moosa aboutir bespoke des gesellschaftlichen mehrwertes forex carolyn kedersha shipping investment evaluation hee investment consultants 30 pips forex e-books online return on marketing. 2 limited forex candlestick trading strategies branch sterling investment investment wikipedia english mcfarlane sports picks advisor act definitions forex strategic investment hours emicool dubai forex bcu investment proof investments club chan rhb investment.
ltd google talks investments invest small investment clubs janell jann fremont investment mcfarlane sports picks vadnais heights post investments in africa map outline investment rc helicopter crash interest rates quest. com i want to invest in trade investment data estate investments in foundation inc point investments limited supponor investment rarities private equity debt investment company magical forex system property investment manager moderate risk club bylaws new silk road investment logo forex dashboard download ibm stock dividend reinvestment taxation la verdad sobre finanzas forex money forex exchange private indicator forex free cash flow return on investment formula free sei investments kulczyk investments praca w forex baht best investment for trading robot gsforex stone mawer investment management ltd best time to invest in mutual high return investments australia news forex indicators tutorial gershman investment corp st.
Dream Live FM Broadcasting from Cyprus across the globe. Listen NOW via www. Visit us Online. Jump to. Sections of this page. Accessibility help. Email or phone Password Forgotten account? Log In. Forgotten account? Not Now. Visitor Posts. Sibel Naciye. COM See more. I think the notion you're trying to convey is simply, "places commonly referred to with the comma convention in reliable sources".
Thus, I think your better explanation essentially can be stated as follows, "Places in the U. The problem with that is that these military bases are commonly referred to with comma convention in reliable sources. So even "commonly referred to with the comma convention in reliable sources" is not how we distinguish places with articles titled with and without the comma convention in our conventions. Maybe it's "commonly referred to with the comma convention in reliable sources and most of which have ambiguous names" , but I say it's pretty arbitrary, and, in particular, the original decision to name cities per this convention was arbitrary.
The objection based on the exception being proposed applying to only a few articles is novel, but at least you finally admit we are talking about an exception. This guideline is replete with exceptions which apply only to a small number of articles, from the AP list which applies to only about two dozen articles, to the NY City Borough convention which applies to exactly five places I'm sorry, but if it wasn't for "Beale Air Force Base is not an article about a CDP" an assertion shown to be false by simple tautology , this latest "objection" arguing that we should have exceptions in the guideline that apply to such a small number of articles might very well be the lamest of all.
I've been very patient with hearing out your objections, and, frankly, they don't amount to anything beyond I just don't like it. So all you have left is the idea that we should create separate articles for the CDPs that are military bases. Well, maybe, but today all we were trying to do is document how things currently are, and that's what the wording currently, and accurately, reflects.
You have not disagreed with that. Maybe you or someone else can come up with a sound objection later on, but for now there is nothing. But thanks for the time and effort to try to come with a serious objection. Your inability to do so indicates there probably isn't one. Well, you have 3 days to discuss it without making any more changes. I suggest you make good use of them. Articles with titles under discussion should be listed at WP:RM.
Any article being discussed at WT:CONN should at least have an announcement and link to the discussion on its talk page. You can use the announcement described here , but I would recommend going through WP:RM with the move template. Are there any unresolved objections to the current wording about military bases and CDPs?
Yes, I object to any change to the guideline, relative to the status quo of several days ago, that would mention military-related CDPs. There is no need to discuss, especially early in the guideline, some hypothetical issue, which would only serve to prejudice normal Requested Move discussions.
Polaron's first interest in changing the guideline, i believe, was to force his way in naming on Conning Towers-Nautilus Park in Connecticut, which is a CDP including part of a military base, but that is not the name of a military base. It is the subject of a current requested move. I am having trouble focussing any interest on what the currently proposed change would say, but i don't think it would apply. Requested moves are the appropriate place to discuss conflicts between guidelines.
Polaron is free to argue that the current naming guideline conflicts with reasonable naming for military base articles, if there ever was a proposed move for a military base article. The "solution" of changing the guideline here is a solution for no cases whatsoever, and just clutters up the guideline. This is a solution looking for a problem. If there are multiple Requested Moves and the same issue seems to have to be discussed again and again, then that is the time to begin to consider changing the guideline here or any other guideline relating to military bases.
What problem would any change to the guideline address? The canonical form for cities, towns and most census-designated places in the United States is [[Placename, State]] the "comma convention". Military bases, including those that are census-designated places, are at the plain name of the base e. At the risk of getting us even further off topic, I'm trying to get a better handle on things. It's not a secret source. We don't have articles on CDPs because of that status, but because of their status as a populated place which meets notability criteria whether there should be an article is a topic for another conversation.
The only benefit being designated a CDP provides us is that we know have detailed demographic data for the populated place. In the case of military installations, the CDP and the Air Base are the same entity , but since they aren't an incorporated city being a federal instalation the Census Bureau has to create the CDP to track the demographics. We should not have separate articles. Rarely will you find a military-type CDP that includes an area larger than the base itself.
Even if the military base has partial CDPs within its federal borders, such as Fort Campbell , we should include demographics for those CDPs within the military base article. Fort Campbell is unique because it has parts in two states, and the Census needs to delinate the two populations for purposes of congressional apportionment. There is no CDP for the Tennessee site of the base. I doubt military bases located entirely within one state would be carved up in this fashion.
