Talk:Ann Arbor, Michigan: Difference between revisions

	Ann Arbor, Michigan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 5, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 28, 2005 Peer review Reviewed September 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted March 3, 2007 Featured article review Kept January 31, 2010 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Michigan FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Template:V0.5

I added a sentence about Ann Arbor consistently ranking high on annual 'best places to live' lists. I thought this was important for people looking to move to the area and wondering about the overall quality of life. SueA2 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the part about a trolley to Briarwood. First, it's wrong, this was going to be light rail, not a trolley, and the tracks are not disused. Second, it's obsolete, this has not been discussed in years as far as I know. Feel free to put this back in if you have a source for this information. Rees11 11:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UMS: Is this really a performing arts group? They don't perform themselves, they bring in groups to perform. Maybe I'm being too nit-picky. If we do mention them, shouldn't we give the full name rather than the acronym? Do we really want to say they're 129 years old, which means someone will have to edit the article and bump the age once a year? Better to say what year they were founded.

"Ann Arbor ranks first among U.S. cities in the number of booksellers and books sold per capita." This oft-repeated claim was debunked in a story in the (I think) February Observer about Ann Arbor myths. Rees11 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed UMS as the organization, from my knowledge, is associated with UM. As for the booksellers per capita, can you provide a link to the source you are talking about? I can't seem to be able to get a hold of the Ann Arbor Observer online. Pentawing^Talk 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually January, not February. I don't have the title but it's a story about Ann Arbor myths and legends. I'm afraid I don't care quite enough to check the sources myself, but I thought I should mention it here. Rees11 01:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what they say on their website: "While proudly affiliated with the University of Michigan and housed on the U-M campus, UMS is a separate not-for-profit organization that supports itself from ticket sales, grants, contributions, and endowment income." Ropcat 03:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the new list of sister cities. I don't think we need two lists, and the new one was incorrect; Peterborough linked to the one in England, for example. Rees11 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't get it. The duplicate list of sister cities has re-appeared. I'm going to remove it again. If the current list is wrong, fix it. If it's in the wrong place, move it. I don't think we need two lists, and if we do, they should at least be the same list. Rees11 14:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone dropped Remedios from the list and added a ref listing only six. I tried to track this down but the only thing I could find in the Council minutes was an item discussing Remedios on the agenda in November 2003, no resolution actually adding it. And the reference that's been added only lists six. So I have modified the text to match the reference. If anyone can find a reference for Remedios, please add it. Rees11 (talk)

Ok, I found it. I didn't look far enough in the minutes from the 6 Nov 2003 meeting. The vote happened after midnight. I will add Remedios back in to the list and add the Council minutes as a ref (if I can figure out the correct ref). Rees11 (talk)

I would not say that State Street and South U are part of downtown. To me, downtown ends and campus begins at Division. But I don't have a reference so maybe it's just me.

I also changed the part where it says the Arb is near downtown but again I have no reference, so I will yield to majority opinion on this if everyone else thinks I'm wrong. Rees11 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few data points: I've also always thought of downtown as extending only to somewhere around Division. However, I also know many people who include central campus and its adjacent commercial areas in their definition of downtown. BobDively 17:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of different ways to define "downtown", but regardless of how you do, saying that the Arb is just east of central campus is better. As to the question of what constitutes downtown, I see a narrow and a broad interpretation.

• • Narrow: Downtown is approximately bounded by Ashley on the west, Division on the east, William on the south, and Catherine on the north.
  • Broad: Downtown is approximately bounded by the train tracks on the west, Washtenaw/Forest on the east, Hill on the south, and the Huron River to the north. Cmadler 18:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the City's Downtown Development Plan and it covers all the way to the corner of South U and Washtenaw, so I'll shut up now. But thanks for the confirmation that I'm not the only one who thinks downtown stops at Division. Rees11 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, someone added the following passage to the article:

Ann Arbor also boasts several locally owned, decades-old unique retail survivors that also function as retail tourist attractions. One example is Sam's Clothing, which opened in the 1940s and resembles a lower-cost L.L. Bean, selling 'basic clothing' (jeans, t-shirts, sneakers, and socks). Another store is The Blue Front Party Store, called this ('Blue') because the original owner sold children's toys and adult magazines side by side. In 1981, the owner died and left the store to his favorite employee, who auctioned off all the old toys for their original grease penciled-on prices. It then became much the full-service, legendary party store it is today.

Though I am familiar with the two stores, the problem is that I can't find any online sources describing them in detail. Recently, there is a Wikipedia user who is demanding citations for many articles, including those that are featured (the above passage has no citations). Hence, can anyone try to dig up some other sources that can be used as citations? Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 23:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I would add that almost any city is going to have "locally owned, decades-old unique retail survivors," so I'm not sure these should even be listed. If we start listing them, where do we stop? Rees11 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Retail tourist attractions"? Sam's is a nice store (I shop there myself), but there's nothing particularly unique about it. The clothes that they sell are also sold by large chains and catalogs. And there are a half dozen other non-chain, small clothing stores downtown. BobDively 23:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in A2 in the 60's/70's (but left nearly 30 years ago). During that time, Herb David's Guitar Studio (I hear that it has moved) was not only a cool second-floor practice room space where many talented local players gave lessons and rehearsed, but a luthier shop that did very sophisticated craftwork and some high profile guitar repairs/customization. Many well-known musicians of the era from SE Michigan and elsewhere were connected with the shop. Reputation said that John Lennon had some guitars worked on there in the "Free John Sinclair" days; Bob Seger hanging around, as well as Fred Smith, Iggy, and I believe Kris Kristofferson. Anyway, Herb David should probably get some mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.93.206 (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone added Gabriel Richard to the list of Ann Arbor private schools. But it's not actually in Ann Arbor. Does it really belong here? Rees11 12:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reese11 - Gabrieal Richard is attached to St. Thomas Church, only blocks from downtown Ann Arbor, and certainly within city limits.Ewhite77 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "attached to." I can't find any mention of St. Thomas on their web site. They appear to be administered directly by the Lansing Diocese, not by St. Thomas. And the building is not anywhere near St. Thomas. Rees11 11:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must've moved. When I went to St. Thomas elementary (admittedly ~ 20 years ago), Richard was connected to the actual building of St. Thomas School (directly next to the church itself). From your report, it sounds like that is no longer the case.--Ewhite77 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They moved out of town a few years ago. I'm not sure what's in the building now but it's not a school. Rees11 14:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took out Gabriel Richard. Rees11 02:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Roe v. Wade is overturned

I had heard years ago (I live on the East Coast of the US) that if abortion were to be made illegal again in Michigan, that the maximum penalty if a woman were to undergo an abortion in Ann Arbor would be $5. 216.179.123.52 14:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in AA, and this sounds very much like an urban legend.Ewhite77 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Ann Arbor now, and I'm an attorney and pro-choice elected official. The claim is complete nonsense. Abortion IS ALREADY a felony in Michigan statutes, since it was illegal before Roe v. Wade, and the legislative compromise over the years has been not to change the law. If the Supreme Court turns the abortion issue back to the states, Michigan reverts to status quo ante of abortions being totally illegal. Hence, in the wake of such a decision, Michigan will immediately become an abortion law battleground.

