Talk:List of tallest buildings in Gary

This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia.
If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was Delete.

United States: Indiana

	United States portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
	Indiana portal This page is supported by WikiProject Indiana.

Requested move 13 November 2016

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

The result of the move request was: all not moved as a group. With that said, one is free to renominate any of these as an independent RM on their own respective talk pages at any time if one wants to do so. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:USPLACE. WP:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists states that "No regional qualifier is added after the name of the city unless disambiguation is necessary." However this contradicts WP:USPLACE. Per WP:CONLIMITED, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." It continues, "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

WP:SKY's stance against state names apparently begins with this edit in 2008 by a project contributor to the project's manual of style page. I was unable to locate any discussion or consensus about this change on WikiProject pages or otherwise.

InB4 anyone claims that USPLACE doesn't apply to descriptive title - it does: Talk:Mayors of Newark, New Jersey#Requested move 21 May 2016 Talk:List of beaches in San Diego#Requested move 12 April 2015 Talk:List of rivers of Ponce, Puerto Rico. -Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A number of the titles in the list above are quite unclear: New Brunswick the Canadian province? Camden the London borough? It's best to stay consistent with the title form used by each of the corresponding city articles, and with USPLACE.

That being the case, there's one in your list that I don't support renaming: List of tallest buildings in Oklahoma City, because the corresponding city article is simply Oklahoma City. (It's one of the handful of agreed-upon exceptions built into to the USPLACE guideline.) ╠╣uw [talk] 22:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astute - thanks, I removed OKC. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all as violating this RfC by introducing unnecessary dismabiguators. Ppp ery 01:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a failed RfC to add language to WP:DAB that recommends additional precision in ambiguous cases. Nothing about that RfC suggests that the opposite case - that precision is now banned. Just because a referendum fails does not mean that editors want the reverse to happen. Nothing has changed: WP:AT and other policies are still very much at play. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all- Unnecessary disam.Djflem (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite there being various Camdens, Madisons, Duluths, New Brunswicks, etc.? Wikipedia has long considered it appropriate to apply the city, state convention consistently to all of the cities above – as well as to their associated articles and categories. (For instance, see Category:Gary, Indiana.) ╠╣uw [talk] 10:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose group nomination In most cases these are unnecessary disambiguation and we should ignore all rules with messy guidelines. There may be some individual articles where disambiguation is needed but they should be on a case by case basis. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, here are the cities included in this nomination that are not currently considered the primary topic of their names: Billings, Buffalo, Camden, Corpus Christi, Gary, Madison, New Brunswick, Newark, Peoria, Savannah, Saint Paul, Tempe, and Wichita. Of these, New Brunswick, Savannah, and Saint Paul have primary topics already. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would certainly support moving List of tallest buildings in Camden and List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick as those article titles are ambiguous; you'd probably be better proposing them individually though and I doubt there would be any opposition. Zarcadia (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:USPLACE. Place names in the United States always have the state name appended to it unless it's one of the AP Stylebook's exceptions. From a quick glance at both lists, I don't see any exception cities listed here, so these should all have the state name appended. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as overprecision per policy at WP:PRECISION. The guideline at WP:USPLACE applies to articles about the place itself, not necessarily to any possible article title that simply happens to include a place name (and if it did, as a guideline it would not override policy). WP:CONLIMITED applies to the three RMs cited in the proposal (especially since one had no discussion whatsoever, one had one and a half supporters, and one seems to show the opposite of this proposal), while the quote from WP:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists is strictly in line with policy. There is no necessity to disambiguate any of these titles. Station1 (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say there is a case for several of these to be disambiguated. Many of them are ambiguous as the city they list without clarification is not the primary topic on Wikipedia. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - "There is no necessity to disambiguate any of these titles." Did you even read through the list? The primary topic for New Brunswick is the Canadian province. Zarcadia (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even the proposal doesn't claim to be for disambiguation purposes. All the titles start "List of tallest buildings in...". They are not titled "X City" or "New Brunswick". "New Brunswick, New Jersey" would need to be disambiguated because more than one article currently on WP could be titled "New Brunswick". But there is only one article titled "List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick" so that doesn't need disambiguation unless and until someone writes an article about the tallest buildings in the province. Logical proof is that if the proposal were to be implemented the shorter titles would simply redirect to the longer titles. If anything were ambiguous, they would need to be converted to dab pages, but that would be impossible because there are no other articles that could use the titles. There is no benefit to ignoring WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE in these cases. Station1 (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter titles often redirect to longer ones; shorter is not necessarily better. While conciseness and precision are two of the goals of a good title, we also consider consistency, recognizability, and naturalness. Appending the state is unquestionably more consistent, since it squares with the usage of every one of the primary articles, with most of the parent categories, and with US places generally. It's also more recognizable (per our various Madisons, Duluths, Camdens, etc.), and more natural since appending the state is common usage in the US, as reflected in most reliable sources (see WP:PERENNIAL). Considering all the criteria, appending the state is a justified improvement. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All reasonable points, and I agree that we should apply all the criteria at WP:AT when deciding on titles. How to weigh, balance and apply those criteria in specific cases is a matter of judgment. To me, both sets of titles are natural (I happen to agree with WP:USPLACE, but extending it to cover articles like this is unnecessary; while it might be unclear that an article titled Fort Worth or Long Beach or Anchorage is necessarily about a municipality, that is not true for List of tallest buildings in Anchorage, etc). With one possible exception, I think they are all recognizable to "someone familiar with the subject area". And they are consistent with each other and "with the pattern of similar articles' titles"; I see no compelling reason to stretch that definition of consistency to include articles about cities when these are lists of buildings, and category names are certainly not article titles. Frankly, it doesn't matter too much which of these titles is used in this case, but it does set a bad precedent to unnecessarily lengthen titles, in my opinion. Station1 (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose SIB: I oppose the only list I'm involved in, Sunny Isles Beach, List of tallest buildings in Sunny Isles Beach, since it is already very specific, in fact it has an even shorter hand name for the city, often called just Sunny Isles, which still redirects to only SIB, Florida, there is no DAB. Most of these lists are for small cities, but still main cities in their metro area, where SIB is a one square mile wonder in the corner of the very large Miami-Dade County, centered by Miami, a no DAB-no state name city. I don't know how this is relevant to my point, but I agree that most of these lists, under proper standards, should list the state. B137 (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As said above, WP:USPLACE applies to the articles on the places themselves, not to ancillary topics. WP:AT says titles should be as WP:CONCISE as possible and no more WP:PRECISE than necessary. The state should only be added if needed for disambiguation purposes to distinguish another "tallest buildings" list in another city of that name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

RS

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269 July 2019