Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

WP:USPLACE is generally an incredibly random rule that doesn't serve any important purpose in terms of naming conventions, it really only serves as a block to shut down any article move to remove a name from a specific city despite being the primary topic. ~2026-78886-8 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. USPLACE came about due to multiple discussions and gradual consensus building. Before it was created we had endless arguments on how to title various articles on cities in the US. Now we don’t. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

There was a recent RFC that determined USPLACE should be kept intact for now. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 207#RfC: Update to WP:USPLACE. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Nah, it makes perfect sense to preemptively disambiguate articles like Jacksonville, Florida and Baton Rouge, Louisiana while random Australian and Canadian places like Morwell and Spruce Grove get to be at the base name. Jessintime (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation is only part of the issue… another factor is WP:COMMONNAME. It is very very common for sources to refer to places in the US using the “Town, State” format. Thus, we do as well. Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

There are two distinct issues here: what the city is commonly known as, and the primary topic for its name. Except for a few large cities like Chicago, US cities are generally called City, State. Where appropriate, we have a primary redirect such as JacksonvilleJacksonville and Baton RougeBaton Rouge. This allows the article title to be the topic's common name but takes readers who type in a simple city name directly to the article – the best of both worlds. Certes (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

NO - the naming format format for US city articles is "<city>, <state>", except for the 50 largest cities which use "<city>". It has been this way for over 16 years, before I started editing in 2010. You should have created an account back in the 2000s to argue otherwise. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Please, not again, I'm begging you. I fully agree! But there's nothing that hasn't already been covered in the two decades of discussions linked at the top of this page. Leave well enough alone. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

We have maintenance Category:Redirect tracking categories for article talk pages to track the types of redirects for whatever reason unbeknownst to me.

My question is what {R from..." tag must be used in redirects in the following (hypothetical) cases:

• Dirter -> Dirter River
• Dirter River -> Dirter
• Dirter River -> River Dirter

interlanguage:

• Dirter -> Gryaznukha (not a river, but for the sake of an example)

Clearly it would be {{R from language}} |en|ru

But what about:

• Dirter River -> Gryaznukha

See Talk:Julia River for an issue to resolve. --Altenmann >talk 18:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Basically the title. Jamestown, Virginia isn't an existing town anymore and has not been for centuries. There is stuff there but it's basically purely historical, it's not a living settlement by any means. The article is only written from a historical perspective, about the settlement that existed in the 1600s. Is the title required to be in this format because of USPLACE? Ladtrack (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Unless someone claims it's the WP:primary topic, Virginia is good disambiguation, whether or not USPLACE applies. Station1 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I am considering doing that (haven't decided yet) but would need to know whether USPLACE applies first. Ladtrack (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Jamestown, New York is a pretty large city in its own right, so I don't think the Jamestown in Virginia is a clear enough primary topic (if a primary topic at all) to open that can of worms. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. Like I said, I haven't decided. I would like to know first whether it can be moved because of USPLACE though. Ladtrack (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I can’t think why USPLACE wouldn’t apply. Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, my thought process is that it says "populated places" and Jamestown isn't exactly a populated place. Also, it's more like a historical article than a city one, it doesn't have standard city fields like population or area and the whole article is written in the past tense. Ladtrack (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Jamestown was a populated place at one time. You're right that it's not spelled out, but it's probably best to stick to the USPLACE format unless there's a good reason not to in an individual case. If it helps, most ghost towns follow USPLACE guidance. Station1 (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I appreciate the guidance. Ladtrack (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The place-name guidelines for Vietnam are obsolete. The 2025 Vietnamese administrative reforms eliminated the district level and drastically condensed the provincial and commune-level subdivisions. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#My_account_has_been_blocked_redirecting., a user was blocked while attempting to rectify ambiguities created between a former and current subdivision of the same name and in the same province, which often corresponds to roughly the same region. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

They're obsolete if the old articles are transitioning into new ones, if new articles are set up the conventions still apply to those old articles. It would seem prudent to suggest that the old divisions are unlikely to be the primary topic in the case of ambiguity. CMD (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

That should be reflected in the new language. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a proposed new naming convention. Comments, suggestions, and revisions are welcome.