The slim basis for this rumor: 30 years ago, Ann Arbor was famous for its $5 marijuana fine. Also, some years back, the city held straw votes declaring itself symbolically a "zone of reproductive freedom" as well as a "nuclear free zone" and probably several other things. Kestenbaum 03:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not entirely symbolic. It is indeed a part of the City Charter, and it is modeled on the $5 pot law. In essence, it is a charter amendment passed in April 1990 that declares that if abortion ever becomes illegal in Michigan (i.e. state anti-abortion law becomes prosecutable after Roe is overturned), it will also become a civil infraction in Ann Arbor, subject to a $5 fine. Furthermore, the city attorney may only prosecute under the Ann Arbor civil-infraction code, and may not refer the complaint to any other authority for prosecution. So it appears that the original commentator is pretty much correct. Please see the following two USA Today articles, along with the 1990 amendment to the City Charter. Whether this would stand up in court is unclear.

"Michigan," USA Today, April 4, 1990: "ANN ARBOR - Backer of measure to set $ 5 fine on abortion if it's ever illegal praised 15,698-8,578 passage. Residents also voted, 12,901-11,419, to raise city's $5 marijuana fine to $25. Foe Rich Birkett: 'The people were clearly pro-choice on abortion, and I expected them to be pro-choice on marijuana as well.'"

Steve Marshall, "City Hopes to Thwart Michigan on Abortion Law," USA Today, Feb. 14, 1990, p. 3A: "Voters this spring will decide if their city should become a 'zone of reproductive freedom' - a place where state abortion restrictions could be circumvented by minimal local penalties. The proposal would not change the legality of abortion; only Michigan lawmakers can do that. But it would allow local judges to assess a $5 fine for violators - unless the Legislature mandates tougher fines. ... No matter what the state Legislature does, Ann Arborites - many of them University of Michigan students - will vote on their $5 law April 2. ... The proposal is the brainchild of Sabra Briere, a 39-year-old secretary at the university's School of Public Health who says she was 'sick and tired of someone else deciding what was going to happen with our lives.' Her drive to get the measure on the ballot got three signatures over the 3,720 needed. The wording of her proposal to amend the city charter is modeled after the $5 pot law, though questions about its legal effectiveness remain."

And here is Chapter 20 of the City Charter: Declaration of Zone - SECTION 20.1. The people of the City of Ann Arbor declare the City to be a Zone of Reproductive Freedom. SECTION 20.2. Restrictions on Reproductive Freedom (a) No person within the City of Ann Arbor shall violate any law, rule, or regulation of this state which restricts or prohibits the right of any woman to an abortion, or which restricts or prohibits the right of a person to perform an abortion, as such right existed on January 20, 1981. (b) Any violation of Section 20.2(a) shall be subject to a sentence of up to $5.00, including judgment fees and costs, and no probation or any other punitive or rehabilitative measure shall be imposed; provided, however, that this section shall not be construed to prohibit deferred sentencing. The District Court clerk shall accept any plea of guilty, which is made in the same manner as admissions of responsibility are accepted at the Parking Violations Bureau of the Fifteenth District Court as of December 1, 1989. Persons of any age pleading guilty of violations of this section shall be allowed to tender the sum of $5.00 to the District Court clerk as a full and complete satisfaction and discharge of liability, and no appearance before a district judge or other judicial officer shall be required. (c) In all arrests and prosecutions for violation of this section, appearance tickets and the relevant procedures set forth in Public Act 147 of 1968, as amended, shall be used. (d) No city officer, agent, or employee shall complain of the violation of Section 20.2(a) to any other authority except the Ann Arbor city attorney; and the city attorney shall not refer any said complaint to any other authority for prosecution. (e) The people of the City of Ann Arbor specifically determine that the provisions contained in this chapter are necessary to serve the local purposes of providing just and equitable legal treatment of the citizens of this community, and in particular those women seeking safe abortions; and of providing for the public peace and safety by preserving the respect of such citizens for the law, and for the law enforcement agencies of the City. Such provisions are necessary within the City because of the widespread local support for reproductive freedom. (Sections 20.1-2 added by election of April 2, 1990)

Ropcat 06:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Ropcat the law is not aimed at the woman or provider, they are aimed at maybe protesters? Or if in the event RvW overturned those who report ilegall activity with a $5 fine so all in all misleading disscusion unless I mis something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by F Tech (talk • contribs) 06:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC) The current Michigan law -- which exists on the books and would become active if Roe v Wade were overturned -- punishes the provider. This ordinance, as part of the City Charter, protects providers, so access to abortion remains possible. Sabra Briere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.57.40 (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing, but this seems notable. --AVRS 10:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, it's important. it's the featured article on Sunday's front page. Shakey Jake is an Ann Arbor icon- if Blanket Man has an entire article devoted to him, then i think Shakey Jake should at least have some mention on the Ann Arbor page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.116.204 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need so much detail on the major highways? Also, US-12 doesn't actually go through Ann Arbor, does it? Rees11 (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current US-12 does not. The original one did: it was Jackson Road.—Chowbok ☠ 17:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are slated for front page, I decided to review the page. We had some interesting and odd comments upon our front page FA a few days ago for Minneapolis.

