YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!


From Wikitravel
Revision as of 01:39, 31 March 2006 by Wrh2 (talk | contribs) (Article name)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Article name[edit]

Why does Mendocino redirect here? Shouldn't it be the other way around? -- Ryan 18:12, 30 March 2006 (EST)

Yes, unless you think Modocino should be a disambig page for Mendocino County and this puny town of 800. -- Colin 18:20, 30 March 2006 (EST)
I don't think we need a disambiguation page for the city / county, and if we do it might as well be "Mendocino (disambiguation)" (similar to how Buenos Aires and Buenos Aires (province) is done). I've actually been meaning to start a discussion about article names when there is a city & parent region, so maybe this is a good time for it. -- Ryan 18:37, 30 March 2006 (EST)
I think the "rule of thumb" for Latin American, Asian and European destinations is that usually the city is much more famous, and the parent region less so, e.g. Chiang Mai and Chiang Mai (province). I think this comes from centralized feudal and colonial governments, where the capital city of an area is delegated direct control of its surrounding region. Regardless of the origin, it's a pattern that we see a lot in some parts of the world.
I don't think the pattern is common in Canada, the United States, Australia, or New Zealand. It's not common to have states or provinces that have a major city with the same name; New York being an obvious exception. Even at the county level in the United States, the situation is rare, with the exceptions that come to my mind (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sonoma, Mendocino, San Diego) being in former Mexican holdings. It's not clear to if that's a big reason or not, or if it really matters.
I think my main point is that I'd be kind of uncomfortable about making a blanket rule about cities and regions with the same name. I think the current guideline in the article naming conventions is pretty good -- we call out the common case, and then apply the "much more famous" rule there. I don't see a pressing need to change that process.
With respect to the specific case of Mendocino: as a Northern Californian, my first thought when I hear "Mendocino" is of the county and not the city. "I'm moving up to Mendocino" could mean that you're going to Ukiah or Willits as soon as the city. Often, people use the name "Mendocino Town" to differentiate the city itself from the county. However, I think that Mendocino Town is a very popular weekend destination, and I don't think that the Mendocino County can pass the "much more famous" rule here. Thus, I suggest we make Mendocino a disambiguation page. --Evan 19:35, 30 March 2006 (EST)
Here's my (convoluted) thinking:
  1. The county article should be "Mendocino County".
  2. However, since people usually call the region just "Mendocino" then a redirect would be called for.
  3. BUT there is a city called Mendocino, and the county is not "significantly more famous".
  4. SO we set up "Mendocino" as a disambiguation. The city article is "Mendocino (California)" (not "Mendocino (city)") and the county article remains "Mendocino County".
Is that correct? It seems like both existing precedent and a reading of the article naming conventions could produce different names here. -- Ryan 20:35, 30 March 2006 (EST)