Talk:Adamsville, Atlanta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Adamsville (Atlanta))

Comments[edit]

Sparse information, but mildly important to Atlanta. Ethan (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved, except Margaret Mitchell (Atlanta neighborhood). Although WP:USPLACE recommends the comma convention, Margaret Mitchell, Atlanta would probably cause additional confusion. Miniapolis 17:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


– Drop the parenthetical disambiguation in favor of the more common comma convention. The comma convention is recommended by WP:NCDAB and WP:NCGN. I found Google Maps using Grant Park Historic District and Lindbergh/Morosgo instead of Grant Park and Lindbergh respectively. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC) // Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC) // Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Current usage for other cities is relevant. In an earlier discussion back in 2010, I surveyed neighborhood articles for some major cities. Here were my results at that time:
  • Los Angeles: formerly used the format Neighborhoodname, Los Angeles, California, since changed to Neighborhooodname, Los Angeles. The only exception to the pattern I found was Hollywood.
  • San Francisco: Mostly uses the pattern Neighborhoodname, San Francisco although it apparently once used Neighborhoodname, San Francisco, California. Rare exceptions are made for well-known neighborhoods such as Haight-Ashbury.
  • San Diego: formerly listed as Neighborhoodname, San Diego, California, since changed to Neighborhoodname, San Diego. The only exception to the pattern appears to be La Jolla.
  • Seattle: Mostly uses the pattern Neighborhoodname, Seattle.
  • Chicago: Mostly Neighborhoodname, Chicago, but occasionally just Neighborhoodname.
  • New York: Mostly Neighborhoodname, Boroughname but some of the best known ones are simply Neighborhoodname.
  • Boston: A mixture of Neighborhoodname, Boston and Neighborhoodname.
  • Atlanta: A mixture of Neighborhoodname (Atlanta) and Neighborhoodname.
  • Philadelphia: Mostly Neighborhoodname, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Omaha: Mostly Neighborhoodname, Omaha, Nebraska.
  • Phoenix: Mostly Neighborhoodname, Phoenix, Arizona with a few exceptions made for obvious ones like South Phoenix.
  • Honolulu: Mostly Neighborhoodname.