• Intro terribly short! You ought to expand it with points perhaps from culture or educationn. It should note some of the highlights of each section. Three paragraphs is a much fuller and concise lead.
• History it needs to be combined into paragraphs, not individual sentences. it looks like a random assortment of trivial facts. remember, a reader needs to feel like they're being introduced to how Ann Arbor came into being and how it might have affected the world. Draw on the main article to expand it. And a lot of opinions and claims with no sources (Human Rights Party and gentrification paragraphs).
• Geography and cityscape I don't understand why the Census data has been left in, there should be an introductory paragraph not data points.
• Demographics again census data but no prose
• Law and government Good! this is a good example of how to write a section. Wikiproject city MOS prefers SIster Cities to be its own section near the bottom of the page.
• Economy Pretty good. The Borders moving information is rather excessive unless its somehow notable how they moved around town. Could use another photo.
• Education Good, what I expect from Ann Arbor.
• Culture/Med/Health Perfect
• Transportation Its not necessary to itemize the highways, its not very helpful nor is very descriptive for people. Writing into prose would be much clearer.

That's it! If you could improve the first few sections, this page is going to be solid. At the moment, I am a bit worried you will lose FA status on next review. The short intro, while might have worked back in the day, is not going to fly at all and in fact is an indicator of a weak city page. See San Francisco for probably the best FA City article out there. .:davumaya:. 09:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. I've moved Sister Cities to a separate section at the end, and moved the list of highways in-line. Both are easy changes and do improve the article I think. I proposed fixing the highway list a few months ago and no one objected. Rees11 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent a couple hours adding references, copyediting, and expanding the lead. Should be good enough for the Main Page now. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous work! .:davumaya:. 01:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Haven't been around for awhile, so I was surprised to find that the article is the front page. Anyways, I reedited the introduction along the lines of that of Boston, Massachusetts (of which I also did the FA for some time ago). If there is anymore problems, feel free to talk about it and improve if necessary. Pentawing^Talk 01:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that this is one of the best articles I've read. Well done!--Nick54321blastoff (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a song lyric dating back at least to the sixties, probably earlier. The Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau claims, "There is only one Ann Arbor in the world..."

That may be so, but Pardes Hanna translates as "Ann Orchard," close enough for horseshoes. __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the location (coordinates) so precise? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I assumed it was the precise location of some landmark, like the center of the street coordinate system. But I looked it up, and it's in the parking lot of some frat house (Theta Chi?) off South U. I suggest we either improve the accuracy or reduce the precision. Rees11 (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plugged in the coordinates of USGS marker NE0696, which is at the southeast corner of the Courthouse and the closest to the center of the street coordinate system I could find. Also rounded to whole seconds. Rees11 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arbor being a university town, it seems quite appropriate to centre it in a frat house parking lot. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article. Ann Arbor is a lovely city, based on my recollections of a visit there many years ago.

I'm curious about this sentence from the opening paragraph: "It is the state's seventh largest city with a population of 114,024 as of the 2000 census, of which 36,892 (32%) are college or graduate students".

As the University of Michigan is the largest educational institution, why are "university students" not mentioned? It seems to me that "university or college students" would better fit the situation. Graduate students are (almost always) "university students" I believe.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GO A2! __earth ^(Talk) 13:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a University of Illinois alumnus, I've never been more tempted to vandalize an article in my life :-D (don't worry... I'll behave) Teemu08 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teemu08: Thank you!!

P.S. When did Illinois get a University? ;o)

Wanderer57 (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone cares, there is substantial evidence for the "tree town" nickname. First, if you want something official, the City government's internal events newsletter is the Tree Town Log. Second, try the Google test. There are more than twice as many hits for "town" as for "city." Finally, the Ann Arbor News is not searchable, but the Daily is, and there are plenty of hits that could be used as references:

+site:michigandaily.com "tree town" "tree+town"&btnG=Search

The confusion may stem from Ann Arbor's designation as a Tree City USA by the Arbor Day Foundation. Rees11 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The weather statistics are currently drawn from stats for Ypsilanti. Stats for Ann Arbor should be drawn from a source about Ann Arbor, such as those provided by MSU's Ann Arbor weather station, no? Vassyana (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several weather stations in Ann Arbor, and readings between them vary measurably. The one at the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport, is off from the one on North Campus at AOSS^[1]. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that addresses my concern. Regardless of variation between weather stations in Ann Arbor, shouldn't the article reference Ann Arbor statistics instead of relying on stats for Yypsilanti? Vassyana (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that information from the weather station at Ann Arbor Municipal Airport appears to be lacking (particularly with regards to precipitation and snowfall). Hence, the use of the weather station at Willow Run Airport (which provides more comprehensive data). So far, I am unsure where else to look for comprehensive average weather information exclusively within Ann Arbor (Weather Underground and the National Weather Service do not appear to make it easy to find such information, particularly in table format). However, I would appreciate it if someone does find the information somewhere. Pentawing^Talk 04:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I am not a fan of photo galleries within articles. Hence, I have moved the gallery here. In any case, I believe that the images should be transferred to Wikimedia Commons (as the images are under GFDL). Pentawing^Talk 04:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Ann Arbor as seen from Michigan Stadium.
• 
  State Street on December 23, 2008.
• 
  Main Street on December 23, 2008.
• 
  Main Street on December 23, 2008.
• 
  University of Michigan Diag on December 23, 2008.
• 
  South University.
• 
  Main Street on December 23, 2008.
• 
• 
• 
  People walk along Main Street.

The religion section of this article needs serious expansion, or deletion. Right now it's like some Every Three Weekly send-up of the arrogance of the large population of undergraduate Jews from the East Coast. 145.116.8.87 (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it should be expanded or deleted. Rees11 (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It now sounds as if only Jewish and Christian communities are important in Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor is also home to a significant Muslim population (cf. The Islamic Center) and also has several Buddhist temples and practice groups--the Zen Temple of Ann Arbor, Jewel Heart, etc. 98.243.171.194 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In the meantime, I have moved the section here in hopes that someone will take the time to expand it further. If the section is to be included, I suggest that it be placed in the demographics section. Pentawing^Talk 04:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arbor is home numerous Churches and Synagogues catering to several different religious denominations. Notable congregations include the Conservative Judaism Beth Israel Congregation. Established in 1916, it is Ann Arbor's oldest synagogue.^[2] Belle's Apostolic Lutheran Church was also in Ann Arbor. Also known as First Apostolic Lutheran Church, it was established in 1984, and taken down in February, 2004.^{[citation needed]} The city of Ann Arbor also contains St. Mary Student Parish, which services the Catholic community of the University of Michigan with masses in both English and Spanish.

