User:Agne27/City, State convention/Chicago & Philadelphia style "Consensus"

This user thinks all U.S. city articles not following the "City, State" form should be moved back.

***NOTE: If you did not participate in any of the original page moves but would have if you were aware of them, feel free to update the list with your view***
Proponents of a "City" only convention often tout the successful moves of Chicago and Philadelphia as reasons why this city or that city should be moved or as some indicator of flaws in the current City, State convention found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). However a survey of the history of both pages as well as the history of the debate over at the naming convention page shows that these "successful" moves were really just a gift of perfect timing and circumstance. Neither move was widely publicized and thus able to squeak by under the radar and pass with a faux air of consensus.

In the end the only "success" of these moves was in show casings some of the flaws of the page move system in that moves can go counter to established guidelines based on the folly of luck and timing. If that is the case, what is the point of even bothering discussing the issue and trying to work towards genuine consensus on a naming convention? An available strategy is to keep periodically putting in request and try to catch the opposing view point sleeping. Sheer odds favor some "success" in this strategy. Even a blind man throwing darts will eventually hit a bulls eye. Then the "City only" proponents can keep touting these "successful moves" and give a straw castle appearance that their view has consensus on their side.

Talk:Chicago#Requested_move

(25/22) August 2006

Supports

Nom User:Nat Krause - per WP:NC(CN)

User:Usgnus - No Reason given
User:Serge Issakov - per nom and City, State convention is unconventional
User:Edgelord - No policy reason given. "I think it is obvious that this is what people would be looking for..."
User:Soltras - No policy reason given. "The name of the city is Chicago. That should also be the name of the article."
User:Polaron - per WP:COMMONNAMES
User:Dralwik - No disambiguation needed
User:Robovski - No policy reason give. "Chicago is the name of the city"
User:Kirjtc2 - No policy reason give. "It's rarely called Chicago, Illinois..."
User:Yath - No policy reason given. Chicago is more "important" than just a subdivision of Illinois.
User:Un sogno modesto - No reason given.
User:John Kenney - US should not be different then the rest of the world.
User:Lpangelrob - per Jan 2006 vote. Nom-No policy reason given then
User:Pmanderson - This exception only but supports City, State naming convention. Chicago is unambiguous.
User:CrazyInSane - No policy reason given. "Chicago is a very-well known city, while Illinois is an unpopular state"
User:Bkonrad - This exception but supports City, State naming convention. Chicago is a World Class city
User:DDima - Per above.
Jan 2006
User:Knowledge Seeker - no policy reason given. "Logical"
Users on WP:NC:CITY that most likely would have supported this move
User:Mellon123 - Proposed AP Adoption that would have included Chicago
User:Twas Now - Support AP Adoption
User:Bearcat - Support AP Adoption
User:Delirium - Support AP Adoption
User:DaveOinSF - Support AP Adoption
User:Ezhiki - Support AP Adoption
User:Atemperman - Support AP Adoption
User:Eco84 - Support AP Adoption
Other users who would have supported this view and reason for doing so

Oppose

User:Vegaswikian- per WP:NC:CITY and that WP:NC(CN) is not applicable to city name
User:Will Beback- per current naming convention and because redirects are working fine
User:BlankVerse- Decisions like this should be done on the naming convention level, not individual page moves
Jan 2006
User:Gene Nygaard - per current naming convention.
User:MisfitToys - per naming convention
User:Goethean - per above
User:Bkonrad - no policy reason given. Note: Would change vote in August discussion"
User:N328KF - no policy reason given. "And all other cities should be named properly, too."
User:Jpers36 - per naming convention
Users on WP:NC:CITY that most likely would have opposed this move
User:Phiwum - Opposed AP Adoption
User:ScottDavis - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Arthur Rubin - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Agne27 - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Dalbury - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Physicq210 - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Itsfullofstars - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Coolcaesar - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Fishhead64 - Opposed AP Adoption
User:JesseW - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Orangemike - Opposed AP Adoption
User:FCYTravis - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Bethling - supports City, State convention
User:Bobblehead - stated that would have opposed
Other users who would have opposed this move and reason for doing so

