Talk:San Francisco/Archive 4

Frisco[edit]

Who first created the nickname of Frisco? Many Californians frown upon the nickname. 67.188.172.165 03:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. It has been despised for a long time, though:

Whoever after due and proper warning shall be heard to utter the abominable word "Frisco," which has no linguistic or other warrant, shall be deemed guilty of a High Misdemeanor, and shall pay into the Imperial Treasury as penalty the sum of twenty-five dollars. - NORTON I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, 1872

Everyone in San Francisco frowns on it; it's too easy to confuse with Frito. --Paul 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misconception. It was in widespread use locally for a long time, is still used by some, and seems to be making a comeback. Even Herb Caen admitted it was OK. The original objections appear to be more about class than hometown. I'd gladly bring it back in exchange for the auditorily adominable neologism "San Fran."[1] Lagringa 09:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"san fran" is a neologism?! i doubt that. Sparsefarce 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in knowing the answer to that, but it would be very hard to find. Maybe it's new to me because I wasn't exposed to non-natives until the '90s. I do think, however, that Herb Caen would have spoke out against it if it were in widespread use when he was alive. He did come out against the "San Fran-cisco" mispronunciation (as opposed to "San Frncisco"), which was obviously a precursor to the odious "San Fran." Lagringa 22:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I first migrated to San Francisco in the late 60’s, the nickname “frisco” was widely used by many of my piers. The reason most ceased to use the term was because of Herb Caen. As I recall he stated that to use the term frisco as a name for our beloved city was the equivalent of calling an African American the n-word. Now, most locals despise the name. Infogeek77 09:23, 8 December 2006

I'm 40, grew up in S.F. and have absolutely NO problem with Frisco. It always seemed to me like some strange issue that people who migrate here then seem to take up the issue in order to somehow prove that they're 'in the know' somehow about what it means to be a 'proper' local... are you listening, Yuppies? My dad was a longshoreman, and he tells me that it was always 'Frisco' to him and his workmates.

I may be only half your age but I'm every bit a native San Franciscan and I would never call it the f-word. 192.82.6.26 19:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed population estimates[edit]

To see my reasoning for another article, please see Talk:San Diego, California#Repeated boosterism. The reasoning is the same although the numbers are different. Thank you. Ufwuct 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to the naming conventions for US cities[edit]

Once again there is a proposal to change the Wikipedia's long standing naming convention for US Cities.

There has been a small, but very vocal, and very persistent group of editors who have been trying, without much success, to overturn the "city, state" naming convention for US cities. First they tried at the naming convention level, but failed to achieve consensus for their views. They then changed tactics and tried to change the titles for several US cities, including three failed attempts to move Los Angeles, California, and one each for San Francisco, California and Anaheim, California. The only city that I know where they succeeded (after a couple of different surveys) was Chicago, but even that city has recently been moved back to Chicago, Illinois.

Now there is a revival of a fairly recent proposal to have the article titles for a small number of cities violate the very long-standing "city, state" naming convention. The discussion and voting are currently going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Associated Press. Since the past debates have ended up involving a large amount of time for California editors, I hope that they will weigh in on this latest proposal. ^Blank ^Verse 11:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you high? I looked at the archive at Talk:Chicago for when you posted this, and do you know what I found? The article was moved to Chicago from Chicago, Illinois, and there was no attempt to move it back. If you're going to make a claim about an article being moved, you have to remember that people can look to see if it was in fact moved. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 04:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide[edit]

The Dayton page lists local TV & radio stations by call letters. I think that's a great idea, & should be done here (& on all U.S. city pages, in fact). Trekphiler 06:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media Section[edit]

I added to the Media section but would b happy to discuss a new page called "History of San Francisco media" . 67.101.97.68 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think spinning off detail at this level to another article would be entirely appropriate. Folks often complain about the size of the article as it is. --Paul 12:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaches and parks[edit]