According to this WP article, Ann Arbor was founded in January 1824 by John Allen and Elisha Rumsey. I've done some research on the early history of Ann Arbor and I couldn't find any evidence that it was founded in January 1824. In fact, Allen and Rumsey chose the site now know as Ann Arbor in early February 1824. It is better to say that Ann Arbor was founded in 1824. I've erased January from the lead and history sections. AdjustShift (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the books I have on hand and if they give a month at all they say Allen and Rumsey "came to" Ann Arbor in Feb (which is not necessarily the same as founding). Apparently Allen's wife was along and Rumsey's joined them later that year. I think if I were going to found a village in Michigan I'd pick June, not February.

History of Ann Arbor, Michigan also says January, and gives a broken web link as its source. Rees11 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems to be Founding and Settlement, which says A&R came to Detroit in January and headed west from there in February. So I think Feb is correct. Rees11 (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These passages are relevant to the article, yet are in need of citation. I think I have found an article that can support these passages, but I cannot be able to access the full article (the article is entitled Soulless Cities: Ann Arbor, the Cutting Edge of Discipline: Postfordism, Postmodernism, and the New Bourgeoisie by Corey Dolgon). Pentawing^Talk 01:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The economy of Ann Arbor underwent a gradual shift from a manufacturing base to a service and technology base during the 20th century, which accelerated in the 1970s and 1980s. At the same time, the downtown transformed from one dominated by retail establishments dealing in staple goods to one composed mainly of eateries, cafés, bars, clubs, and specialty shops.

I suspect tourism is the city's biggest industry now but I have been unable to find any good sources. Rees11 (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the University of Michigan is the city's biggest industry?—Chowbok ☠ 17:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, I took a number of photos of historic properties in Ann Arbor. They're all on Commons at [1]. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we find a more pleasant photo of Ann Arbor then the billboards/back of buildings pic that pops up on Facebook? Not really sure how this works, but I would prefer a scene of downtown, the river or maybe the Arb... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.1.248 (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request to rename this article to Ann Arbor, Michigan has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Ann Arbor → Ann Arbor, Michigan — Ann Arbor is not on the Associated Press list of U.S. cities that do not need the state identifier. As such, news reports and the like (excluding local sources, of course) that reference the city will almost always append the state; we should too. --Powers ^T 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and Quick close This article was just moved. Requesting moves less than a week after a move is completed is bad form. I am not opposed revising once the business at WP:NCGN is resolved but until then it's likely better to leave this article be. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that this move, base on thin participation, is being used as an example in the NCGN.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is that a problem? It illustrates why guidelines that require articles to be at overprecise titles create instablity. What inevitably happens, sooner or later, is that somebody seeks to move the article from the overprecise title to a more concise title, and then it's moved, then somebody objects, etc. That's instability.

      On the other hand, you have the example of the AP cities, most of which each had a history of instability while subject to the comma convention rule, until they were moved to their concise titles. The only unstable one (of those that are primary topics for their plain names) now is the one that wasn't moved, Las Vegas, Nevada.