It appears that the "comma, city" convention is common but not universal. Another survey, based on neighborhood categories in some states, is here and shows a much broader variety of usage. Neighborhoodnames appear to be a situation where there is no generally agreed upon format. Based on that, and based on the fact that some people feel the parenthesis convention fits our titling policy better, I would incline toward leaving these page names as they are. Per WP:TITLE, "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." --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will show the comma convention is fairly established now: [1]. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update to the above list: Philadelphia neighborhoods are now listed at Neighborhoodname, Philadelphia. Phoenix neighborhoods are listed at a mixture of Neighborhoodname and Neighborhoodname (Phoenix). Omaha is now a complete mishmash of Neighborhoodname; Neighborhoodname, Omaha; Neighborhoodname (Omaha); Neighborhoodname (Omaha, Nebraska); and even Neighborhoodname. Omaha. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is not quite a correct description of how those neighborhoods are titled. Miami neighborhood names are actually a combination of Neighborhoodname and Neighborhoodname (Miami). The other cities also use the bare Neighborhoodname if the name is "unique," and Neighborhoodname, City when "disambiguation" is needed. There are actually two separate issues that are unresolved with regard to neighborhood names: whether to add the cityname in parentheses or after a comma, and whether to add the cityname at all or to omit it if the neighborhood name is "unique". BTW I see that Averette was also the one who changed the names of Phoenix neighborhoods from Neighborhoodname, Phoenix, Arizona to either Neighborhoodname or Neighborhoodname (Phoenix). --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, I was taking it for granted that unambiguous names aren't given any further disambiguation for any Florida city, or for most other cities I can see. In my opinion, this should be the standard practice whether we decide on commas or parentheses for disambiguation.--Cúchullain t/c
That is a position which has never been definitely agreed to - and which is not observed at most of the cities listed in my summary and Marcus's summary above. It was discussed at length in 2010, for general policy here, without any definite resolution, and for neighborhoods of an individual city here, with the result that the cityname was retained for all neighborhoods in that city. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I apologize for bringing up this side issue. The question here is whether to use parentheses or a comma for the Atlanta neighborhoods listed. I should have left it at that. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it definitely goes to show the lack of consistency. This needs to be resolved, it's hard enough to clean up these articles properly as it is.--Cúchullain t/c 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*As I just said at the related Washington neighborhood RM, in the spirit of finding a consensus, I'll support adopting the comma convention as evidently the most common way of doing it on Wikipedia. I still oppose adding any disambiguator when there's nothing to distinguish it from.--Cúchullain t/c 03:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Disambiguating communities with commas is not common; doing so in the titles wrongly suggests that it is. Whatever community names are unique shouldn't be disambiguated at all. --B2C 05:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of these require disambiguation. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I am probably the one of the most frequent contributor to neighborhood articles about Atlanta and would prefer to see Atlanta aspire to the same standard as Chicago, New York, and London. If Jacksonville FL is not in line with that, well, so be it, let's copy the big boys. Oppose Lindbergh/Morosgo, Grant Park Historic District (I favor using the official neighborhood names - as Atlanta is lucky enough to have official designation for these and even neighborhood quasi-"governments"), and Oppose any and all unneeded disambiguation - if there is only one of something, list it under its name and that's it. Keizers (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that most (ambiguous) neighborhood articles for the Florida cities did in fact use the comma convention before Averette moved them. As I say, this is in fact why the Jacksonville articles are inconsistent - he was in the middle of moving them when I asked him to stop, leaving three at the old convention. At the same time, however, Born2cycle is quite right that parenthetical disambiguation is the usual method for virtually every other topic, and it's used for various other cities such as the Florida cities, Washington, D.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, and Pittsburgh. A good case could be made either way, but it's high time we came to a greater consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 18:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The so-called "comma convention" is something I've not noticed outside Wikipedia. To someone unfamiliar with this convention, the title Margaret Mitchell, Atlanta might suggest that the article is about the doings of Margaret Mitchell (the person) in Atlanta, whereas Margaret Mitchell (Atlanta neighborhood), while admittedly much longer to type, makes it clear what the article is about. There is a comma convention for setting off the name of a city from the state or country it's in. Doing the same thing with neighborhoods means they will look the same. It could cause confusion or at least slow down reading. —rybec 07:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems the majority of American cities uses the comma convention, so to me it makes sense that Atlanta should too. I also agree that it would be great if we could get it consistent across all US cities. For "Grant Park Historic District" and "Lindbergh/Morosgo" I'm ambivalent, but I'd suggest making a separate RM for them as it's really a separate issue and distracting from the main issue in this one. Jenks24 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For what it's worth, the Washington RM has closed as no consensus to move to the comma convention.--Cúchullain t/c 14:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support except for "Grant Park Historic District" and "Lindbergh/Morosgo" - The anonymous IP has a valid point regarding the slash, and "Grant Park Historic District" seems too much like a dab to me. I'm open on leaving "Margaret Mitchell (Atlanta neighborhood)" alone, though. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Lindbergh/Morosgo" is the official name of the neighborhood and the original article title when I created it. Another Atlanta expert changed it to "Lindbergh (Atlanta)" because Lindbergh is the most common way to refer to the neighborhood. So either "Lindbergh/Morosgo" (with slash, official neighborhood name) or "Lindbergh, Atlanta" would be good. For Grant Park, it should be "Grant Park, Atlanta" as "Grant Park" is the official neighborhood name and the most common way to call the neighborhood, which encompasses the historic district, which is an aspect of the neighborhood. Keizers (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Applying the comma convention to neighborhoods is a really bad idea. The comma convention makes sense for U.S. cities as that is how they are commonly referenced. For the most part, it results in peculiar neologisms when applied to neighborhoods. older ≠ wiser 02:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better idea – neither of these disambiguations gives much clue to the topic. Why not "XXX (Atlanta neighborhood)"? Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on most of these (at least for now), but I oppose the rename to "Grant Park Historic District". Grant Park is a living, breathing neighborhood. The designation of the historic district did not change that status. Because it's still primarily a neighborhood and only secondarily a historic district (and not a fossilized community, nor the property of the National Register of Historic Places), the neighborhood name should take precedence. --Orlady (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adamsville, Atlanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adamsville,_Atlanta&oldid=1204519627"