Should "San Francisco has the highest percent of its land devoted to parks of any large U.S. city.[2]" be included in the beaches and parks section; I didn't know because it says the section is mature. —Christopher Mann McKay 01:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable addition, but the reference provided doesn't mention where this information comes from. I think we need a better reference before adding it.--Paul 12:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism section[edit]

The mention of Tony Bennett (sp?) just doesn't sound right. Does anyone agree? DocRocks1 05:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. The sentence with Tony Bennett, the Birdman of Alcatraz, and Rice-a-Roni explains the prior sentence point about San Francisco being well known world wide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul.h (talk • contribs) 12:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Kearny Street[edit]

Is it pronounced Karney or Kurney? Thanks, --Vanka5 06:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Kurney" is correct.--Paul 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Cities[edit]

Most City pages have Sister Cities listed, but this one doesn't. Can someone find them and add them. Thanks. RockRNC 00:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were removed to another page on purpose. —Kyриx 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is under "See Also"

Sister cities of San Francisco, California --Paul 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Fransisco Area Code[edit]

Considering the fact that I have come into such a situation that has me searching for San Fransisco's area code, it's probable that others will, too. If anyone knows the area code, wold they please add it to the article? If it's already there, it would be nice if someone would kindly direct me to it.--Dark Green 21:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Jive four-one-five" ^_^ -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 04:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

Why is there no information on this? Don't almost every article on a city has it? Manderiko 20:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art School[edit]

I am confused why someone deletes my addition of CCA, California College of the Arts, to the art school section every time I add it?? maxbatt 2:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The CCA entry has been removed at least six times by multiple editors over the last nine months primarily because it is an Oakland based school, not a San Francisco based one. CCA is listed in the daughter article, and of course, the Oakland article. The SF article used to mention UC Berkeley and Stanford, but those were also removed multiple times for the same reasons. The daughter article was created during the Peer Review and FAC processes to cut down on the number of potentially unending lists. In deciding how to manage the summary style for colleges and universities, editors chose the criteria of based or founded in San Francisco. The sole exception is the Cordon Bleu program which was mentioned because of its notoriety in that segment. --Paul 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I don't know where you are getting your information from, but CCA is primarily a San Francisco based school. The undergraduate programs are roughly spread equally between the campuses, and all graduate departments are located in San Francisco. So if you are going to omit it, omit all the art schools; it is wrong to list the others and not CCA- CCA is the most esteemed art school in the Bay Area, with most students in SF. maxbatt 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the CCA website. The School of the California Guild of Arts and Crafts in Berkeley was founded in Berkeley in 1907, and moved to its campus at Broadway and College Avenue in Oakland in 1922. In 1936 it was renamed California College of Arts and Crafts. The Oakland campus was expanded and improved over the next sixty years, until it first put a facility in San Francisco in 1996 when "the college opened a new permanent San Francisco campus to house the architectural and design programs." I'll admit it isn't black and white, but it seems to be pushing things to call CCA primarily a San Francisco school. It's not that CCA isn't listed -- it's in the daughter article -- it just isn't in the main article, which can't list every school. --Paul 03:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Paul. I won't try to help out anymore since I guess you editors make your own arbitrary "calls." maxbatt 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map request[edit]

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in California may be able to help!

There is no good map showing the internal features of the county, such as the entities listed on Neighborhoods in San Francisco, California, nor the county boundaries and territory, including the outlying areas. [3] might be a helpful starting place. -- Beland 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one possibility: http://coffeeratings.com/html/SF-neighborhood-map.shtml

The New Yorkers have one in a bit more detail. Anyone up to creating the SF vertion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Manhattan_neighborhoods.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam415 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic information?[edit]

Why was the standard demographic (and geographic) information deleted? There were some important facts there (proportion of men to women, age distribution, etc.) which are absent in the current version of this article. I wanted to restore it, but seeing that there was a large discussion page, I thought it better to ask here. Would it be a good idea to restore the missing information? --Smeira 13:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reference as to when this information was deleted. The demographics section has been essentially unchanged for the last eight months. Any improvement or referenced addition is welcomed. --Paul 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes in lead?[edit]