I see no issue with creating a redirect from Dahlgren Center, Virginia to Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division , since the military instalation is the primary topic. The CDP is just there to make it easier for the Census Bureau to tabulate census and other demographic data. The Census Bureau's naming guidelines for CDPs also states that the name "should be one that is recognized and used in daily communication by the residents of the community" that "residents associate with a particular name and use it to identify the place in which they live.
While I don't think we need to amend the guidlines to accomodate what already seems to be a defacto exemption, I just don't see the controversy. Either that or I'm completely misreading this debate. I am starting this discussion in lieu of engaging in the revert battle apparently starting up on this guideline page again.
Please engage in this discussion instead of editing the guideline page so that this issue can be resolved through discussion. Short of starting this section for the purpose of hopefully preventing yet another edit war, and explaining what I know about the situation, I will stay out of this. I trust the rest of you to allow fairness, reason and common sense to prevail.
As a result of the edit war, the page was put under edit protection. It might have been an innocent mistake, but I consider the continued defense of this disruptive revert based on the untenable position that there was edit warring going on throughout December indicates this revert was an act of abuse of admin powers. That aside, soon after this page was recently unprotected, most if not all of the edits that were not part of the edit were restored .
However, this has been reverted  , with the edit summary of, "further revert back to stable content prior to start of non-consensus changes". What non-consensus changes? Can someone who claims any of the edits reverted in this diff please indicate exactly which change had no consensus, and provide evidence of that, please? Central to all this of course is the disputed tag which I added to the U.
At the time I added these tags there was no objection, and no revert, even though I mentioned them in the discussion several times. And it's not like this is a guideline change that requires consensus approval anyway - it's the addition of a disputed tag! The insertion of a disputed tag is evidence of the dispute!
Anyway, I've been far too active here to be the one to reinsert these tags, but somebody should, and Polaron is probably not the best person either, since he was one of the participants in the actual edit war. If people continue to hold the untenable position that the U. I mean, if the dispute tag is not appropriate here, where can it be used?
Of course those who support the current wording will dispute the dispute tag - but that is just more evidence of how much dispute there is about it! Thanks, and peace to all. As to whether it's fair to count all of those in favor of the proposed change in the RFC as disputing the guideline, maybe not. Fair enough.
But I think it's pretty clear from the comments that quite a few do dispute it, and it technically requires only one person to dispute a guideline, and an active discussion, to justify the tag. What is supposed to happen in a discussion about a disputed guideline [i.
How remarkable. Those who favor the current convention believe that a lack of consensus means that we need to keep it! For example, in PMA's 2nd bullet, he argues "Where there is no agreement, we should say nothing. It really is remarkable. Talk:Tallahassee, Florida Requested move would seem to be clear enough. Born2Cycle has a fundamental disagreement with this guideline - as he has for years.
But neither our general practice nor a random selection of editors do. Please rename section "Administrative subdivisions" to "Country subdivisions" and change in text "administrative subdivisions" to "country subdivisions". Not all entities are administrative, e. Country subdivision is the broader term.
I don't have a dog in this race, however, I am not convinced that "Administrative subdivisions" is an entirely appropriate term either. For example, the states in Australia are separately sovereign entities within the Federation. The states here make their own laws for most thigs and the Federal Government may only make laws on things which have a head of power in the Constitution or for things which are ceded to the Commonwealth by the states.
I am sure that similar situations exist in other countries, for example as I understand the US, the states there are also separately sovereign entities. The divisions in both cases are far more than merely "administrative". Just what terminology we should use in this guideline, however I am not sure.
I suspect that given the variety of legal structures across the world whatever term we use may well turn out to be a neologism for the simple reason that no existing term actually encompasses all the existing entities that we may wish to apply it to. Both these comments are to the effect that States of Australia and two other continental countries are not administrative subdivisions.
If so, the section does not apply to them. I never thought it did; the only controversial titles among them are Georgia U. Those cannot be decided by title like others of the same class - and all the others are primary usage, independently of this guideline. How about the term National subdivision?
This makes better English than "Country subdivision" and avoids to issues identified above with "Administrative subdivision". National subdivision can have the connotation that an entity exists to group people from a certain ethnicity, see Administrative divisions of China , or in Russia JAO , U. I would prefer entity since it does not have the connotation of an act.
The term would avoid reference to the country level, thus can include euroregions like Meuse-Rhine Euroregion. Since the sections are labeled in plural, it would be Territorial entities. Subdivision and administrative division are too vague, they have no reference to any territorial extension. A company can have a subdivision for trucks and one for motorcycles. Maybe also territorial subdivisions. I would prefer to choose a term over description since people in discussions can then easier refer to the topic.
Territorial entity would also include physical geography objects like the Amazon Basin , so that would be one guideline for human and physical geography resulting in more consistency. Would this be the place to propose a quick guideline for the Federated States of Micronesia? I know it's a very small country, with hardly any articles on it, but in the various Lists of countries there seems to be an trend of incorrectly naming, most likely due to lack of awareness.
Because Micronesia is a region, there is no official short form name for the FSM, apart from the acronym. It is not called "Micronesia" but this appears to be the trend in these lists. But this is similar to calling the United States "America".
It's not very encyclopaedic, especially seeing as the name carries heavy a political connotation when used to refer to only one part of a very wide region. There is no official short-form name, and the use of simply "Micronesia" can ambiguous. It is also often seen as disassociating to other parts of the region. Rennell talk , 12 January UTC. The original proposer has made an entirely clear and reasonable suggestion. It is like using America as a short form of United States of America - just because the Federated States of Micronesia is a small country doesn't make it any more appropriate.