      This article serves as an example of the instability caused by imposing the comma convention on articles with unambiguous plain names whether this article stays here or not; in fact this "move revert" proposal only strengthens the case (had the guideline been changed to no longer require ", state", there would be no grounds whatsoever for this proposal, and this article would remain here peacefully, indefinitely). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that most of these of pages moves are by known partisans in this discussion. It's one thing if these were random editors, it's another when it is folks like us who have been around this block and made our views on this subject well known. If I were to open up a page move on Seattle, Washington during the holidays and was successful with a 3 person consensus, it wouldn't be very fair of me to use that as an example that the "exceptions" clause has a "history of instability" and likely to only cause more problems. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, things only seem unstable because a few people have decided they don't like the U.S. convention. That's not evidence that they're necessarily right. =) Powers ^T 02:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The instability caused by predisambiguation extends far beyond U.S. city articles. This is one of the reasons the practice has been abandoned from categories ranging from Canadian cities to TV episodes to even royalty to some extent. It's caused because just about anyone who pays attention to WP naming will notice the consistent practice to use concise titles and not be any more precise than is necessary for disambiguation, until they stumble onto an exception, like, for example, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Then they naturally try to fix it. Once titles are at their most concise names they are stable because nobody has a good reason to move them. See User:Born2cycle#A_goal:_naming_stability_at_Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not so much predisambiguation but an attempt to apply COMMONNAME to a class of articles with consistency rather than having no way to know what title the city is at without looking at the article. Powers ^T 13:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Not to be disrespectful but where was everyone three weeks ago, and don't use Christmas holidays (as some are trying to do) as an excuse. Nearly everyone here was editing between the 18th and the 26th and this worked its way through RM without barely a peep. The rather public listing or RMs makes "under the radar" all but impossible. Move discussions relating to US cities have been taking place, almost continuously, for over a month. The debate regarding San Diego since early November. So I have hard time seeing this as shocking news. Maybe WP:CITIES should begin employing an article alert bot, like AAlertBot. Getting to the matter at hand. The WP:COMMONNAME is Ann Arbor, plain and simple. In terms of WP:PRECISION, the state name is not needed as a disambiguating factor. The name on it's own is precise enough.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I knew how I missed that particular RM, I wouldn't have missed it. Anyway, I disagree; if we look primarily at references to the city that come from outside the state of Michigan and neighboring areas -- places where the location of Ann Arbor is already known well -- the state name is very frequently appended. That makes "Ann Arbor, Michigan" the common name of this city. Powers ^T 13:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • For media that utilize the AP stylebook (AP online and print newsmedia) I think you're correct. However, in terms of wider published material, I don't think so. For instance, if you look at an aggregate of news articles at google news posted in the last 24 hours there are 155 hits for Ann Arbor, Michigan[2], 1,590 hits for Ann Arbor, Mich (most related to football and appearing to use republished AP new releases)[3] and 3,502 hits for Ann Arbor with Mich and Ann Arbor, Michigan removed.[4] Even with AnnArbor.com removed (although I don't believe local should be discounted, I still get 2,200 hits[5] In terms of books, I get 1.1M google book hits for Ann Arbor -Mich -"Ann -Arbor, -Michigan"[6] and half that many for Ann Arbor, Michigan[7].--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reversion to "Ann Arbor, Michigan"' to conform to naming conventions. Those cities which have been exempted from those conventions are the largest and most prominent ones, which Ann Arbor does not qualify as. The previous discussion, which took place during the very slow pre-holiday period, should have been re-listed for further input rather than closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reversion to Ann Arbor, Michigan per guideline. This was a quiet, under the radar RM that only circumvents consensus building at WP:PLACES. The objective should be to build consensus towards a cohesive, consistent guideline rather than trying to do isolated RM requests when no one (okay, maybe 4 people) is looking. A consensus of 3 editors is no consensus at all. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reversion. We already have a naming convention that keeps us from having to guess where an article is.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Fuck WP:PLACE#United States. There is only one "Ann Arbor" of note and this is it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose we can add WP:CONLIMITED to the list of guidelines we're "fucking off"? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not basing my opinion on the previous consensus. I am working to promote a new one. It is very clear that this is the only Ann Arbor of any note in any jurisdiction on the Earth. It is therefore entirely unnecessary to disambiguate the page title to say that it is in Michigan when there are no other Ann Arbors around to require a different title for this particular page. The only reason that there is a discussion to revert the move is because several people on this project have nothing better to do with their time than to make ulimately restrictive guidelines set into the manuals of style based on everything but common sense. The only reason anyone is bothered about this is because they do not think that there should be any exceptions to any of the manuals of style. If you already use the location as redirect because it is the primary topic, why the hell do you need to disambiguate the title?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And WP:COMMONSENSE dictates that we have guidelines because we have a broad spectrum of articles that have to be dealt with and it makes more sense to have something consistent versus a patchwork quilt of "whatever". While Ann Arbor maybe the only city called Ann Arbor it is not the only US city article that we have an article on Wikipedia about. So we can either go with "whatever" as a guideline for dealing any article someone just happens to feel like doing a page move on OR we can try to build consensus on the guideline that impacts all US city articles. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to me that the current guideline has everything backwards. Rather than have every US city appended by it's state's name, except for a few cases listed in the Associated Press's style guide, it should be that every US city should not be appended by its state's name, unless there is another city (or article) that has the same name (Paris, Texas, Athens, Georgia, Springfield, Massachusetts, Springfield, Illinois, Albany, New York, Albany, Georgia, Phoenix, Arizona, Buffalo, New York). That seems to be more common sense than following some external policy on how to refer to city names.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Now we are limiting "common" sense to your personal opinion which, may not be used to the common vernacular in the US of referring to locations with the City, State convention. Yes, the Wikipedia convention for US articles is different from other global city articles because the real life usage in the US different. If some news events happens in Assawoman, Virginia, people in San Francisco, New York, Chicago, etc are not going to be talking about "that event in Assawoman". Heck, even the headlines about the possible firing of the University of Michigan's football coach are datelined with "Ann Arbor, Michigan". That's just the way the US vernacular is that even when talking about the University of Michigan, it is still habit to say "Ann Arbor, Michigan". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Ryulong, naming guidelines provide stability to article names, and per Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions its is policy to follow such guidelines because they "neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain". It's quite clear that your beef is with the guideline rather than with this one place an exception to them, so go argue for a change in the guideline. Unless and until such a change is made, the correct title for this article is per the current version of WP:PLACE#United States. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The guideline should not be a law written in stone. There are clear that there are exceptions to be made, and this is one of them. Just because the guideline is there doesn't mean it has to be followed on this page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reversion, per guideline. The previous discussion was a bad close, because there was no counter-argument to the 4th editor's invocation of the guideline. The closing editor should not have closed just by a headcount, when only the minority view was the only one which addressed the guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per Labattblueboy. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object to speedy close. Move it back. This naming violates MOS. Corvus cornix_talk 02:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close is inappropriate since the proposal has garnered support. Powers ^T 02:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently there will be no speedy close. My "vote" is further below. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy closeOppose -- Move was proposed by someone who is well aware that a discussion about the U.S. place naming guideline is ongoing. I'm sure if any of the guideline discussion participants on the other side did it, this would also be the reaction. --Polaron | Talk 03:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC) -- Clarified my position now that it seems this won't be speedy closed. Current title is consistent with Wikipedia-wide guidelines of using the most concise name that is sufficient to distinguish the article. If others contest that this is the primary topic for this name, then they should go about opening a requested move for the disambiguation page. --Polaron | Talk 02:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polaron, you're truing to have your cake and eat it. The RFC discussion was ongoing when the christmas-time move was made. If article names are going to be frozen while the guideline discussion is underway, freeze as it was when the guideline discussion started on 19 December 2010. The contested and under-attended move req took place while the RFC was underway, so it's quite perverse to let that stand but seek speedy closure of a better-attended one proposing its reversal.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The person who proposed the original move was not, however, involved in that guideline discussion. The person who proposed this one was. --Polaron | Talk 13:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The person who proposed the original move made several cookie-cutter proposals for different places, by way of disregarding consensus, and is an "involved party". S/he should have discussed it and even announced it publicly rather than stirring up local trouble in many different places. --Doncram (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is an argument to be made for having created one multi-article proposal, but there is no requirement to do so. And the idea that you should have a discussion before starting a discussion (essentially that's all these are) is absurd. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support revert, per the standard name guideline for US. The guideline has not changed and these changes to name without state should be rejected as trying to create the 'instability' and confusion. Soon every city an editor thinks is so 'well known' to not need state will be subject to rename. This is 'my city' puffery promotion, regardless where one lives. Hmains (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, we don't have to blindly follow conventions, particularly those which seem no longer to enjoy consensus support. Disambiguation of this title is superfluous.--Kotniski (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this is not a postal address. Article titles should be concise. --JinJian (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does concision take precedence over commonality? Powers ^T 13:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I want more information, I would dwell on the body of the article. Although the AP style does mention that there are 30 U.S. cities that "do not need to be followed by the state name", it appears that the exceptions are intended for the datelines, or a "must" that should included on the article bodies. It does not state that it should be applied on the headlines or article titles. Please see [8]. This is an example of a news story from CNN, [9]. I have yet to see a news article that includes state name Michigan for Ann Arbor. At the very least, there is no consensus from media outlets that headlines should always bear the state name. They know the importance on keeping their article titles short and would not likely keep their headlines from becoming overloaded or complicated. Encyclopedia Britannica [10] uses only Ann Arbor for its title. Hence, Ann Arbor, Michigan as an article title cannot be considered as common at all. Appending state name is an unnecessary redundancy since the article can provide that information. Ann Arbor can stand on itself so let it be. Disambiguate only if necessary. --JinJian (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • An outstanding point I don't believe I've ever seen made before. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a case of disambiguation since, as you note, there is only one Ann Arbor. It is instead a case of COMMONNAME. Powers ^T 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the evidence presented is that "Ann Arbor" is more common than "Ann Arbor, Michigan". Even if it was just a wash, obviously the shorter one wins on conciseness and preciseness (it's not overly precise). The only principle criteria by which the overprecise title is favored is consistency... consistency with a guideline that is in dispute (if not in disrepute). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Found it interesting that the CNN article does not use "Michigan" in the headline, but the very first sentence of the article says "Eight Ann Arbor, Michigan, schools..." Substitute "Detroit" for "Ann Arbor" and the word "Michigan" would be dropped completely. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support revert, per the standard name guideline for US, per Hmains statement above. --Doncram (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reversion to "Ann Arbor, Michigan"' per naming convention. The trickle of non-sui generis individual challenges to the convention is getting old. Change WP:PLACE#United States first. — AjaxSmack 00:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Ryulong. Enough of this walled garden where special rules apply; let common names that are disambiguated only when needed apply all over Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reversion to original title also per naming convention and the. Ann Arbor is not a hugely well-known city relatively speaking which is why the AP doesn't list it as one that does not need a state with it. I also think the initial move to simply "Ann Arbor" was improper, particularly with the oppose on it that cited a relevant policy guideline; more time should've been given and more input should've been sought first. Look at the response it's getting now that more people are aware of it. I don't watch this article; I was made aware by a simple posting on the WP:CITIES talk page. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PLACE is not a policy. It is a guideline.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is true, but my support for the reversion still stands. The reason to go against the guideline in the first place was not strong as the cities given as examples for the change (Detroit, Milwaukee) are all much larger and well-known than Ann Arbor. Not only was WP:PLACE given as a reason, but the ongoing discussion about it and the possibility of changes was also referenced. The main argument here seems to be directed at the guideline itself, not so much Ann Arbor. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reversion to "Ann Arbor, Michigan" per naming convention. The United States isn't a "walled garden". Naming conventions serve a purpose, aiding both readers and editors.   Will Beback  talk  07:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to know how the state name in the page title aids readers and editors.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consistency makes information easier to comprehend. One might as easily ask what purpose the letter "g" serves in the word "reign". It does nothing for pronunciation, but it tells readers that they are not reading about the reins on a horse. Why do we always put infoboxes on the right and tables of contents on the left? For the same reason: consistency.   Will Beback  talk  09:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A silent letter in the English language doesn't really compare with saying various cities not picked out by the AP need to have their state mentioned.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you think that consistent spelling makes text easier to read? Do you think there's a benefit to having consistent formatting in Wikipedia articles? I do. I think naming conventions serve a purpose, and that they work best when followed as much as possible.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Spelling != titling convention.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you opposed to all titling conventions?   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Only the counterintuitive ones.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in line with long-standing convention. Deb (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A speedy close is not appropriate here, but I oppose reversion. "Ann Arbor" is a sufficiently unambiguous title, and as WP:TITLE suggests, in the absence of ambiguity, "shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones." The WP:PLACE#United States guideline ought to be updated to more closely match the policy, but that's for the RFC to decide. 28bytes (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguity is not at issue here; it's WP:COMMONNAME with a fudge factor in place for consistency across the country. Powers ^T 20:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking as someone who's lived both near and far from Ann Arbor, I have to say "Ann Arbor" is certainly the common name for the place. As for consistency across the country, any guideline that mandates city-only for Miami but city-state for Orlando is clearly in need of improvement. 28bytes (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure the Associated Press would be interested to know that their guidelines need improvement. Powers ^T 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The AP's guideline is perfectly fine for their purposes. Whether it's a good match for our purposes is another question. 28bytes (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reversion to form used by the Associated Press (a reliable source writing in American), which will restore consistency to Category:Cities in Michigan. Please note that consistency with articles in the same categories is one of the principles of WP:TITLE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you see the post above from JinJian stamped 15:33, 5 January 2011? The AP uses the city, state in datelines, not in titles. In titles they rarely use the state. To follow what reliable sources like newspapers do, we would not specify the state in our titles (except when necessary), and specify it in the closest equivalent of the dateline in our articles... the lead.