A different article I've been working on recently underwent a featured article review, and it did not pass, with one of the frequent criticisms by reviewers that the lead section should not be heavily footnoted, but should provide a summary of topics that are cited with references in the body of the article. So, the San Francisco article has already passed featured article status. What's with the demand that we footnote undisputed facts (such as the fact that San Francisco is a popular international tourist destination)? That fact was already cited in the article. Can anyone reasonably argue otherwise? -- Sfmammamia 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual orientation (gasp!) ought to be mentioned in lead[edit]

A few minutes after I edited the mention at the end of the lead of S.F.'s role as a mecca/refuge for LGTers, someone removed it. I think something definitely deserves to be there in the lead. It's an undeniable fact of life in the City that affects everything from politics to economics; to not mention it would be as large and obvious omission as not mentioning the cable cars or that orange bridge up north. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; ending with just landmarks is bland. But how are we going to word this? I find "non-heterosexual orientation," uh, kind of weird. —Kurykh 04:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded a bit, but I don't think "demographic" is quite the right word. I still find "community" an apt description, but IL2BA objects. —Kurykh 04:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with "non-heterosexual"; it describes LGBT perfectly, and this is spozed to be an encyclopedia, after all, no? So nothing wrong with technical here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it is wrong. I just said it is awkward. And when you say not to touch it while discussing, it goes for you too, so let's not have irony in our statements, please. —Kurykh 05:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York City doesn't mention that it has the highest percentage of Jews of any big city in the lead, Philadelphia doesn't mention its predominate Italian community. Why is it necessary for the LBGT community to be headlined in the lead of the San Francisco article? Group identity highlighting like this is a fad and non encyclopedic. In 30 years this won't be noteworthy, and hardly is now. --Paul 05:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also spending all these words: ' non-heterosexual orientation (including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered, collectively known as LGBT)' to define LBGT in the lead is completely out of proportion and much more out of step with the relative importance of the fact than the initial edit was. --Paul 05:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can summarize that as "people identifying as LGBT." If only I was permitted. —Kurykh 05:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about New York and Jews; in defense, I'd say the difference here is that the perceived (and actual) character of San Francisco is more inextricably bound up with its larger-than-average share of gay, lesbian, etc., people. Probably true of Boston as well, but in SF's case, the city is seen as a "gay" city, much more so than, say, New York is known as a "Jewish" city (pace Jesse Jackson's unfortunate remarks). San Francisco does function to some extent as a refuge for LGBT folks, with protections codified into law and an implicit understanding that things like gay-bashing are not tolerated there, so perhaps it does merit mention in the lead. So far as the verbosity goes, I think I used too many words, but I'd still much rather have a more accurate description than some mushy, touchy-feely prose that uses that wretched word, "community". +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about stripping down your current version to my above example, and/or maybe expand the LGBT abbreviation whilst including the link? It doesn't have "community" in it. :) —Kurykh 06:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? I changed it to

It is also known as a haven for people of different sexual orientations, collectively known as LGBT.

Actually, I'd like to add a bit to that to make it more descriptive:

It is also known as a social and legal haven for people of different sexual orientations, collectively known as LGBT.

While it's well-known as a social refuge, it also provides real legal protections, not least of which is the support of city gov't, led by Gavin Newsom, for civil unions. What think you? +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "different" should be "various" or "a variety of"? Also, "collectively known as" can be "often called the," but I'm not too worried about that. —Kurykh 06:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"special protections codified into law...so perhaps it does merit mention in the lead." There is no mention in the article of special protections. Nor is there any mention of the city as a refuge. Both of these assertions would be hard to prove with high quality references, and both misrepresent both discrimination against LBGTs and their place in SF. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article, not an independent editorial. Putting this in the lead will just cause more vandalism to the article than there is now (which is already substantial). The statement is potentially inaccurate and certainly unwise to feature in the lead. --Paul 10:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Notes", "References", etc., all mixed up[edit]

Seems to me the reference material in the article is badly organized. First we have a "Notes" section (which in most articles here is called "References"), then a "References" section which redundantly lists only some of the works mentioned in "Notes", then a "Further reading" section.