And, unlike the China dispute or, arguably the Timor Leste dispute , there is not a clear and widespread use of the incorrect name. As an encyclopedia , accuracy trumps common usage. It especially trumps uncommon usage. I would like to rise the issue of naming the settlements within de-facto independent countries. My example is a small town Drmbon located in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The later is an unrecognized republic recognized only by Transnistria , a non-UN member state and is claimed by Azerbaijan to be part of it.
The settlements of this republic have both de-jure Azerbaijani names and de-facto local names. Currently the de-jure names are listed in Wikipedia as default ones, so the default name of the mentioned above village Drmbon is the Azerbaijani version: Heyvali.
In my opinion this is a wrong attitude to the issue since it misleads Wikipedia readers. My arguments are as follows:. Based on the arguments above I propose that de-facto names become default ones as long as de-jure alternatives are not wide-spread enough in English media. So I propose to use legal names. Golbez, I appreciate your help but please do not say "I already know what their argument will be".
At least it is not polite. I think the heated discussion which took place on the article for the village of Vank, which happens to be in the same region, might be instructive and prove of some use to the administrators here. Folks, could you please take this discussion to the article talkpage?
If anyone has anything to say generally about de jure versus de facto naming conventions, that could be a worthy topic to discuss. But this is not the forum to discuss Azeri-Armenian relations. Dohn joe talk , 12 January UTC.
I think, the question is not which government is legitimate which not. The question is, which name is more common in English language sources. The purpose of wikipedia is to use a common and widely accepted language, not to decide which party of a conflict is "right". And yes, if Goycha would be more common in English language, we should use it as article name regardless of its current political status however Sevan gets over a million hits in google, thus hundred times more than Goycha.
After all, that's what WP:AT clearly states: common names are preferable to official names. I have the impression that Azeri users misuse the argument about "de jure status" and other nationalistic allegations to suppress English common names of many Armenian places in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh.
If you buy a road map, you would expect it to accurately show a region's roads, its current borders, and the names of places that appear on the road signs along those roads. What would you think of a map that did not show a new road because that road had been constructed by an "unrecognised" civic administration?
What would you think of a map that did not show an international border a border which, if crossed, would probably result in your death just because that border defines a country that is politically unrecognised? An accurate map should show objective reality, not subjective reality. The same must be true for Wikipedia articles if they are to be accurate and credible.
Wikipedia articles exist to inform those reading its articles. They should contain verifiable reality, not partisan propaganda, fantasy, or wish-fulfilment. For an article about a place, THE key piece of information is the name and location of that place. Unless a very good alternative reason exists, the place name used for the article title should be the name that those currently living in or administering that place call it.
And the location should be the location in which an inhabitant of or visitor to that place would find himself in. Move away from that position and we risk Wikipedia articles becoming laughing stocks when they become owned by partisan groups. Some of the worst examples are found in articles connected to Northern Cyprus. For example, the northern half of Cyprus is still described with its pre administrative divisions even though they ceased to administer ANYTHING almost 40 years ago!
In what way is living a fantasy that the last 40 years have not happened properly informing a reader? What use are such articles to someone perhaps using Wikipedia to plan out a visit to Cyprus? These articles have thrown out objective reality and the requirement to inform and have replaced them with POV dogma.
What justifies the use of the phrase " de-jure " in relation to place names? There is no such thing as "international law" in relation to place names, names are not "legal" or "illegal" in an international context.
Would editors using these phrases in a legal context please quote one line in ANY international law or treaty or convention that legislates what people can or cannot call the villages, towns, or cities they live in or administer.
Would editors using de-jure in a colloquial context explain why places should de-jure i. Surely, in principle they should be called the same name that their inhabitants and administrators call them! Scribblescribblescribble talk , 14 January UTC. It seems to me that this de jure versus de facto naming issue is most closely related to the Multiple local names section of the existing guideline. I would thus propose either a subsection 5. This is just a rough draft; any comments or changes are welcome - especially from editors not involved in the specific naming dispute that began this debate.
Last week, I drafted a proposed addition to the naming guideline, dealing with situations where there are conflicting de jure and de facto names for places where sovereignity is disputed. After getting the initial feedback, I've revised the proposal and opened it up to the wider RfC community to see what folks have to say.
In making the draft, my goal was to follow WP precepts such as neutrality and verifiability as much as possible. Dohn joe talk , 20 January UTC. Here's the revision, which I propose to add to the Multiple local names section of the guideline possibly as a subsection 5.
As should be clear, this proposal prefers de facto names over de jure names but only for the article title. The body of the article should present the entire picture, as neutrally as possible. At first look I see a few problems in the proposal: 1. It reflects opinion of the residents currently living in towns. Opinion of people who had to leave a place but consider themselves residents as well is forgotten. And don't forget that those expelled have rights according to the international and national laws to live there.
There are some places which were inhabited before deportation by one nationality but were later inhabited by 1 or 2 families of other nationality. So according to the proposal the name used by these families should be used. It is unacceptable. The main problem of the proposal is that it prefers name used by current residents to the legal name accepted by the international community.
It is unacceptable since the international community acceptance and usage is wider than local usage. For me the proposal is a no go from the start. It says "It is not the role of Wikipedia to rule on the legality or illegality of these authorities, but rather to reflect reality, to the extent it is verifiable.
Our only goal on place names is to pick the name that is the most common and natural name in English, along with certain factors we need to handle disambiguations. Plus, it asks for us to do the impossible--to somehow know what the current residents think. No matter what method you propose above, we couldn't possibly determine with anything even close to certainty what that name is. Furthermore, it singles out special category of places which is, in and of itself, hard to define. All you'll do is shift the debate--is, for example the NKR, a "state of limited recognition," or is it, in fact, less than that?