Where possible, articles on current municipality (thành phố trực thuộc trung ương) use [[Placename]]. Provinces (tỉnh) are given in the form [[Placename province]]. Wards (phường) and communes (xã) and special zones (đặc khu), use [[Placename]]. If the name of the commune/ward is the same as other places, use: [[Placename, Provincename]].

For former administrative units, provincial cities (thành phố trực thuộc tỉnh) and district-level towns (thị xã) use [[Placename (provincial city/district-level town)]], while urban districts (quận) and rural districts (huyện) are given in the form [[Placename district]].

Where disambiguation is required, the "Provincename" and comma convention is used, thus [[Placename, Provincename]] or, for districts, [[Placename district, Provincename]]. –Jjidomepd (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That sounds good. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Just a note: Does Provincename include "province"? Henrydat (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with this suggestion. It's very appropriate and makes it easy for readers to distinguish between them. Vietic2 (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

My proposal: Where disambiguation is required, [[Placename]] ([[type]]), [[upper Placename]] is used. Exception, Ho Chi Minh City. Henrydat (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

What disambiguation might be required for Ho Chi Minh City? CMD (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

For historical reason, we don't call it Ho Chi Minh (city). Henrydat (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

"Ho Chi Minh City" in full seems a firmly established COMMONNAME. Ideally we don't have to disambiguate with type and upper placename, but if we do the format seems reasonable. CMD (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

More if my proposal is accepted, former administrative units will retain their names from before their dissolution if they do not conflict with new ones; there is no reason to change them. Provinces and districts that ceased to exist after 1975 (I'm not sure about the provinces and districts of feudal Vietnam) would take the form: Placename Province and Placename District; Placename District, Provincename (not include "Province") if they need disambiguation), see this discussion. See version of WP:VIETPLACE before it was edited by someone . Henrydat (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps there is exception here. For communes (xã), wards (phường) and special administrative regionds (đặc khu), where disambiguation is required, [[Placename]] [[type]], [[upper Placename]] is used. Henrydat (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

My proposal 2: Where disambiguation is required, [[Placename]], [[upper Placename]] is used. For provincial cities (thành phố thuộc tỉnh) and district-level towns (thị xã), where disambiguation is required, [[Placename]] ([[type]]), [[upper Placename]] is used. Henrydat (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Where possible, articles on current municipal cities (thành phố) use [[Placename]]. Provinces (tỉnh) are given in the form [[Placename province]]. Wards (phường), communes (xã), and special zones (đặc khu) use [[Placename]].

For former administrative units, provincial cities (thành phố) and towns (thị xã) use [[Placename (city/town)]], while urban districts (quận) and rural districts (huyện) use the form [[Placename district]].

Where disambiguation is required, the format [[Placename, upper Placename]] is used. For provincial cities and towns, the format [[Placename (city/town), upper Placename]] is used. For districts, the format [[Placename district, upper Placename]] is used.

– Jjidomepd (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Provincial city (thành phố trực thuộc tỉnh) and district-level town (thị xã) names don't need to be long; using [[Placename (provincial city/district-level town)]] is best. Vietic2 (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Why don't using [[Placename (city/town)]]? Henrydat (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Using "city" (thành phố) instead of "provincial city" (thành phố trực thuộc tỉnh) is acceptable. However, if you use "town" instead of "district-level town" this would cause confusion and could be misinterpreted as "town" (thị trấn) instead of "district-level town" (thị xã). Vietic2 (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Commune-level town can be called township and Category:Townships in Vietnam is empty --> not confusion. And note to Jjidomepd Huế (provincial city) not = Huế (city) = Huế. Henrydat (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Henrydat If it conflicts with a municipal city, use either [[Placename, upper Placename]] (e.g. Huế, Thừa Thiên Huế) or [[Placename (city/town), upper Placename]] (e.g. Huế (city), Thừa Thiên Huế). Jjidomepd (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No, we must use: [[Placename (provincial city/district-level town)]] Vietic2 (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You can use them, but we've always preferred shorter names unless otherwise noted. Henrydat (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the above opinion, but: ↑ Vietic2 (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