First of all, I don't see why that "Reference" section is here at all; it seems put there to somehow buttress the "Notes", but that doesn't make any sense to me. Why not put all works actually referenced in the article (via <ref> ... </ref>) into a single section? Why have a separate section to describe books, when they should be already described in the page in the first place?

So there should really only be two sections:

References, with items tagged as described above (this can include both web links and print publications)
Bibliography, for books not referenced, or only mentioned in passing in the article.

I think this would make a whole lot more sense, regardless of what the MOS has to say about it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current appendix organization was adopted when the article was revamped for FAC. Editors followed the guidelines in WP:MOSHEAD, as they were encouraged to do during the FAC review. A review of the FAC process will show that the lack of a "References" section was an obstacle for receiving FAC support. It makes perfect sense to me. "Notes" are footnotes. "References" are the printed resources that the "Notes" were taken from, and "Further Reading" is a list of sources for further reading. If other articles have not followed the guidelines in WP:MOSHEAD, that's more to their detriment than an indictment of what was done in this article. I see nothing wrong with the WP:MOSHEAD recommendations and see no reason to change the current appendix organization.--Paul 07:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That page to which you referred is by no means the end-all and be-all of how to format the reference material in an article. In fact, most of the articles I edit don't conform to their apparently suggested format:

See also
Notes
References
Further reading
External links

So why don't we just forget about that guideline for the time being, and instead focus on what the best solution would be for this article, 'k? +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Paul h. on this one. WP:MOSHEAD and WP:CITE are clear; this article meets both guidelines. In my still somewhat short experience with Feature Article reviews, Wikipedia editors who conduct them can be quite demanding about what needs to be done to references to ensure the article meets WP standards. Clearly the organization of this article's end sections reflected consensus for this article before ILike2BeAnonymous changed it. Further, I don't see how the change improves the end sections. -- Sfmammamia 15:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you could at least humor me by answering my question: what is the purpose of the current "References" section, which supposedly refers to items in "Notes"? Why not just put all references in the article in one place? I'd appreciate hearing your take on this. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay and Lesbian population in the lead[edit]

The final paragraph in the lead does not need to have an overly technical representation of the gay and lesbian population of San Francisco. While the LGBT population of San Francisco is certainly one of its most internationally recognizable elements, it is one aspect of the many things that are recognizable about San Francisco and should probably be included in the lead, I would prefer that all the items listed there maintain a parallel structure.--71.6.12.114 02:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what, specifically, are you objecting to here? +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is an article about San Francisco. Defining LGBT is what wikilinks are for and doesn't need to be done here, and certainly not in the lead paragraph. Second of all, the sentence which I removed is not in parallel structure with the rest of the items which are listed. Including the LGBT population as one of the many recognizable elements of San Francisco - along with the fog, the architecture, etc - is by far the most neutral way of including it in this article.--71.6.12.114 02:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer the most recent version by 71.6.12.114. 1) it doesn't use "haven" which conjures up images of the Warsaw ghetto, 2) it isn't tacked on to the end of the paragraph as an afterthought, and 3) it doesn't have the definition. MUCH better.--Paul 02:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about the Warsaw Ghetto, but the inescapable fact is that SF is a haven for gay/lesbian, etc., folks, who are, let's not forget, still subject to measurable levels of discrimination, threats, intimidation, etc., elsewhere. Some mention of that fact would be warranted, even in the lead (provided it didn't upset the "parallel structure" of that section too much). +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A light mentioning of the LGBT is good enough. This article is for SF, not directly about LGBT. Though I do think that SF is a haven for the gay population. Chris! _{my talk} 04:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the thing; not only is it a haven for gays & lesbians, but that is one of the defining characteristics of the city. Not mentioning that up front is kind of like trying to describe Mecca with no mention of Islam. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that might sounds a little pov as it might be different to everyone. But I do agree with you. Chris! _{my talk} 04:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one will argue with the fact that SF is known for its large LBGT population. However, a great many people will argue with the statements that 1) SF is a "haven for LGBT," and that 2) this is a defining characteristic of the city. The first kind of statement arguably might belong in the lead of the SF article. The second set of statements, if they belong anywhere, would make most sense in an article on LBGT politics or sociology. Finally, the second set of statements is tarnished with POV and is almost impossible to back up with an unbiased verifiable source. It's best to leave the lead as it is now.--Paul 05:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's not really disputable whether that is a defining characteristic of San Francisco; pretty much everybody from Act Up! on the one hand and those bigots from Kansas who descend on the city periodically on the other hand would agree on that much. It's not really a tangential statement, like what kind of engines Muni buses use, or whatever. Of course, this doesn't prove that it should go in the lead, but I think it's a pretty compelling argument for some mention there. In fact, I object to the current state of things, with this "LGBT" thing stuck in there (how many people are going to know what that means?). We can and should do better.