Also, why should states of limited recognition get treatment that places of disputed ownership do not? Qwyrxian talk , 21 January UTC. I observe that the Australia section has not been discussed for weeks. Similarly, does anyone other than Born2Cycle have anything more to say about the American section?
Is his discontent enough? I have removed the first, and would appreciate justification for the second. Any suggestions on how to word the Australian guideline that accurately reflects reality and does have consensus support? Well, I'll give it a shot Unless there is consensus support for this proposal or a similar one, I suggest the tag was removed prematurely.
If this gradual process makes that statement untrue, we can rephrase it to what is then true. If there is no consensus to impose a rule which does not describe what does exist but what should exist, the solution is not to say what should exist. The ABS doesn't have a state suburb for every locality, but it probably has one for every significant one. Additionally, its terms are more intuitive than simple LGAs and correspond far more closely to how I'd describe a place "Hillside, it's a suburb of Melbourne", not "Hillside, it's a suburb split between the Shire of Melton and the City of Brimbank".
As expressed, it implies dropping the state name. I don't see any particular reason to include it, if there's no reason to include a state name on unambiguous cases. Include it only if it does work! I support the proposal above to add the words the trend is to avoid unnecessary precision, and this is encouraged. It's true, and will save a lot of wasted time. Andrewa talk , 17 January UTC.
See Talk:Rockhampton Requested move for what I see as overwhelming support for this or a similar change to the convention, and also overwhelming evidence that it urgently needs clarification. Please note the heat at the Rockhampton discussion, and the several other similar successful moves quoted there.
It is time to fix this and move on. If we merely reflect how things are then it's not a guideline but just an explanation of what the convention currently is. While our guidelines are supposed to reflect how things are, they are not supposed to be exclusively restricted to that; they are supposed to provide guidance as well. In fact, that's the justification for the "canonical form" wording in the U. Or, are you just objecting for the sake of objecting because you just don't like it?
If so, that would be disruptive, so I presume it's not that. On one hand, we have "The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people", and per that much of what is said in any guideline is an "opinion" that is supported by consensus , so nothing is being started here by adding yet another such "opinion" in the guideline after making sure the "opinion" does seem to reflect the views of a large number of people - and so far no one has expressed disagreement with the "opinion" in question - that's just what all guidelines are comprised of.
On the other hand, we have the "a view not based on fact or knowledge" interpretation, but Matt argues below the phrase in question is arguably fact or at least well rooted in knowledge , not "opinion" in that sense. So, frankly, regardless of what you mean by "opinion", your objection doesn't seem to make any sense. But maybe there is another meaning you have in mind? Please, enlighten us. Andrewa talk , 21 January UTC. Andrewa claims that there is no longer consensus to support the convention.
However, those proposing a change have been unable to muster a consensus to either change or scrap the convention. Until they can do so, no change should take place on individual articles, rather than the situation we currently have where somebody brings forward a proposal every two or three days. Are they intending to carry on with this until they have circumvented the convention for every single settlement in Australia?
And at that point will somebody finally decide to sort out the naming convention? Skinsmoke talk , 22 January UTC. I don't agree with all of this, see my reply there, but it underlines that the current situation is unsatisfactory.
We have a convention that clearly does not have support, yet because there was at some time in the past consensus to adopt it, in some people's minds it remains in force. If we can't agree on the wording of a new convention, then we should at least agree to suspend the old one. It is doing far more harm than good, and wasting a lot of time. Andrewa talk , 28 January UTC.
When country specific text states what the NCGN says anyway, then that should be removed. Argentina: "Where possible, articles on places in Argentina use Placename. Exceptions only exist for U. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. The first observation I will make is that this discussion is incredibly long. It has taken me a considerable amount of time to read all the discussions, arguments and side discussions. It seems that this format is not useful in this case for producing a consensus because you can bet that only a few of the participants and the closing admin will have read the whole discussion.
The formal result of the RfC is that the consensus is in favour of maintaining the status quo. Many editors have suggested modifications to the guideline which could, in the longer term, gain consensus, however, no single proposal has attracted enough attention or support for it to replace the status quo. My suggestion would be to break this discussion down into a series of smaller discussions to establish which, if any, of the alternative naming conventions suggested in this RfC could be a suitable replacement for the current one.
I would also suggest another separate discussion to determine which cities are well-enough known internationally for the City, State convention to be dropped but which may not be on the AP's list. As these separate discussions gain traction and consensus begins to emerge, smaller and narrower RfCs can be started with a view to altering the guideline.
A - Full Compliance. Change this part of the first paragraph of the current guideline: The canonical form for cities, towns and census-designated places in the United States is [[Placename, State]] the "comma convention". Those places that need additional disambiguation To read: When possible, use [[Placename]] for places in the United States. For cities that require disambiguation, use [[Placename, State]].
Also, delete the entire second paragraph about cities in the AP book since this new wording would encompass them anyway. B - Improved Compliance. Change this current wording in the 2nd paragraph : Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may or may not have their articles named [[City]] provided they are the primary topic for that name..
To read: Cities that are state capitals, have NFL or MLB sport franchises, or are listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may or may not have their articles named [[City]] provided they are the primary topic for that name.. Any city, like any other topic in Wikipedia, whose name is unique or primary should be at the name without any disambiguation or additional unnecessary precision A.