Talk:Philadelphia#Requested_move

(23/20)

Support

October 2006 Nom-User:Koavf

User:EaglesFanInTampa- No policy reason given. "This makes perfect sense."
User:Kirjtc2 - per consistency with other world cities
User:Polaron - Primary topic
User:Evrik - no reason given.
User:Kafziel - no reason given
User:Serge Issakov - per exception allowance in WP:NC:CITY
User:Ccwaters - no policy reason given. Follows AP Style
User:Olessi - per Serge & Ccwaters
User:John Kenney - Primary topic. User was canvassed
User:Danntm - Primary topic
User:Looper5920 - per all above.
User:Knowledge Seeker - no policy reason given. "The state disambiguation is superfluous."'User was canvassed
User:Hroðulf - Primary topic
User:Tinlinkin - no policy reason given. US-centric primary topic "this Philadelphia is the most recognized reference within the U.S. and in the world."
Why was my comment interpreted this way? I resent this characterization. Had I wanted to update my comment, I would support the AP city style convention (then), and I did here. I did not feel I need to say "support per WP:COMMONNAMES since Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is the most common of the Philadelphias" because I thought my comment would be interpreted that way. Obviously, I have to "dumb down" and exactly state that, and also say "WP:NC:CITY allows exceptions." My "support per above" implied all of the policy reasons said previously. And, no, I do not have a US-centric bias. I am a second-generation Asian American who is conscious of my heritage and I recognize that in every country there are major cities that don't need disambiguation. That's all. I have no country-specific bias, and bias should not have been read in my comment. TLK^'in 07:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Dralwik - no policy reason given. "Philadelphia is a world-known city and does not need the state name" User was canvassed
Users on WP:NC:CITY that most likely would have supported this move
User:Mellon123 - Proposed AP Adoption that would have included Chicago
User:Twas Now - Support AP Adoption
User:Bearcat - Support AP Adoption
User:Delirium - Support AP Adoption
User:DaveOinSF - Support AP Adoption
User:Ezhiki - Support AP Adoption
User:Atemperman - Support AP Adoption
User:Eco84 - Support AP Adoption
Other users who would have supported this view and reason for doing so

Oppose

User:Will Beback - per WP:NC:CITY and no sufficient reason established for exception
User:Jonathunder - WP:NC:CITY
User:AjaxSmack - against "exception creep" WP:NC:CITY
User:Spikebrennan - per WP:NC:CITY
Users on WP:NC:CITY that most likely would have opposed this move
User:Phiwum - Opposed AP Adoption
User:ScottDavis - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Arthur Rubin - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Agne27 - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Dalbury - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Physicq210 - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Itsfullofstars - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Coolcaesar - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Fishhead64 - Opposed AP Adoption
User:JesseW - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Orangemike - Opposed AP Adoption
User:FCYTravis - Opposed AP Adoption
User:Bethling - supports City, State convention
User:Vegaswikian - Opposed AP Adoption
User:BlankVerse - Opposed AP adoption
User:Bobblehead - previously state would have opposed
Other users who would have opposed this move and reason for doing so

Benefits of moving back to City, State

Besides the overall strengths of the City, State convention, the number one benefit is that it would remove the silly game of "faux consensus" hunting from the picture and focus on serious discussion about the naming convention. Instead of trying to game the system with sneaking page move request through, the invitation for the City Only group will be to build true consensus among the community about the merits (or faults) of the naming convention and their desired changes. If they don't like dealing with the current "regulars" on the page, then the focus shifts on getting more community involvement into the discussion. If policy, logic and "consensus" is truly on a particular side then more community involvement will eventually dilute the minority view and true consensus will emerge.

With the current status quo and the presence of these unexceptional exceptions, there is no motivation or reason to tackle the issue at hand when the prospects of "exception hunting" seem more prosperous.