So far as "defining characteristic of the city" goes, that could simply be implied by saying something like "... is known for ..." or similar. No need to introduce bias (aka "POV") into the article. But really, nobody can argue that it isn't a "haven". +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. The discussion can, of course, continue at WP:CITY or another venue where relevant naming conventions are under discussion. Dekimasu よ! 10:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco, California → San Francisco — This is the primary topic, and disambiguation is not needed. —Yath 09:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support. As the city has already occupied the primary topic, redirection and further disambiguation are not necessary. --supernorton 10:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the fourth (or fifth) time. With redirects, there is no good reason to do this, San Francisco has never been "lost" to anyone. It is not simpler, it is more complex as you take one perfectly good rule and start making exceptions based on "well known" to the decision. The number of times this has been proposed and rejected is probably approaching a Wikipedia record. If the editors advocating this were to spend 50% of the effort on editing and adding content that they do working on this perennial loser, we'd have far more Featured Articles. Further, it is interesting that this proposal is being made by editors who don't have a single edit on the standard-following and perfectly well-named San Francisco, California page.--Paul 13:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the primary meaning. Other meanings can be found at San Francisco (disambiguation). Having this article at San Francisco, California leads people into thinking that this is not the primary meaning and that the dis-ambiguation page can be at San Francisco. Georgia guy 14:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Paul's reasoning. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - per consistency of every other U.S. city (except NYC) Reginmund 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But, how are the United States and Canada different that makes it important that all U.S. cities get state suffixes in their title but Toronto and Montreal don't get province suffixes in their titles?? Georgia guy 21:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but don't expect to actually go through the U.S. cities one by one changing them. If you think that this is a silly policy, you should try to get it changed, this isn't how to solve it. Reginmund 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. There has been an attempt to build consensus for what are reasonable deviations from the US place name guideline. There has been no consensus for a change like that. So for now it is better to retain consistency rather then have inconstant and random article names. Vegaswikian 22:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Primary topics should have the unqualified name. --Polaron | Talk 00:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The existing naming convention calls for using the "city, state" format for all U.S. cities. No reason has been given for making an exception to that convention. Since changes to that convention are being discussed, this seems even more precipitous. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — per Will Beback and Reginmund. Also, the San Francisco in California is hardly a uniquely self-identifying name, although it is very common. It was named after San Francisco de Asís, which is Spanish for Saint Francis of Assisi.--Endroit 02:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until there is a bright line dividing the cities where we disambiguate from those we don't. Having no line will lead to a patchwork where 77% have State and the rest don't, for no obvious reason. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per above. The current format should remain for the sake of consistency. Chris! _{my talk} 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strongly Oppose to the 1,000,000th degree - The naming format on here is city, state. I don't think that we should just change this. What's the point in having a format and then making an exception for San Francisco... That's just confusing. If there is a naming convention in place for US city articles then I see no reason to make an exception on this one. I think after this vote we should have a vote to decide whether or not this kind of stuff should just be ignored in the future. It's a waste of time and it does nothing to improve Wikipedia. Let's just put this issue to bed once and for all because it's a waste of time. Elhector 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