Born2cycle's endless campaign on this issue is more disruptive than any of the names. What is broken is the rest of the convention. Many editors have requested clarity in the titles. Some even requesting something other then the place name to get some idea when the place is. There's no reason for U. Jayjg talk , 19 December UTC C ; in national and international contexts, such as news article datelines, these cities are referred to with the state identifier. It is a very common way to refer to most U.
Powers T , 19 December UTC A There is no rational justification for this idiosyncratic exception to the general manner in which disambiguation is handled across every other topic in the encyclopedia. The title is merely a unique descriptor for the topic, it is not the job of the title to provide encyclopedic information.
Take offence if you wish, but that is my opinion. It is at its root special pleading. It suggests that the United States is qualitatively different than every other nation on earth and that place names are qualitatively different than every other topic in the encyclopedia.
Neither of those two claims stand up to any serious scrutiny. There is no rational reason why the same disambiguation practices that work adequately across the entire encyclopedia become somehow inadequate when dealing with US places. Many terms and phrases are rather clear when you can place them in context. The problem here is that many uses lack the critical component of context. So you need another way to deal with the problems. Vegaswikian talk , 19 December UTC Something in "common use" is lacking a rational justification because being in "common use" in itself is not a rational justification.
After all, those ways of referring to those cities are in "common use". But that's not how we name articles in Wikipedia. We try to use the most common name for the article's topic, and with only as much precision as is needed to avoid ambiguity including considering primary topic criteria. Descriptive information beyond the name is typically only included in the title when required for disambiguation, and in those titles of topics that lack names "List of For most topics, including most cities, worldwide, including those in the U.
To make an exception for U. I mean, look at the C votes so far However, I would oppose mass renaming as it's likely to be very disruptive - there would still be quite a few people who not unreasonably feel attached to the status quo. I particularly dislike B - why should a particular sports franchise affect naming conventions for cities? There is no good reason to change. The current system is working, as it is. The US is a big country with many thousands of cities.
Endless confusion from such a change. As things are right now, readers have a running chance to know the correct city being discussed by looking at the 'name, state', without having to go look up the article a waste of reader time. If anything is to change, it is the names of the some other countries' cities--these are usually useless as written forcing readers to go hunt. Hmains talk , 19 December UTC A - having random variation in the way we name articles, based on the differing personal preferences of editors from different countries, doesn't make the encyclopedia any better.
The Oxford Guide to Style also has this to say para 4. When in doubt it is best to err on the side of caution. Don't make rules that force conformity for conformity's sake Obviously we need to disambiguate many city and town names I don't see the current situation as a problem.
City, State is a very common way to refer to places in the United States even when disambiguation is not strictly necessary Eluchil talk , 20 December UTC C. Agree completely with Eluchil Also, Born2cycle is mistaken about London and Paris. In the U. In Europe this usage does not exist.
Brossard, Quebec which is at Brossard? Or Plymouth, Devon a. There are hundreds of thousands of ghits for each of these disambiguated forms indicating how common this usage is, yet at WP that is not reason to move them from their base names when they are the unique or primary use of that name. Why should it be any different for U. This is a US custom that nobody uses in Europe.
Nobody says Modena, Italy. This comma convention is an American convention. Sometimes the name of a city is ambiguous, and other means are used to disambiguate. If Frankfurt doesn't suffice, one says Frankfurt am Main. The American "City, Area" is not nearly as common in Europe. An example, in UK, is Newcastle. Newcastle is a common name, I believe we have 4 or 5, including 2 large ones. When disambiguation is required, the river is mentioned, not the county. Per WP:precision.
Disambiguation terms should only be used when needed. There is no need to change. City, state is the common form of the name for the majority of U. It is not unnecessary disambiguation. There are far too many non-unique city names in the United States, and if we change the current method the next battle will be "my city deserves to be the primary, not yours" popularity contests among editors.
Is that really so terrible so as to warrant this exceptional treatment? Concensus has long held that for the United States, city, state is the appropriate. People are free to debate and try to change concensus on this matter, but so far, none of the statements I have seen make a compelling in favor of such a major change.
It is more natural to use city, state in the vast majority of cases. You asked for opinions, and there is mine. If so, this would not be surprising, as predisambiguation in general seems to be falling out of favor lately not only for place names, but for many other topic areas as well. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "more natural", but WP:TITLE clarifies what is meant by "naturalness" in two ways: "use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article" "convey what the subject is actually called in English" Now, are readers most likely to use "Baton Rouge" or "Baton Rouge, Louisiana" to search for that city?
Remember, we're discussing only those cities, like Baton Rouge, with either unique names or names for which they are the primary use. I suggest the former is much more likely to be used, if nothing else because it's less to type! I have my opinion and you have yours. What matters are the quality of the arguments that underlie our positions. If you want to define "natural" in your own mysterious way and then declare that "city, state" is more "natural", that's fine, but it's not pertinent to a discussion about WP guidelines.
It's not that I "don't like" the change. The fact remains that the guideline is what is is, and I have yet to see a compelling argument that making the change you recommend will improve the use of Wikipedia and its readers. In the mean time, I will explain how it is. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains as listed in the box at the top of this page.
Sometimes these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine. This is another naming convention; and I'm bored with this cyclic effort to assert falsehood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson , 21 December UTC Accusing others with whom you disagree of asserting falsehood is not exactly assuming good faith, is it? I respectfully request that you strike that comment. In this case, the policy - with B2C dissenting - has included the text quoted for a long time; it has always included some equivalent support for specific conventions.
