On Friday 12 July 2002 12:01 pm, : Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
I don't think it sounds silly... sure within the context of a single country it's wierd and wouldn't be used, but when you're talking worldwide then it's quite normal to use the country name as well as the city just as an identifier. You want to make it obvious to people who are ignorant just where Sydney is, and if they don't know where AUSTRALIA is then the situation is hopeless and you can just give up
I agree with Karen here. Since [[Sydney]] redirects to [[Sydney, Australia]] you still will be able to simply type [[Sydney]] and end up in the most famous Sydney.
However, since [[Sydney]] redirects to the Australian city it is necessary to have the following statement at the top of that [[Sydney, Australia]]: "[[Sydney]] redirects here. There is also another article named [[Sydney, Nova Scotia]]."
And if there were a long list of other, even less well know uses of the word "Sydney", then they would be in [[Sydney (disambiguation)]] and linked to after the above mention of the Nova Scotia city.
This is called a disambiguation block and this form of disambiguation is useful in cases like this where a famous thing has the same name less famous things. Paris is an even more obvious example.
All this has already been worked out to a great deal of detail here on the list and in about a dozen talk pages.
More documentation can be found at: [[wikipedia talk:naming conventions (city names)]] and [[wikipedia:naming conventions]]
BTW, it looks like Canada has systemic internal naming conflict issues with the [[City, Nation]] format and I am considering whether it would be a good idea to advocate moving Canada to the [[City, Province]] name format (similar to the USA) because of this (most of the Canadian cities are already in this format anyway). For example, there appears to be several significantly important places named Richmond in Canada.
As for every country, whatever is decided should be internally consistant for that country (per the naming convention).
--maveric149
Daniel Mayer wrote:
On Friday 12 July 2002 12:01 pm, : Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
I don't think it sounds silly... sure within the context of a single country it's wierd and wouldn't be used, but when you're talking worldwide then it's quite normal to use the country name as well as the city just as an identifier. You want to make it obvious to people who are ignorant just where Sydney is, and if they don't know where AUSTRALIA is then the situation is hopeless and you can just give up
This is called a disambiguation block and this form of disambiguation is useful in cases like this where a famous thing has the same name less famous things. Paris is an even more obvious example.
The point of my "disambiguation block" suggestion was that at least one city would get the plain, unquantified name.
I agree with Lars:
"Sydney, Australia" and "Stockholm, Sweden" just sound silly in any
text. It would be as strange as "floppy, computer device" or cheese, food item". Writing [[Sydney, Australia|Sydney]] is not a good solution.
I've suggested before that for countries which do not have an existing disambiguation nomenclature, we use standard Wikipedia format: "Paris (France)"
Someone just created "Shikoku, Japan" -- AFAIK there is no other "shikoku". There may be a need for "Shikoku, Japan" to exist, should another writer link to it, but the article should be on "Shikoku".
In general, like Lars said, phrases such as "Paris, France" are poor style. If the context is not already clear from the article -- "French composer, born in Paris" for instance -- it is better to write "Paris, in France" or even "Paris (France)".
At 10:29 AM 7/13/02 +0100, Tarquin wrote:
I agree with Lars:
"Sydney, Australia" and "Stockholm, Sweden" just sound silly in any
text. It would be as strange as "floppy, computer device" or cheese, food item". Writing [[Sydney, Australia|Sydney]] is not a good solution.
I've suggested before that for countries which do not have an existing disambiguation nomenclature, we use standard Wikipedia format: "Paris (France)"
Someone just created "Shikoku, Japan" -- AFAIK there is no other "shikoku". There may be a need for "Shikoku, Japan" to exist, should another writer link to it, but the article should be on "Shikoku".
In general, like Lars said, phrases such as "Paris, France" are poor style. If the context is not already clear from the article -- "French composer, born in Paris" for instance -- it is better to write "Paris, in France" or even "Paris (France)".
I agree that "Shikoku" is sufficient, assuming it's the only place of that name. But by what standard is "Paris (France)" better style in an English sentence than "Paris, France"? If there's need to specify what city called Paris you mean, "Paris, France" is normal English usage. "Paris (France)" is not common English usage, and in fact, taken as a model, risks other confusion: someone might reasonably write that "So-and-so was born in Christiana ([[Oslo]])", meaning not that Christiana is in Oslo, but that the two names refer to the same place.
Vicki, who lives in New York, New York, not in New York (New York).
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org