Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/April

WP:UKPLACE - place names in England

User:Jza84 changed the policy at WP:UKPLACE which has been in place for nearly a year, without prior discussion here, though his/her edit summary indicates good faith and a genuine belief that s/he was doing the right thing. The version as it was (and which I am about to reinstate) was reached after discussion at Talk:Shirley, Southampton#Move districts of Southampton where a consensus was reached to revise the policy to the version that has been in place until 11 April. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here is the discussion on this project page (rather than just an article page) which led to the text being changed to recognise districts of a town/city: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/April#Disambiguation for English city suburbs. That is conclusive so I'll make that a comment in the policy article so that the next person who wants to 'correct' it will find it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So when is it "inappropriate"? If we mean "for districts within towns and cities...", can't we simply say that?--Kotniski (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems sensible. (Looking back at both discussions, "districts and suburbs" would be a more accurate reflection of the decision). How many editors do we need to approve that change in a policy? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that was the original intention, and if no-one objects, I think we can just do it.--Kotniski (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done with minor wording changes for clarity and consistency.--Kotniski (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on US neighborhoods

What exactly does "neighborhoods within cities do not [follow the comma convention]" mean? Are neighborhoods not disambiguated unless necessary, or do they follow some other convention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torritorri (talk • contribs)

The main reason that the naming convention for US cities is that so many of them have the same names. That'd seem even more of an issue with neighborhoods. Whether it should be "district, city", or "district, city, state" is debatable, but I think that "district" alone would be confusing to readers and editors.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What's confusing is that it's split, I believe fairly evenly, between "District", "District, City" and "District, City, State". Since there's no rules, there's no one way, but I personally believe it should be district + name of the city article (which may or may not contain state) Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 15:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of "City" vs "City, State" vs "City" (as geographical area)

Regarding recent CFD debate one and debate two regarding various Orlando-oriented categories (which is in itself a rehash of any number of previous discussions on the topic), just wanted to ask for advice on what the policy is regarding geographic areas associated with a major city, such as "Orlando". And using Orlando as the example for discussion here, where is the line drawn between what represents the physical city limits of Orlando vs what is the generally-accepted geographic area that represents Orlando? Disney World, for example, is considered as "in Orlando" geographically, but is outside the city limits.

The question came up again as the existing "Attractions in Orlando, Florida" category, which took into account the geographical area, was deemed by an editor as being strictly the city limits which they then took upon themselves to recategorize articles and apply for CFD, etc - yes, it sounds as messy as it was.

The consensus had been, from what we've seen for similar articles and categories, that "List of xxx in City, State" was acceptable for geographic region as opposed to the strict city limits -- in part as it was created this way to meet AP guidelines, as "Orlando" by itself didn't qualify as a standalone back in 2007. As we would like to ensure we're consistent with how the articles and categories are titled, please read the discussion histories that date back to 2007-2008, and offer whatever advice you may have. Thanks for your help. SpikeJones (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is purely a symptom of the rediculousness surrounding the Orlando-related articles stretching back several years. See the results of this search. The terminology "Greater <blank>" where <blank> is the name of the city alone, is common throughout Wikipedia. Just pulling some examples, there's Category:Greater Jacksonville, Category:Greater Grand Forks, Category:Greater Houston. None of these use the state name. I see nothing wrong with the convention noted in the debates above; that "Stuff in Orlando, Florida" is for stuff within the city limits, while "Stuff in Greater Orlando" is for stuff that is outside the city limits, but within the overall region. --Jayron32 02:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)