And other definition pages should not use [[Placename]] but should use [[Placename (disambiguation)]]
Ex: Sóc Trăng ==> Sóc Trăng (disambiguation) Vietic2 (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Reason for the changes: Provincial cities and district-level towns in Vietnam were abolished, a city of the same name doesn't exist, provinces should be primary topic. Communes and wards was sub-level division of rural districts (huyện) and urban districts (quận), need to be consensus here for them to replace the role of provincial-cities or towns. And also for adding "province" to the Placename of provinces. There is no reason to distinguish between municipalities and provinces. Therefore: Henrydat (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

My proposal 2 re-writed:

Where possible, articles use [[Placename]].

Where disambiguation is required, [[Placename, upper Placename]] is used.

For former administrative units:

Where possible, articles on cities (thành phố), town (thị xã) use [[Placename (type)]].

Urban districts (quận) and rural districts (huyện) are given in the form [[Placename district]]. Provinces (tỉnh) are given in the form [[Placename province]].

Where disambiguation is required, [[Placename province/district (type), upper Placename]] is used.

Type: provincial city/district-level town/commune-level town or city/town/township for short. Henrydat (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Example: Long name: Ba Sao, Đồng Tháp, short name: Ba Sao.

Long name: Long Xuyên (city), An Giang, short name: Long Xuyên (city). Henrydat (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

My proposal 3 I apologize for using the incorrect word. They may not exist as a administrative unit but may exist as a settlement. I've read the source with the date "24/12/2025" of Vietnamese wikipedia article of Urban area of Vietnam, perhaps these articles will be transited to urban areas which are independent with administrative units in the future. So I withdraw for all but suggest a new convention:

Where disambiguation is required, [[Placename, upper Placename]] is used. Henrydat (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the new names for former administrative units should be decided at WP:RM, I write here for proposal for them:

Where disambiguation is required, [[Placename (type)]] is used. Type: provincial city/district-level town/commune-level town or city/town/township for short. Henrydat (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

If the names of Vietnamese communes and wards coincide with a historical figure or historical state, for example, historical figure Đốc binh Kiều,... Historical state: Vạn Xuân,... We must use: [[Placename (type)]]
Ex: Đốc Binh Kiều (commune)
Ex:Vạn Xuân (commune) Vietic2 (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems to be COMMONNAME. See above. Henrydat (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

So, have we reached a consensus? Jjidomepd (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

They are not much different except for Talk:An Giang province#Requested move 30 June 2026. Need someone to close this section or do nothing because in fact it's in use. Thanks for Viettic2's idea and thanks for all. Henrydat (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

An example of an article being converted to urban erea. I think we won't have any naming issues any more. Henrydat (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Henrydat: In my view, an urban area is defined by its level of economic development and population concentration rather than by its administrative status. Therefore, the article should be titled "Tân An Urban Area", following the same naming convention as "Liverpool Urban Area". (see the list) Jjidomepd (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

They have specific characteristics as regulated by the Vietnamese government, see source. The special thing is that they were formerly urban areas but will be no longer administrative units. If they are not primary topic, they will have the new names. Henrydat (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Have we reached a consensus yet??? Vietic2 (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion has been closed at WP:VIETPLACE. Henrydat (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any difference. What if the city or town name is the same as a ward or commune name? Vietic2 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Then the city gets the disambiguation "(city)" or "(town)". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

City. Henrydat (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Check the long names of them:

• Different: Do nothing.
• The same: Move. Nha Trang (city) and Nha Trang, Khánh Hòa. Nha Trang (city) has another name Nha Trang City, it can be converted to Nha Trang Urban Erea in the future. Nha Trang depends on what is the primary topic.