There seems a trend to rename famous US cities from "Cityname, Statename" to "Cityname". A list of pretty good arguments is here.--supernorton 10:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a "trend" there is a group of editors who won't take no for an answer and continually push for this ill-considered action. Here is the result of the most recent effort of only a few weeks ago. --Paul 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is why every single "reason" is wrong:

"convention to use the city, state format for U.S. cities allows for exceptions" It didn't used to until these same editors hijacked the Naming Conventions page. It was a STANDARD that U.S. Cities are named CITY, STATE. The fact that the STANDARD has been broken in two or three cases is no reason to break it everywhere, and New York is a special case.
"..is well known... no need to specify the state." No reason not to, either. Why create exceptions and confusion?
"All articles in Wikipedia should follow the Wikipedia naming conventions for common names" Sorry, since the beginning of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) has specified how to name cities, and localized the naming convention.
"Professional encyclopedias, both published and online, typically do not "pre-disambiguate"... neither should we." Old-style encyclopedias don't have "redirect pages" like Wikipedia does, they can't follow a consistent standard like Wikipedia can.
"Chance for confusion with anything else named CITYNAME is negligible." Oh? How about "San Francisco" a city in northeastern Córdoba provincia, north-central Argentina?
Reply: You can't be serious. If you asked people anywhere in the world, not just in the U.S., about "San Francisco", how many do you think would come up with this small, obscure place in Argentina and not The City? +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The name of CITYNAME alone redirects directly to here, therefore there are no known disambiguation issues, and no reason to disambiguate." See above, and the reason for following the standard naming convention is to have an encyclopedic standared for the 20,000 U.S. cities.
"Following the city, state so-called "comma convention" in the title makes it impossible to convey to the reader the one piece of information that the title is supposed to specify: the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article. Is it CITYNAME or CITYNAME, STATENAME? Titles that use the "comma convention" make it impossible for the reader to know!" Oh, please. This is really reaching. No one in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, or 90% of Europe is going to be confused. For the others, do you suppose they won't be able to read the first sentence? And the CITYNAME, STATENAME standard tells you it is a city in the U.S. How would you know otherwise? (To use the same weak argument).
"There is no reason to specify any information in the title (when there is no disambiguation issue) except the most common name used to reference the subject of the article." It's too late to make this argument. The was decided five years ago when the naming standards were written. There are now 20,000 cities named this way, and it is a perfectly good and unconfused standard. And what good is a standard that is subjective? "when there is no disambiguation issue"?
"If a new article is created in the future with a common name that collides with CITYNAME, it will be the responsibility of the creator of that article to manage the ambiguity" Why create a problem, when the current standard avoids it? This is not a reason to change the standard, it is a reason to keep it. By the way, without a standard when a new city article is started, how should it be named?
"The name of the city is CITYNAME; that should be the name of the article." The name is also CITYNAME, STATENAME, and THAT should be the name of the article. Oh wait, it IS the name of the article and it follows the standard.
"Waiting to change the city, state convention does not make sense, since the way to change the convention is one article at a time, like this one." Aha! Now the truth comes out. Perhaps the current naming standard shouldn't be changed? And, it isn't really helpful to create scores of arguments like this because you can't win the big argument.
"CITYNAME, STATENAME is part of a mailing address, not the name of the city" Seems like a good reason for using it to me. Perhaps the U.S. Post Office need easily understandable standard also.
"A world famous city like CITYNAME should be treated consistently with other world famous cities, both inside and outside of the U.S." Another argument for subjectivity. I don't see why "city celebrity" should be a good reason to depart from a encyclopedic naming standard.
"CITYNAME is better known than STATENAME." Wrong again! California is certainly better known than San Francisco. Or, maybe not. How do we tell, and what difference does it make?
"Following a convention that pollutes the article title for readers (by making the common name unclear) in order to supposedly make life easer for editors...." Another telling argument, essentially let's subvert the naming standard because we don't like it.

This is a bad idea, and we are now going to waste a lot of time and words proving it once again.--Paul 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.