    Consistency with how other similar articles are titled is only one of five principle naming criteria listed at WP:TITLE, in this case the guideline/convention in question does not have consensus support, and using just "Ann Arbor" is consistent with how most other city articles are named, because two other relevant criteria here are conciseness and only as precise as necessary. Last I checked, 2 > 1 (I presume a wash in this case on the other two criteria, recognizability to those familiar with the topic and naturalness). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Concision is a good thing; so is consistency. Those who have read WP:TITLE will see we value both; since both forms are recognizable - and Ann Arbor, Michigan is if anything more recognizable and natural than mere Ann Arbor (it will assure the reader that this is not a dab page) - we can afford not to set the riddle of why this city (alone in Michigan) should be undisambiguated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, not quite alone in Michigan, although close to it. 28bytes (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quite so; and the reason why the line should be drawn at Detroit is explained by John Ridinger and Will Beback, above; mere repetition, no matter how obscene, will not answer them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it was only a matter of conciseness vs. consistency, it would be a toss-up, but the shorter name is also clearly in better compliance with only as precise as necessary to distinguish an article from other uses. That makes it 2 to 1.

        If you really believe one or the other is more natural or recognizable (to those familiar with the topic), I suggest you're interpreting those criteria in this case in a way that they are not intended to be understood.

        Please note that by that interpretation of "natural" and "recognizable", almost every article in WP about cities and towns with unambiguous names should have its title extended to be more "natural" and "recognizable". That is, if Ann Arbor, Michigan is more natural and/or recognizable than Ann Arbor, then Tecate, Baja California is more "natural" and/or "recognizable" than Tecate, and so it should be moved as well.

        In fact, with that interpretation, countless titles about any topic that is not as well known as any city on the AP list should be extended to be more "natural" and/or "recognizable". In other words, it's an interpretation of these criteria that is not used for naming any other articles, so why should it be used here? Clearly, that's not how they are intended to be understood, and which is why, for example, recognizability is clarified to apply only to those already familiar with the topic.