Henrydat (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Just my two cents: Jjidomepd's revised proposal seems reasonable and I would support it as an update to WP:VIETPLACE. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Not including the old administrative units to avoid affecting those that had been dissolved before such as Huế (provincial city). The former provinces and former districts always retained their names. Not adding them will help them transform into something else such as Cô Tô district. I have no comments about what is the primary topic such as Quảng Trị ward but I always support for a short. Henrydat (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the new WP:VIETPLACE needs to make mention of pre-2025 subdivision types, which presumably are never primary over post-2025 ones. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

How do you do about it in detail? Henrydat (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

List every type of subdivision and the appropriate disambiguator. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Do it. I only care if they have the same name. Henrydat (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposal:

There is no post-2025 subdivision type officially called a town in English, and I have no reason to believe that a municipality will not be primary over a lower-level subdivision, obsolete or not. I don't think we need to give the Vietnamese terms, either. In addition to the [[Placename, Upper Placename]] rule, I propose also using [[Placename, Vietnam]] if a place name is ambiguous only outside of Vietnam, as we do for most countries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

What are you going to do with the An Nhơn, Ho Chi Minh City and An Nhơn, Gia Lai? Henrydat (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguate places by [[Placename, Upper Placename]] if they are ambiguous only with places in another province or municipality. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't look carefully. What are you going to do with Saigon, Ho Chi Minh City, Phú Nhuận ward and Bà Rịa ward? What are their primary topic? Henrydat (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Urban areas are not administrative divisions; they are classifications based on economic development. Jjidomepd (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh yes. My apology. I edited redirect link but I'm not sure what is municipalities. Henrydat (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

My proposal is outlined in the revised proposal above.

Jjidomepd (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment. A new administrative system would not always replace the common usage of a toponym. There are cases where ambiguities arise between different usages.

For example, see the ongoing Talk:Saigon, Ho Chi Minh City#Requested move 22 July 2026. The question here is how readers would tell whether "Saigon" in the title refers to the large urban area commonly known as Saigon, to its historic centre, or to the newly created administrative ward named Saigon. This issue needs to be addressed to account for exceptional circumstances like this.

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam#RfC on WP:VIETPLACE (particularly the dispute over Da Nang) for the earlier discussion where this issue was addressed but had not yet been resolved. Greenknight dv (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

For these ambiguous cases, in my opinion, the solution is simply to have "ward" (or "commune") in the title. This would remove ambiguity and, in the Saigon case, also reduce verbosity ("Ho Chi Minh City").

For example, vi:Cầu Kiệu means Kiệu Bridge in English, but vi:Cầu Kiệu (phường) currently corresponds to the English article Cầu Kiệu, which is about a ward. This is where confusion arises: Cầu Kiệu in an English text could refer to either the bridge or the ward. To remove this ambiguity, the title should be Cầu Kiệu (ward) or Cầu Kiệu ward instead. Greenknight dv (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Cầu Kiệu would be? Redirect page? No issues. Henrydat (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

"Kiệu Bridge" (cầu Kiệu with a lowercase c) and "Cầu Kiệu" (with an uppercase C) are different and should not be treated as the same. This is analogous to the distinction between "Dân Chủ" and "Dân chủ" (Democracy). Jjidomepd (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not a valid comparison, as only the first letter in page names is case-insensitive. Dân Chủ and dân chủ would be rendered as Dân Chủ and Dân chủ, respectively, whereas Cầu Kiệu and cầu Kiệu would both be rendered as Cầu Kiệu. Technically, there is no separate page name cầu Kiệu; the only existing page name is Cầu Kiệu. Greenknight dv (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It's seem that LaundryPizza03's proposal is like to my proposal: Where disambiguation is required, [[Placename]] ([[type]]), [[upper Placename]] is used. I thought noone support it. You're just presenting it in a long-winded way. You used both parentheses and comma, and both upper placename and type. I support and have nothing to do here. Henrydat (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with it as a general convention. However, there is an issue with unusual cases being discussed that you've missed the point of. Greenknight dv (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge. Henrydat (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment. The dispute over place names involving older (possibly common) usage vs. newer usage needs to be addressed. This issue has been raised in the discussions at Talk:Bà Rịa ward#Requested move 9 July 2026 and Talk:Phú Nhuận ward#Requested move 9 July 2026. Greenknight dv (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

My proposal is outlined in the revised proposal above.

