Talk:Pekina

Australia: Places / South Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Pekina is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pekina, South Australia → Pekina – Unnecessary disambigution. Recently moved from its common-sense name with the following rationale: "Usual naming convention, and I found (and fixed) a rather humorous error of a swimming record, as "Beijing" is "Pekina" in Latvian." The convention for Australian place names has moved quite a bit recently (see Talk:Albury) and I am not sure it is necessary to disambiguate to avoid confusion with Latvian. Mattinbgn (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose moving it back, but as the person who moved it, and someone who was closely involved in establishing the naming convention that almost all articles about Australian cities, towns, villages and localities be qualified by the state name, in the same way as when addressing a letter, I'm not sure if I'm entitled to a vote. I have been a very intermittent Wikipedia editor over the past few years, and had noticed that the convention has moved. I still believe it to be a useful convention, but perhaps it has served a purpose by ensuring that there is only one standard for disambiguating Australian town names. I have always regarded it as qualifying the name, not disambiguating it, as disambiguation would use "(town)" rather than ", <state>". --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification not needed for disambiguation is being overly precise. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:How2title: (1) start, (3) exactly one obvious name ("Pekina") and (9) "Pekina" is not used by any other topic in WP.

One might argue that "Pekina, South Australia" is also an obvious name. In that case: (1) start, (2) more than one obvious name, (3) "Pekina" is the name most commonly used in reliable sources, and (9) "Pekina" is not used by any other topic in WP.

Even if one is to argue that "Pekina" is not the most commonly used name, then we have: (1) start, (2) more than one name, (5) no most common name and naming guideline does not clearly specify one unambiguous title, (6) select a title per WP:TITLE principle naming criteria - go with the one that is significantly more concise, all other criteria held equal, and (9) "Pekina" is not used by any other topic in WP.

No matter how you slice it, we end up with "Pekina". --Born2cycle (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the principles in Wikipedia:Article titles:

Recognizability - both forms are recognizable if you know that you are looking for that article, the longer form is slightly ahead if the reader doesn't know what a pekina is.
Naturalness - The subject is called "Pekina" to a local, but not to someone more than 100km or so away. It might be "Pekina in the Mid-north", or "Pekina, south of Orroroo", or "Pekina in South Australia", or "Pekina, South Australia" if you are addressing the mail, but not just "Pekina".
Precision - this discussion is really about how much precision is appropriate, whether "Pekina, South Australia" is overly precise, or "Pekina" is not precise enough.
Conciseness - "Pekina" is shorter.
Consistency - "Pekina, South Australia" is consistent with the vast majority of articles in ~~Category:Towns in Australia~~ Category:Towns in South Australia.

I don't see a clear winner either way, but to me, Pekina, South Australia is marginally ahead on recognisability, naturalness and precision and well ahead on consistency. As mattinbgn said, "the convention for Australian place names has moved quite a bit recently", but I'd prefer it to move starting from internationally recognised places that appear on a paper map of the whole of Australia, not from small places that most people in Australia would not be able to find. Using Google as a substitute for a survey of reliable sources, the first three pages contained a couple of references in Victoria, but all of the rest contained "South Australia" or "SA" as part of identifying the subject. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the principles in Wikipedia:Article titles:

Recognizability - This is relevant only to someone who is already familiar with Pekina, since one cannot "recognize" something that he is not familiar with (it used to explicitly say this[1], now it's just implied). Both forms are recognizable to anyone familiar with Pekina. Draw.
Naturalness - This means that "a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English." The subject is called "Pekina", period. The fact that additional qualifying information, specifically some reference to the area that it's in, is often used for context does not make that additional qualifying information part of the name. The fact that the additional information, like "South Australia", is not used when it's not needed for context shows that that information is in not part of what it is actually called. Pekina.
Precision - WP:PRECISE states that it is about adding precision "to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name", and adds: "Be precise, but only as precise as necessary."
Since "Pekina" is sufficiently precise, adding ", South Australia" to the title is not "necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name", therefore "Pekina, South Australia" is overly precise, by definition. Pekina.
Conciseness - "Pekina" is shorter. Pekina.
Consistency - "Pekina, South Australia" is consistent with the vast majority of articles in ~~Category:Towns in Australia~~ Category:Towns in South Australia, however this is changing as there is a move away from unnecessary disambiguation for all of Australia, and this request is part of that. Pekina, South Australia.

Also:

"Pekina" has the advantage that it clearly and correctly conveys that this topic is the unique use of the name, while "Pekina, South Australia" wrongly implies that there are other topics in Wikipedia called "Pekina".
Finally, this article was originally created as Pekina, and later was unilaterally moved to Pekina, South Australia without discussion, even though such moves are well known to be controversial.

So, it's a draw on recognizability, and Pekina, South Australia is ahead on consistency, for now, but Pekina has naturalness, precision and conciseness sewn up. I do see a clear winner, and it's obviously Pekina. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Firstly per Born2cycle's detailed analysis. My opinion is that when an Australian town in clearly the primary topic (as is the case with Pekina) it is more concise and natural (see the principles at WP:AT) to not add the state to the title. Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia makes it clear that not having the state in the title for Australian towns in perfectly acceptable. Jenks24 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]