        Sorry, but this really seems like just another I just don't like it rationalization cleverly (and perhaps not intentionally) as an apparently reasonable position. This Wikipedian, for one, ain't buyin' it. Got anything else? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing novel here; it would be more helpfully put as "Oppose; WP:I don't like it"; we know that. When Born2Cycle is quite finished repeating the same points, do let us know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't recall ever making this argument before - essentially, that it's fallacious to interpret recognizability and naturalness specially for this article, or for all U.S. city articles, as the argument you just put forward apparently is. Am I the only one to find the "nothing novel here" excuse to not reply to the substance of this argument to be telling? If you have responded to this point before, a link would be appreciated, for I am truly interested in what that response might be. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect that the naturalness and recognizability arguments are equally applicable to Mexican cities. Communities in the United States are very frequently referred to with the state identifier attached -- it is, thus, natural for American editors and readers to write the names of the communities that way. American readers are also quite used to seeing the state appended on first reference, and not just in datelines, either, making it more recognizable as referring to an American community. These traits are apparently not seen to the same level in other countries, including Mexico. Powers ^T 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think there might be some misunderstanding due to clumping the two criteria together, so let's look at them separately.

The issue isn't whether "Ann Arbor, Michigan", is more natural than "Tecate, Baja California" (I agree it is), it's about whether "Ann Arbor, Michigan" is more natural than "Ann Arbor". I don't see how it is (and that goes for any U.S. city or town). That is, it's perfectly natural to refer to a U.S. city by its concise name, and so referring to it as "city, state", while also (arguably equally) natural, is not more natural. That's why I said above that with respect to naturalness, the two titles being considered here are a wash.

With respect to recognizability, if you ignore the "to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic" phrase, one might conceivably argue that "Ann Arbor, Michigan" is more "recognizable" than "Ann Arbor". But by that interpretation, "Tecate, Baja California" is more "recognizable" than "Tecate", and Regensburg, Bavaria is more "recognizable" than Regensburg ("Regensburg, Bavaria" is also quite "natural", by the way[11]). We don't move those cities (or countless other articles) to make them more "recognizable" in that sense, so that must not be what that criteria is about. Therefore the only way to see "recognizability" as favoring "Ann Arbor, Michigan" over "Ann Arbor", is to interpret "recognizability" specially for this article (or for U.S. city articles)... it's a classic JDLI rationalization. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. My whole point was that due to the differences in how cities in the U.S. are commonly identified (versus in other countries, like Mexico), the longer form is more recognizable. There's no reason why the same logic necessarily must apply to cities in other countries. Furthermore, even if some of us would prefer that those titles for articles on foreign cities be expanded to include the country or region name, there's a bit of a gentleman's agreement at WP:PLACE that editors from a particular country are best positioned to choose the ideal naming conventions for that country, so I, as an American editor, would not presume to dictate to the Mexican or German editors what their convention should be. Powers ^T 03:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm wrong please correct me and ignore the rest of this paragraph, but I think you're saying that independent of the generic recognizability boost that all cities get by being qualified with a higher level jurisdiction region like Michigan, Baja California or Bavaria, U.S. cities get an additional peculiar boost in recognizability from being qualified by state because state qualification is so commonly used in the U.S. (which I'm not disputing), and that peculiar American boost in recognizability is why "city, state" should be preferred over "city", even though the generic boost in recognizability is not counted. Remember, we're talking about cities with unambiguous names, and recognizability from the perspective of "readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic". Are you seriously suggesting that someone familiar with Ann Arbor is going to be more likely to recognize "Ann Arbor, Michigan" than "Ann Arbor"? I'm sorry, and I don't doubt your sincerity, but this whole argument strikes me as rationalized contriving to the point of absurdity.

As to the argument that editors from each respective country should make these decisions, see WP:OWN and Balkanization. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I read about that last bit somewhere, but I'm having trouble finding it. Powers ^T 12:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current title, Ann Arbor, complies better with the five principle naming criteria at WP:TITLE than does the proposed title. It is more concise, and is not overprecise. It's just as natural and recognizable (despite LtPowers' valiant effort to argue otherwise above). "Ann Arbor" is also more consistent with how other similar articles (articles of city and towns with unambiguous names throughout the world) are named. The U.S. specific convention to disambiguate with state is useful for those articles about U.S. cities that require disambiguation - but that is not the case here.

  Also, per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Explicit_conventions, which says that the "practice of using specialized names [not strictly the common name] is often controversial, and should not be adopted ".

  Finally, articles that are not at their concise titles face a turbulent future fraught with page moves and page move proposals. Only when articles like this are moved to the concise names, and the guideline is consistent with WP:TITLE naming criteria, can stability be expected, as demonstrated by the tranquility that ensued after the cities on the AP list were moved to their concise names. There is no reason to believe the same would not be true for this article, and every reason to believe it would. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know, I've been thinking about your stability argument and why I don't find it persuasive. I think it's because the stability that you describe is not the result of any inherent superiority of the "concise names", but rather due to the near-ubiquity of that rule in Wikipedia. It's true that the U.S. guideline is an exception, so editors unfamiliar with the exception will of course try to bring the articles into conformity. This does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the exception is undesirable or should be eliminated, though! It could be that stability would also be achieved with wider knowledge of the exception. (As an aside, I also think you're overestimating the stability problems; considering the number of communities in the U.S. that have articles, the number of move requests is really quite small on the whole -- and until recently there was rarely any support for said move requests among experienced editors. Also, a simple move request is not evidence of instability; a successful move request is.) Powers ^T 12:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awesome. I always love clarity in thinking. I can tell you've given this some serious thought as you've made some excellent points. I don't really disagree with anything you said. I probably put too much emphasis on the stability argument. The main point regarding that is that whatever instability we have with respect to U.S. city articles, it would almost certainly be reduced if mandatory enforcement of the comma convention was dropped (after a reasonable transition period). While I also agree it's theoretically possible to achieve stability without dropping it, I suggest that not happening after a decade with the comma convention required for US cities even with unambiguous names is an indication that we should try dropping it, especially considering how quickly stability was clearly achieved with the unambiguously named cities on the AP list when it was dropped for them. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Follow the guideline, whatever this might be after the current RfC on it is finished. I think the move was too hasty, and a better course would have been to relist it for further discussion, but I see no need to immediately revert the move. --Avenue (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reversion to form.Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move to Ann Arbor, Michigan. We have a longstanding guideline saying that this should include the state name, and three editors on one talk page are far less significant than the many editors who have helped to form the consensus at the naming conventions page. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose reverting the move, per WP:TITLE/WP:PRECISION. U.S. cities don't need special naming conventions not found anywhere else in the world, the AP Style guide isn't Wikipedia policy, and that section of the guideline in any event is just the view of a very small number of editors, without wide consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes no sense. Of course, US cities have the naming convention of US cities (which is City, State) because US cities are not found anywhere else in the world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary; there is nothing inherent in the nature of U.S. place names that makes them require unnecessary disambiguation using state names. Many other countries have states or similar political sub-divisions (e.g. provinces, territories), yet we do not demand this WP:PRECISION violation for them. Roughfort, a village of 200 people, apparently doesn't need disambiguation because it's outside the U.S., but Ann Arbor, a uniquely named city of 113,000 people does, because it's inside the U.S.? It's just Gahlai, not Gahlai, Uttar Pradesh, but the uniquely named cities of Yonkers, New York (pop. 202,000) and Schenectady, New York (pop. 62,000) must disambiguated by state? That makes no sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now what?

