambiguation for the city in VA to be at Norfolk, Virginia (and, thus, not at Norfolk), then the choices for Norfolk would be:

1. an article about the county
2. an article about the VA city
3. make it a dab page

In the current situation, the dab page choice is one of two choices, so those supporting the county naturally oppose it. In the situation where the VA city was a candidate to be at Norfolk, now the dab page choice is a reasonable compromise. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For each of the following U.S. city names (taken off the top of my head, then alphabetized), consider:

1. Before clicking on it, do you think this name has a primary topic?
2. If so, do you think the primary topic is the U.S. city, or is some other use primary?
3. Okay, now click on it.
4. How did you do? If your initial answer was different from how it is actually used, what do you think now that you see how that name is used/represented in WP? Good enough, or a case for WP:RM?

The list: Albany, Anaheim, Billings, Birmingham, Chesterfield, Salem, Long Beach, Oakland, Springfield, Tampa

After looking at all of these examples, do you see a pattern that indicates a problem?

--Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, not really. The only ones that jumped out at me being clear redirects to particular U.S. locations (Anaheim, Oakland, Tampa) were in fact redirects as I expected. Birmingham I expected to be the title of the article on the English city, as it was. The others I expected to be DAB pages. But, hey - I'm Canadian and frankly to me a chesterfield is a couch, so what do I know?! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree with Skeezix. The only link I was moderately surprised about was Albany going to a dab, but that's predominantly because I'm from the US so had to memorize all the state's capital's in school. If I lived outside the US, I would have no reason to know that Albany was the capital of New York. I also know what you were going for with Billings, Montana, but you're talking about a relatively small city in the middle of nowhere. I wager most Americans have never even heard of Billings, much less people that live outside the US. Heck, I'm not even sure what your point is with Salem. I thought Salem, Oregon initially, then Salem, Massachusetts because of the Salem witch trials, followed by the cat.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have worked harder/longer to find better examples. These are literally off the top of my head, not selected to demonstrate the point, though I felt even semi-randomly selected city names should do it.

In fact, I do think that that U.S. cities of Albany and Billings meet the primary topic criteria, based on a quick glance at google test results, yet those names do not redirect to the U.S. city articles. Furthermore, I think that Birmingham, Alabama is sufficiently important to dethrone the English city from primary topic, and the combined uses of the very popular name, Chesterfield, should also make Chesterfield a dab page.

But do your own test. Pick a few cities in the U.S. to which you've traveled, add the cities in which your parents and maybe some other relatives were born, a few cities picked at random that have NFC and AFC teams, and do your own check. I'm confident that in almost any such list you will find at least one city that is improperly represented. Either its name should be a redirect to the city article (but it isn't), or some other topic is at the name (which should be dab page), or links or missing, or something. Such anomalies are very common in any category of topics for which predisambiguation is the norm. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. With all due respects, I'm not sure that I'd agree with your thoughts on the primary usage of the above-listed terms. And, sorry, but it seems obvious that the U.K. city is the primary usage of Birmingham. I don't think you can chalk that one up to British nationalists or the U.S. naming convention. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder, primary topic does not merely mean most important or most popular usage. Primary topic criteria is: "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)". When you google a term, the primary topic of that term, if there is one, should dominate the results. Compare the results of googling for Paris or London with Birmingham search results. Well, there is no comparison. Now, it's true that the English city is more important, but that does not make it primary. For example, the usage statistics:

• Birmingham,_Alabama has been viewed 32601 times in 200901. 1
• Birmingham has been viewed 79197 times in 200901 2

• Results 1 - 10 of about 11,700,000 for +Birmingham +England.
• Results 1 - 10 of about 10,300,000 for +Birmingham +Alabama

• Results 1 - 10 of about 2,760,000 for +Birmingham UK -AL -Alabama England.
• Results 1 - 10 of about 5,560,000 for +Birmingham -UK AL Alabama -England.

That is simply not the domination in pages view or ghits that indicates a primary topic. Not even close. The Alabama city gets almost half as many views, and that includes everyone who goes to view the English city first (because they searched for "Birmingham"). In ghits it's even closer, and in the second test the AL city clearly wins. Now, this is not the place to argue about Birmingham, but I'm just illustrating the point that U.S. cities do not get proper representation because of predisambiguation per the comma convention. If anyone proposed a move of Birmingham, I can virtually guarantee that a significant number of those opposing will do so because they discount the weight of the AL city because this convention dictates that it not be at Birmingham even if it was the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the low number of google hits for Birmingham, UK is your selection of search terms. Few pages use both England and UK. Using just one of the terms gives you 8 (+England) or 13 million (+UK). The use of al, which google matches with anyone called al along with a load of similar words. You can get different results simply by adding a +.

• Birmingham +england -alabama -al +uk = 2,290,000
• Birmingham -england +alabama +al -uk = 1,170,000

The usage statistics are pretty convincing. Currently at least 58% are where they want to be with another 41% wanting to go to Brum, AL and 1% wanting something else. If the Birmingham page was changed to the disambiguation page then only the 1% wanting other pages would benifit with the majority of readers now having an extra click. This asumes that everyone uses the Birmingham page to get to their own. The real figure is probably more like 75% of the readers wanting the page for the English city. Eckerslike (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems to deal exclusively with the question of disambiguation and similar tags, not with the naming of settlements in general (which is dealt with at WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). We ought to either merge the two pages (my preference; possibly with some of the country-specific stuff moved to separate pages), or at least rename this one to indicate its actual topical scope.--Kotniski (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've successfully merged this with NCGN. If people prefer to keep the disambiguation topic separate, then I think the pages ought to have more transparent names, like "NC (geographic name disambiguation)".--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]