What B2C says is false; he should know it is false; and he has made the claim that the guidelines must be adjusted to comply with what he would like policy to say on multiple pages, in pursuit of an agenda he has been a minority advocate of since before he changed user name. If you look hard enough then there are loopholes in most policies for everyone's favourite idiosyncrasies. Despite the cherry-picking citing of the exemption, you cannot deny that the general principle of WP:TITLE is to use the common name, taking into account both preciseness and conciseness.
You haven't addressed why US place names need to deviate from this general principle, and that is because there is no need for this deviation. Where is the evidence that the general naming principle across the vast majority of the encyclopedia is inadequate for US places? Asserting that something is allowed does not mean that is worth doing. Accusing people with differing opinions of "falsehood" is not helpful either.
But rather than making you read them: Most American placenames are ambiguous, creating a de facto convention; in this the United States differs from other countries. It is difficult for a reader to tell, other than for the most famous places, whether a place-name is unambiguous or primary usage. Therefore, rather than providing an unexplained patchwork in which some of the articles are disambiguated and others in the same county are not, we choose to disambiguate all but the most obvious cases.
The United States has more names just because of its size and populousness, and tends to have produced uniqueness within each State, not within the United States so for example, the US has 21 Springfields, each in a different state, and innumerable Washingtons and Madisons. For comparison, the use of aboriginal names in Australia seems to have provided a larger name-stock; they're used more often than Indian names are in the United States for example, Indian names - except for the States themselves - are quite rare in New England and the Australian names are not as often borrowed within the country see Wyoming and Miami , on the other hand and are more diverse because of the diversity of the aboriginal culture the same Algonquian name is all too often used several places in the Northeast; the same Lakota names in the Far Midwest; and so on.
And much of the English namestock was left behind; nobody ever bothered naming a settlement anywhere after Brill , say. So England has, again, a larger stock of names for a smaller area. A sample of American placenames - and I believe other countries' - was examined in the archives of WT:NC settlements before the page was merged here. I have not yet seen anyone produce evidence of that, outside of the AP Handbook.
Absent extremely strong evidence, it seems to me that these articles should conform to our normal naming principles, rather than specialized ones based on hypotheticals and unsourced claims. If someone were somehow able to demonstrate that, however, then I would be inclined to change my opinion. I hold that, even though the current procedure is to use City, State, the burden is on those who wish to maintain this counter-to-standard format to verify that their preferred titles meet the necessarily high bar required for an exception to standard conventions.
Please know I wasn't socking on purpose; I'm just on an unfamiliar computer which seems to log me out unexpectedly. Please sign in with your regular account. Status quo works well for the USA and there is a good argument for extending it to other countries. It works well for US cities because it is the convention inthe US.
Outside the US is is not the convention and I would not want to see a US convention imposed on towns in other English-speaking countries. Martin Hogbin talk , 28 December UTC C Status quo is fine -- put the articles at the commonname and use redirects for the rest. At this point I count 10 A votes, 11 C votes, and one other. Out of over 20 participants only half support the current wording C - that's no consensus by any measure. Accordingly, I've added a disputed tag to the U.
We really need to come up with wording that has consensus support, or remove it. Newspapers have an entirely different purpose to encyclopedias, so using a newspaper style guide to determine article titles seems counterintuitive. The Celestial City talk , 22 December UTC A : If the city or town has a unique name, it is unnecessary to disambiguate that it is within a specific state. We always put the state name on the envelope when mailing a letter.
People don't say "I was born in Missoula"; they always say "I was born in Missoula, Montana", even though there are no other cities named Missoula. Similarly, journalists and other writers follow the Manual of Style guidelines, on which our Wikipedia tradition is based: the state is always named at the first citation of a city, except for a few dozen specified cities that are considered to be recognizable without the state.
This misguided attempt to eliminate the state from American city names would affect tens of thousands of article titles, without any improvement in Wikipedia's functionality and in fact a likely decline in functionality. BTW, Born2cycle, I am more than a little surprised at your attempt to count "votes" above, only three days after your posted your proposal - because in another recent discussion which you started in an attempt to eliminate "unnecessary" disambiguation from neighborhood names, namely Talk:Alta Vista, San Diego , you strongly objected to "this whole approach" when someone began tallying people's responses.
I'm guessing it was because about half the people here were agreeing with your viewpoint - which is more than usually do. Jonathunder talk , 24 December UTC For those cities with names that are unique or primary , the base city name is also clear and customary, not only here but in every day use, and also complies better with the WP:TITLE naming criteria concise "shorter titles are generally preferred" and precise "only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously".
When writing for an international audience in plaintext, I tend to write "City, Country" eg. When writing on Wikipedia, I tend to pipe the link to the article name, and add any in-text location disambiguators in plain text, such as " Baton Rouge , Louisiana, USA" depending of course on whether the location had already been imparted to the reader earlier in the article.
Really, the actual title of an article is not something to argue over - better by far to ensure that the text in articles provides the necessary context and that piping is done where needed. Enough with walled gardens. US is not that special a country that it needs its own naming conventions; the standard Wikipedia ones work fine.
Titles which are not ambiguous shouldn't be disambiguated—it can't be any simpler than that. If I'm not mistaken, the count is now 15 for A and 15 for C. While there appears to be no consensus for the specific proposal, the status quo C also lacks consensus. But it's only been a little over a week. Is there a compromise position? That was the point of B - but few are expressing a preference for a second choice so it's hard to judge if that's a compromise that has consensus.