Vietic2 (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not really about the same commune-level "placename" occurring in different provinces/municipalities. Those cases are relatively simple and straightforward, where we would use the upper-level administrative area for disambiguation, such as Phước Long, Đồng Nai and Phước Long, Vĩnh Long. Out of a total of about 3,300 communes/wards, there are fewer than 100 cases like this, which would not be a big deal.

The issue is where the "placename" itself conflict with their WP:COMMONNAME usages, whether former administrative units or simply just names still commonly used by people in everyday contexts. These include cases such as Phú Nhuận ward, Bà Rịa ward, and Sài Gòn (ward), which are currently under dispute with, respectively, Phú Nhuận district, Bà Rịa (city), and Saigon the well-known city. The resolution should include a clause allowing room for discussion rather than imposing a single, rigid, dictatorial "convention" that ignores local identity or risks erasing local culture for the sake of bureaucracy. Greenknight dv (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment. A new incident has unfolded. Henrydat left me a message in Vietnamese attempting to influence me. He admitted to having a "hidden consensus" with other users, and they were concerned that if they "changed back and forth [moving pages] many times, [they] would be blocked", as one of them has already received one. This does not look good to me. I just want to make it public here. Greenknight dv (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Greenknight dv: Then you should report that to WP:ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Everyone knows this. Henrydat (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

And this is the purpose of this discussion. Henrydat (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Henrydat: PLease clarify:

• Are you communicating with other Wikipedia editors about this topic outside of Wikipedia?
• Are you coordinating your edits on Wikipedia with other editors outside of Wikipedia?
• Are you trying to enforce a consensus that you and other editors have reached while communicating outside of Wikipedia?

- Donald Albury 19:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

No, this is Wikipedia. I explaned about my revert no discussion of them in Vietnamese and complained in User talk:LaundryPizza03. Please tell me if I do anything wrong. Henrydat (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you summarize those comments in English? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

See above, reason of not add ward, the primary topic and everything about Saigon. We had been talking for a long time, and this is why we had a disagreement and I didn't invite them to here. Henrydat (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The truth is there are 4000 administrative units (some don't be writed) need consistent. I have nothing to hide. Henrydat (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

They told me adding it was very easy. Henrydat (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Henrydat, why did you remove part of your original comment? I'm translating your comment here; let me know if you agree with my translation: ... But now I already made several thousand edits, so I cannot go back. Regardless, I have already solved the issue for town and city. Now there is something or nothing. Here I have a hidden consensus of one member and one administrator. If [we] move [pages] back and forth many times, [we] will be blocked; one member has been blocked from moving pages for a year for that reason. Greenknight dv (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Because you told you don't care about it and don't translate it Henrydat (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This is the trust. You don't know it? Henrydat (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not what I said. But after I said, "I refuse to follow [your imposition of the flawed consensus]," you removed that part of your comment. I must be skeptical of why you came to my talk page in the first place. Greenknight dv (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

What exactly do you want me to do? Write a proposal for you about ward and commune. This discussion has been closed, only for former subdivisions that have the same name, and Viettic can be request for unblock. We all come from the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Henrydat (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure , escape for CambridgeBayWeather, a good admin. Henrydat (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

We all have a problem with it; a convention would be good. Henrydat (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

That're Jjidomepd and CambridgeBayWeather. You don't know? Henrydat (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

And no, I thought there was a consensus here, so I closed this. Henrydat (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I just want to solve the issue that has been raised. Vietnamese Wikipedia was resolved. I'm so tired. Henrydat (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Remove it, it' only talk. I can talk with anyone. Henrydat (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

While reviewing a discussion on the topic, I came across a further hidden conversation of Henrydat with another editor, in which @Kynguyenvuonminh said At this point, I don't even have the concept of "being afraid of being exposed" anymore. I'll just switch to another account in a few days anyway. I suspect Kynguyenvuonminh may be a long-term sockpuppet. All of this behind-the-scenes coordination does not look good to me. Greenknight dv (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

In another thread, Kynguyenvuonminh made a comment about another editor in their absence: Not knowing much but still trying to impose that way of thinking on others, assuming that everyone is the same. That's what you call being stupid and stubborn. The account has been inactive for almost four months now; they may have switched to a new account that we are not aware of yet. Greenknight dv (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

