Talk:Punjabi Market (Vancouver)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vancouver Portal	This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

[edit] Article title

Why disambiguate unnecessarily? --Usgnus 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarity - you get a sense of location immediately, before you even hit the lead. Consistency with other Vancouver ethic areas, such as Little Italy (Vancouver). Finally, to place the neighbourhood on a tier below the city - by calling it Punjabi Market, or Davie Village, or Coal Harbour, we assign a prominence that most city articles don't enjoy. (Coal Harbour and Coal Harbour, British Columbia are examples of how the naming policy has given priority to the name of a civic neighbourhood over the name of a community.) My two cents... --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How is giving the article a simple name giving it prominence. Does that mean Oeagrus is more prominent than Uranus (mythology)? As for consistency, do you propose moving Kerrisdale, Renfrew-Collingwood and West Point Grey? BTW, Coal Harbour is primarily about the body of water, not the neighbourhood. --Usgnus 06:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, your example isn't comparable. Secondly, yes, it would be worth considering moving the articles you've mentioned, after debating the naming policy. I think there is merit in adopting a "tiered" approach to naming civic and geographic articles. At present, there seems to be a "first come, first served" approach, not just here but across Wikipedia. As a result, to use a local example, we now have "Broadway Station" (our SkyTrain station) taking precedence over every other "Broadway Station" on the planet. Should it be moved, and the disambig page moved into its place? Yes. Of course, then we have one station article titled "xyz (Vancouver)" (or whatever) and the rest just "xyz", making it confusing for readers and editors alike. Simplicity is great where appropriate, but there's also merit in adopting guidelines that, while not as simple, provide less opportunity for error. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We already have 22nd Street Station (TransLink), Granville Station (TransLink). Airport Station (TransLink), and Waterfront Station (Vancouver). I don't think that's any more confusing than seeing Thames River (Ontario) in Category:Canadian Heritage Rivers (the convention for rivers is to disambiguate only when necessary and use parentheses). --Usgnus 13:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is my Greek mythology example not relevant? Oeagrus is a human king, whereas Uranus is one of the Titans. Is it because we're talking geography? --Usgnus 13:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes - with geography, we're establishing within the title that the subject is a subset of something else, and not an independent entity. Deep Cove, the District of North Vancouver neighbourhood, is very often used without any associated mention of the municipality, even in international text. The result is that it is perceived to be a separate entity from the District. By listing it as Deep Cove (North Vancouver), you immediately establish that it is a part of a larger civic body. We already do this with cities, adding the province or state in the article's title. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If the neighborhood is notable enough to have an article, it should be notable enough to use its name by itself. Context will be immediately apparent in the first sentence of the article. Unless there is a name collision with another entity, then we should stick to the simplest name. --Polaron | Talk 07:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you've inadvertently pointed out part of the problem: "If the neighborhood is notable enough to have an article, it should be notable enough to use its name by itself." Many of these neighbourhoods probably aren't notable enough to warrant articles of their own, and could be quite neatly summarized in a paragraph or two. The articles are being created anyways, because we, the project members, have expressed an interest in having a "complete set". --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)