Each side seems to be dug in pretty hard. No news media, textbook, or encyclopedia would say, " Osama bin Laden was apprehended in the small town of Amalga. Removing the state only makes sense if at all for very large, well-known cities. Ntsimp talk , 27 December UTC C I visit here upon noticing multiple edits in Connecticut neighborhood names, by Born2cycle, citing some supposed policy or guideline.
Marion, Connecticut as it was or possibly "Marion, Southington, Connecticut" but marion spans out of Southington make sense. This whole proposal and the recent Connecticut edits, in the midst of unfinished RFC, seem just disruptive. The CT neighborhood names have nothing to do with this U.
In fact there is no convention. As u acknowledge there is variety in practice in the existing placenames in Connecticut; u discern one pattern and try to spread that. From being involved in CT placenames for some time, I am aware of a different trend and editors views besides Polaron's and urs. Ur changes there are moves towards what you prefer in this RFC. U are using disruption elsewhere to try to support your position in this RFC.
That's the simplest explanation: u r spreading disruption to make some point here. American cities shouldn't be treated differently than the rest of the world. The current naming convention overvalues consistency, placing it above conciceness and directness. We should also revisit the naming convention for American townships, which is even more onerous. They are named [township], [county], [state] example , regardless of the need for disambiguation. There was a tendency to name U.
For example, most CT neighborhoods are not disambiguated if they are unique or primary, and those that require disambiguation mostly use neighborhoodName, StateName. In a requested move u just opened for the properly named neighborhood "Marion, Connecticut", u propose moving it to something else, another editor proposes moving to "Marion, Southington, Connecticut", etc. You might be able to ride in and make some disruption there, but don't claim there is a consensus there.
Born2cycle has tried multiple times to change the naming of neighborhoods of San Diego, which until recently have all been in the format NeighborhoodName, San Diego, California. He wants to change them to NeighborhoodName if he feels they don't require disambiguation, and NeighborhoodName San Diego if they do.
One such recent, unsuccessful attempt can be seen here ; the result of that discussion was NeighborhoodName, San Diego , rather than the format with parentheses that he prefers. From what you say it sounds like he is going ahead and inserting the parenthetical disambiguation into other neighborhoods - which he will then cite as precedent the next time he tries to do it in San Diego! Born2cycle and another participant in this RFC have changed names of Connecticut articles to Neighborhood town format, then Born2cycle comes here pointing to the pattern he sees now in the Category of Connecticut neighborhoods.
Good for you, that you have more organized resistance to that kind of disruption. It's too bad so much of our wikipedia lives is spent dealing with this kinda stuff. But the convention was obvious prior to those three moves. At the time, I had no idea how it came to be so, except I knew one other move for compliance was made by Polaron.
It was and still is a mess. I am convinced by statements by Users Pmanderson and MelanieN. Specifically that "most American placenames are ambiguous, creating a de facto convention;" and that in the current US practice "you don't have to wonder what to title an article or how to wikilink it. Perhaps for this reason alone we simply don't use the US convention in normal speech or writing - no-one refers to Dallas, Moray as it is generally obvious whether you mean the local village or the Texan city.
I see from the dab page there are more than a dozen others in the US, none of which I had ever heard of. Re comments by Ntsimp - I don't agree. For the record, I have not been an American since the tragic events of the Jurassic.
The UK style in your example is foreign to me; I was completely ignorant of it. I think that's likely what's going on in this entire discussion. After all, there is no dispute about city, state being a common way to disambiguate in American English in contexts in which disambiguation is required. The fact that sources don't repeatedly refer to cities in that format clearly indicates its use is for disambiguation. In WP, we don't add precision when it is not necessary for disambiguation.
This is ultimately about only those U. And even if, say, Chicago was the only city in the U. We would unnecessarily disambiguate it just because every other city in the U. The example of Amalga, Utah , unique but obscure, is more to the point. In other words, in the English dialect of their choice the place is called 'Amalga, Utah'. Imposing a naming convention on someone who lives in a particular place, just for the abstract concept of consistency, is likely to cause unnecessary friction.
I cannot speak for someone from Amalga but I can say how I would feel if this were done the other way round. Martin Hogbin talk , 28 December UTC Well the point about the Chicago example had to do with the issue of only a minority not needing disambiguation being justification for disambiguating all, but fine, let's go with Amalga.
Those articles don't exist yet, but could be created. So even an obscure name like Amalga further emphasises that most U. Even if you argue that it should be at Name State , it will leaves us with inconsistent naming and lead to multiple and likely controversial moves as editors start claiming "their" city has priority over the Name.
Sacramento redirects to Sacramento, California , and other communities are listed at Sacramento disambiguation. The same applies to Dayton , Tampa , and Tacoma. If the primary topic is clearly established and the redirect is already in place, what's wrong with moving the article over the redirect? However, from what you say here, it seems like the Amalga in Utah does meet the primary topic criteria relative to these other uses so obscure they don't even have coverage in WP yet.
Even Microsoft Amalga is probably too obscure to challenge the Utah town for being primary topic, but an obscure town with a truly unique name would probably be best. How about Lompoc? When writing about a person, you switch to just the surname after using the full name. That doesn't mean the full name is for disambiguation.
Last Name. Password at least 8 characters required. Confirm Password. Law may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.
Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more! Attached Documents Summary Judgment. I'm Law's automated support bot. How can I help you today? For example, you can type: I forgot my password I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email How do I sign up for a newsletter? Get instant access to the one-stop news source for business lawyers Register Now! Sign up now for free access to this content Enter your details below and select your area s of interest to stay ahead of the curve and receive Law's daily newsletters.