All Vietnamese Wikipedia known that, why do you raise here? Henrydat (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not know that. And why can I not do it here? Greenknight dv (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Stop joking. This is English wikipedia. We all know each other already. Thanks for your comment here and I have nothing to do. Henrydat (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

You're hiding the fact that you were coordinating edits with other users, one of whom may very well be a sockmaster. Greenknight dv (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I closed this section on 9 July 2026. Henrydat (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 Can I remove my comments? I have not time to read it. Henrydat (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

You should comply with the talk page guidelines at WP:REDACT. wbm1058 (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I said that I have no time to read it. Henrydat (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 You not reply but undid? How many times did you undid? Three? Henrydat (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Because of the allegations against Henrydat by Greenknight dv and procedural irregularities regarding closure, I have gone to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion_going_sideways_due_to_canvassing_allegations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Currently, the regulations for naming places in Vietnam are outdated. Following the administrative reforms in Vietnam in 2025, the district level was abolished, leaving only the provincial-level administrative unit (comprising provinces and municipalities) and commune-level administrative unit (comprising communes, wards and special zones). And I tried to resolve the ambiguity between an old administrative unit with the same name in the same province, but I was banned from redirecting by User: CambridgeBayWeather, on the grounds of vandalism - An absurd, unacceptable reason that lasted for a year. I am Vietnamese and I understand what it is and what its administrative role is. Therefore, here are the regulations for naming geographical locations in Vietnam after the 2025 reorganization:

• Provincial-level administrative unit (including provinces and municipalities):
  • Provinces: <---Name?---> province
    Ex: Lào Cai province
  • Municipalities: <---Name?--->
    Ex: Đồng Nai

• Commune-level administrative unit (including communes, wards and special zones):
  • Wards

===> <---Name?--->
Ex:Long Châu

• • Communes

===> <---Name?--->
Ex:Bến Cầu

• • Special zones

===> <---Name?--->
Ex:Phú Quốc

>>> If the names of communes or wards have a place name that shares the same name but is located in a different province: ===> (Name of commune/ward), (Name province)
Ex: Bình Phú, Đồng Tháp

>>>If the name of the commune or ward is the same as the old place name in the same province: ===> <--Name--> (type of administrative unit)
Ex:Mỹ Tho (ward)

• Former district-administrative unit:
  • Provincial city:

===> <---Name?--->(provincial city)
Ex: Sa Đéc (provincial city)

• • District-level town:

===> <---Name?---> (district-level town)
Ex: Cai Lậy (district-level town)

• • District

===> <---Name?---> district
Ex: Lai Vung district

>>>If the former districts have the same name: ===> <---Name---> district, <-Name of province->
Ex: Châu Thành district, Đồng Tháp

I would like to propose a clarification to WP:USPLACE regarding when US municipalities may use the unqualified title (without state disambiguation).

The guideline states that U.S. place articles are typically titled "Placename, State," but the exceptions to this rule are not clear. All standalone US municipalities are according to the AP Stylebook, but there are a few exceptions.

This RfC asks whether WP:USPLACE should be clarified to explicitly allow the unqualified title when a municipality is the primary topic for its name and no other similarly prominent topic exists.

Some examples of this would be:

- "Virginia Beach, Virginia" -> "Virginia Beach" - "Oconomowoc, Wisconsin" -> "Oconomowoc" - Ambiguous names (e.g. "Springfield") would remain disambiguated.

This is intended to align WP:USPLACE more explicitly with WP:CONCISE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Feedback is welcome on whether this clarification is appropriate and how it should be worded.

QueenPeppers (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

How many times do we need to dig up this dead horse and beat it again? USA city article naming was decided long ago and put to rest, but every few years someone digs it up again. I started 16 years ago, and it was decided before I first started editing. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It is bound to keep being dug up as long as it fails to justify why it diverges from other naming conventions and WP:AT in general in the particular way it does. Currently the naming convention says that the WP:CONSISTENCY upside of adding the state even when not needed for disambiguation outweighs the WP:CONCISION downside because so many US places do need to add the state for disambiguation purposes, and therefore the consensus is that we add the state to the name.. except for when the AP Stylebook advises newspaper articles to not use it.