So once this issue was opened up to a much larger participation than 4 editors during the holiday, it becomes very evident that there was really no WP:CONSENSUS to ever move from Ann Arbor, Michigan in the first place. The phantom "3 to 1" consensus that was used to justify the move has utterly vanished. In fact, looking at the discussion above far, far, FAR less than 75% of the editors who have voiced their thoughts above have opposed a revert. (Roughly estimating it looks more like more like only around 35% support keeping it at Ann Arbor). If anything this shows the foolishness of allowing a "3 person consensus" override a guideline. Since this discussion really seems to be dealing with a faulty close, is there another forum that this should be taken to? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I currently count 8 Opposed to the move and 11 Support it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As I stated earlier, almost all currently present were heavily editing during the holidays, so it's not fair to use that as an excuse (sour grapes?). I did notice that there was no note posted at WP:CITIES regarding the RM, so I'd concede that that should have been done, (hence my suggestion that WP:CITIES consider employing an alert bot to avoid such an issue in the future) but I don't think the holidays had anything to do with this one. The initial move discussion followed the rules for a RM and with the data presented the closer believed there was a consensus (looking at the discussion would you have concluded otherwise). This being said, I agree that there is obviously an issue, but the issue is no longer limited to this article. It's become a beast of its own, with this and two other discussion taking place simultaneously. My view is some conclusion should come of the wider discussion before we do anything here. I'll personally support a move to Ann Arbor, Michigan if the RFC discussion regarding US cities produces some form of conclusion to that effect. However, I don’t currently see a consensus to move the article back, but I guess that will ultimately be up to the closer to decide.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the holidays, while many editors may have been "heavily editing" (did you really go check every editors contribs?) like I said earlier, I had no knowledge of the original move since I didn't have this article on my watchlist. For me, most of my editing over the holidays was much more maintenance and very spotty. Just because people are on Wikipedia doesn't mean they know something like this is going on. If it hadn't been for the notice at the WP:CITIES talk page, I would have never known about this either. In terms of consensus, there won't be one to move it back as is clearly evident, but there really wasn't one to move it initially either. If the initial move had been posted at WP:CITIES, it would've gotten this response and thus, no consensus. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any argument that relies on the supposed existence of consensus support for some guideline that demonstrably does not exist (and it's arguable whether it ever existed) is just another variation of WP:JDLI. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never said there was a consensus; if you actually read what I wrote, I said that if the original proposed move had been given the proper attention, it would've gotten the same reaction this is now getting, thus there would've been no consensus and nothing would've changed. On the flip side, there was never really any true consensus (4 replies?) to move this article in the first place, yet it was moved anyway. There is clearly an established convention that "city,state" is used with a select few exceptions on cities in the US and logical reasons have been given for the guideline's original creation and for its continued support. It's not just a case of JDLI. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.

And yes, the effects of the mandatory comma convention which once maybe had consensus support (that's arguable) are still with us, but consensus support for that convention does not now exist. An argument based on following a convention not supported by consensus is pretty weak, and a convention not supported by consensus is about all that supports the argument of those who opposed the initial move, and those who favor this revert move. Such weak arguments should be ignored because they don't reflect consensus.

In contrast, the arguments in favor of the original move and in opposition to this revert move are based on naming policy for which consensus support presumably does exist (there is no evidence of lack of consensus support for that policy, as there is for lack of consensus support for blind following of the comma convention). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My intial point was that in cases where there is no consensus, the end result is usually "leave as is" and whichever was first stays unless some kind of consensus develops. That's not my argument for the entire naming convention; it's only my argument for this specific article and the initial move from "Ann Arbor, Michigan" to "Ann Arbor". If a consensus would develop that we no longer hold to the traditional "city, state" convention, then fine, move it to "Ann Arbor"; but since it hasn't leave it where it was. Fighting this battle on two (possibly more) fronts is bordering on ridiculous IMHO.

Even if there never was a formal naming discussion way back when (I doubt that was the case; there have also been countless related discussions for individual cities), the naming convention/guideline was in place and are hardly detrimental in its current form. In common speaking, for virtually all cities in the U.S., the state name is used; that's why the AP guideline was created, not only to avoid ambiguity, but also to reflect how we refer to cities, even cities with unique names (as a side note, see the Ann Arbor city seal at http://www.a2gov.org). But seriously, we get it. You don't like it. Anything else? This is just going in circles. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I or anyone else likes or dislikes is irrelevant here, and I'm not talking about that at all.

It is true that in AfD discussions "no consensus" means "no change" (don't delete), but that's not nearly as often true in RM discussions (some admins operate per AfD rules in the "no consensus" situation, but many do not). In any case, what's more important is how consensus is determined. When admins determine consensus by weighing the arguments being made based on how well they follow policy and guidelines, regardless of how much support there happens to be for each argument among the necessarily few who happen to be participating in any one discussion, then it is much less likely to find that there is "no consensus". For example, based on the dearth of argument based in policy and guidelines that favor this move, such an admin would find that consensus clearly opposes this move. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again, the point was that had this discussion taken place when the proposal was first made to move from "Ann Arbor, Michigan" to "Ann Arbor" (which it would've had if it been announced like this discussion was) that admin likely would've come up with the very conclusion you speak of, that being to oppose the move. Please don't pretend like your argument has this huge amount of support over the opposing view when it doesn't; both sides have presented policies, guidelines, precedent, and logic that legitimately support their viewpoint, hence the current stalemate here and at WP:CITIES. Regardless of my position on the naming issue, the initial move on this article was done without proper consensus, particularly in light of the standing convention (whether you agree it's foundation was legitimate or not, it was the common convention) which is mainly why I support reversion. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]