First Name Last Name. Password at least 8 characters required Confirm Password. Already have access? Email: Password: Forgot your password? Remember login. You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:. Please provide a professional email:. Access to Justice. Asset Management. GAU has three impressive on-campus accommodation buildings for students all within easy reach of the campus as well as the city center on foot.
The dormitory facilities at GAU serve as a home away from home, full accessibility is provided in safe campus lodgings for students' luxury. The fully furnished apartments are fully equipped with the necessary equipment to make the rooms homely and most importantly have high-security standards. There is an all-inclusive package program which includes tuition fees, dormitory fee, and three square meals per day. Students can stay in single or double rooms, all local and international students live together in the dormitories, and students easily foster friendships and intercultural relationships thanks to this living arrangement.
The residence has a garden and is also meters away from classrooms. Renting an apartment means students will bear the cost of utilities such as electricity, water, internet, and cable except they come inclusive of the rent. Student sharing is very common in student communities where students contribute their resources and rent an apartment, splitting all the bills from the rent to the utilities. The prices of private accommodation vary but it is that recommended for new students to secure on-campus accommodation since they are given priority.
For student families, throughout the Island of North Cyprus, Girne is the easiest city to secure accommodation may it be a hotel, a hostel, or an Airbnb. Just like in any other city the price of the hotels varies depending on when you book hence its recommended to book early. With a high priority for our students, we ensure that they get standard student housing tailored to their needs and their budget. Our accommodation partners are littered across the city of Kyrenia offering premium housing and facilities for our students.
Take advantage of our seamless online application process and get into the program of your choice at Girne American University. We are offering a one-stop platform for all your university applications, visa, scholarships, housing, and transportation needs on the beautiful island of Northern Cyprus.
The university has different sports clubs for its students as well as the adequate infrastructure to support these activities including soccer, volleyball, basketball, track and field, and more. Sports and extracurricular activities are taken very seriously at the university, GAU sports champions and athletes have gone on to represent the university at the state and international levels with great success.
The university has a fully-functioning modern gym for students who wish to work out and exercise or for aerobics and yoga. Sports clubs at the university have managed to reached national recognition and more and more clubs continue to open up. The university also rewards its students who participate in sporting activities with scholarships and tuition waivers towards their education. The university has its own canteen which serves different dishes, students have the option to pay a yearly fee or simply pay as per meal which is, however, more costly.
GAU has several restaurants, cafes, and cafeterias that serve both students and staff during the day, these cafeterias offer premium dishes and full entrees at any location on campus. They also function as a relaxation spot and breakpoints for students in between their lectures. Different meal options and snacks are available to cater to any student's dietary needs on campus and in the dormitories. GAU provides free transportation for its students via a shuttle service that operates hourly from the university campus to different parts of the city and other neighboring cities as well.
These buses are modern and well serviced to accommodate even students with special needs, likewise, these shuttle services are timely and effective. The Girne American University buses get students for free around the city as well as a couple of times during the day to different cities around the Island such as in Nicosia, Lefke, and Famagusta. The buses are also available to transport students to and from the airport.
The city has one of the most amazing bars, clubs, and restaurants in the whole of North Cyprus. Girne has a population of over 21, people and one of the best climate conditions in summer. The scenery is great for relaxation and often students visit the city center just to walk around. Kyrenia is the most favorable city for tourists and hence it is flooded with impressive hotels and shops.
The primary or most used language in the city is English. The city is also situated close to a historic castle which attracts a number of tourists from all over the place. Compared to other cities life is faster in Kyrenia, however, accommodation is also a bit expensive. Girne has the best transport system within North Cyprus, buses and taxis are always readily available.
In winter the city is less lively and usually less populated. Just like other cities in Cyprus, there are a number of Casinos and betting houses around the city which are hunting grounds for student jobs especially during the summer when tourists troop into the city in droves. Browse through more than programs offered in North Cyprus and find your best fit here. Compare and research about all North Cyprus universities and their special fields here. Apply easy and secure with just one mouseclick to your favourite study program for free here.
RocApply will guide you through the Visa process, finding accomodation and flights. Don't go to North Cyprus alone! Get connected with fellow students from your country and travel together! Login Username Password. Forgot Password? Select program: Select University first. Apply now! Girne American University. Select your Degree Bachelors Masters Phds. International study environement The students are made up of individuals from different cultural backgrounds such as America, Europe, Asia and Africa.
Affordable Education Compared to respective universities around Europe Girne American university tuition fees is considered affordable taking into considering the quality of education and the number of scholarships given to students.
Competent Stuff The teaching staff is a mixture of professors, Doctors, and managers from respectable international cooperations. Modern Infrastructure The university has invested a lot of on technological infrastructure to compliment the needs of both the teaching staff and the students.
On Campus Off Campus. GAU dorms also have 24 hours of hot water, room cleaning services, and laundry services as well. Documents Dormitory Information. Explore programs Browse through more than programs offered in North Cyprus and find your best fit here. Find your university Compare and research about all North Cyprus universities and their special fields here. Apply within RocApply Apply easy and secure with just one mouseclick to your favourite study program for free here.
Prepare your journey RocApply will guide you through the Visa process, finding accomodation and flights. Get connected Don't go to North Cyprus alone! Study In North Cyprus. North Cyprus Visa Requirements. Cost of Living. List of universities in North Cyprus. Application Requirements. Student Jobs. Student Life.