It's not particularly hard to see that flaw in that logic, and new editors are going to keep starting discussions after reading it because they want to help make the guideline make sense. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 08:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It makes sense if we get away from the premise that its purpose is disambiguation. Except locally, Oconomowoc would normally be referred to as Oconomowoc, Wisconsin to make it easily recognizable as a populated place in the United States, not because Oconomowoc is ambiguous. There are some borderline cases like Reno, but we need to draw a line somewhere, and a neutral, reliable independent source like the AP Stylebook is a good way to do that. Station1 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

There is more than disambiguation behind our guidance. Another reason USPLACES tells us to present town names in “name, state” format is because doing so is essentially the WP:COMMONNNAME way that sources refer to places in the US (at least the first time they are mentioned). The format is SO common, that even uniquely named places are presented that way.

Yes, there are a few large cities that are NOT commonly referred to with the state name included… but they are rare, and are noted as exceptions to the general rule. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I hear both of you, but I wasn't saying that it is for disambiguation. I was saying it is for consistency because a lot of articles require disambiguation (per the guidelines own justification behind it). But, of course, if consistency is favoured, then the guideline should not have an somewhat arbitrary exception for the AP Stylebook.

As for WP:COMMONNAME: we likely should be including a line about this being part of the justification in the guideline, but we'd still have people asking the obvious question of "Why are common names only allowed to not include state/territory if they happen to be in the AP Stylebook?" After all, the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME is to eschew hard rules on following official styles or naming formats in favour of case-by-case evaluation.

I suppose a way to address the situation, as in use a WP:COMMONNAME rationale to support the convention, would be to have the guideline say something like "United States places should use their common names as the title when possible. The vast majority of United States places follow the "Place, State/Territory" format, as consensus is that this reflects reliable source use, but some big cities are more commonly referred to without their state/territory." –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 19:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, a short explanation along those lines could be helpful, maybe right after the first sentence. Station1 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this phenomenon unique to the US though? I feel like regardless of country, any reliable source discussing a place it wouldn't expect its readers to be familiar with would give some sort of geographical indication, and in many cases they use the "name, country/subdivision" format. In Canada, for example, it's quite common to specify a province when talking about a smaller town simply to aid the reader in knowing where something is, even when it's not necessary for disambiguation. Looking at, say, Category:Unincorporated communities in Saskatchewan, there are a lot of titles where disambiguation is necessary, yet AFAICT all of the titles that do not require disambiguation omit the "Saskatchewan". The COMMONNAME argument makes sense, but I feel like we shouldn't be applying a special standard to the US when it's not really that special of a case. Ionmars10 (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support – There are 193 UN member states across the world, around 20–30 of which are federations. In many of these federations (e.g. Canada), referring to cities as "[City], [Major subdivision]" is no less common than it is in the US. However, of these 193 countries, there is only 1 for which we mandate that the naming convention "[City], [Major subdivision]" must be used in cases where the inclusion of the subdivision name isn't required for disambiguation: the United States.^[a]
  The notion that internal state names are a core part of the common name of US settlements in a way that they aren't for those in other countries is simply untrue. And the idea that WP:COMMONNAME requires the inclusion of these state names seems to conflate these contextual locators with the names of the topics themselves. A source may write "Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania" on first mention for the same reason that it may write "Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island": to tell readers where the place is. That doesn't necessarily establish that the longer construction is the place's common name. We don't generally treat every geographic qualifier supplied by sources for context as an inseparable part of a topic's name.
  The existing convention produces internal consistency among US settlement articles – well, consistency aside from the 30 exceptions written into the guideline, I should say – but this comes at the cost of inconsistency with the treatment of place names in every other country in the world. There is simply no reason that an unambiguous US municipality should be uniquely denied the base title merely because sources often identify its state on first mention. Graham11 (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose As Blueboar states, most places in the US are referred to by city name, state in theor first instance, especially when referred to by national or interntational press. As this is an interntational project, we should not presume that a city's name is common across the US, much less the world (I for one would not know where Oconomowoc is). --Enos733 (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)