Place talk:New York City, New York, United States

Why should this place page not contain any subplaces other than boroughs? [23 November 2014]

What is the reasoning behind this? Thanks, --Cos1776 22:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Like the caveat says, this page is outside the formal scope of WR placepages, which are supposed to be non-overlapping and heierarchical. All known places, such as cemeteries and neighborhoods, can and should be accommodated within the boroughs, where they belong within the scope of the WR heierarchy. Does that make sense? --pkeegstra 22:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do see that you have moved that wording to the top of the page, and I get that this page is not titled in the usual way, but I think you may be misunderstanding the difference between creating a Place Page Title, which should conform to the WR hierarchy, and creating a link between two wiki pages, which doesn't affect the naming hierarchy. The only reason that I can think of for needing such a passage such as the one on this page is to discourage users from creating incorrect Titles for Place Pages, i.e. using "New York City, New York, United States" in the title vs. "NYCounty, New York, United States". That might be against the WR hierarchy for Place Pages. In the handful of cases that you recently undid, the Place Pages were already titled correctly (into Queens). Creating an "Also Located In" link does not disturb the WR naming hierarchy for Places, it simply creates a mutually rendered link on each page. Given that we are already restricted by the 1900-Rule, the "Also Located In" links are necessary to show historical geography. --Cos1776 00:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I see your point that we don't need to restrict "also located in" as tightly as actual subpages, but the historical geography is handled completely adequately by having the place in one of the boroughs. In addition, if one place under a borough is entitled to link into the NYC page, then all of them are, and we'll end up with a huge and unwieldy list. (Some WR contributors have in the past expressed dislike for long lists of places, specifically in the context of linking all the cemeteries in a largish county onto the county page.)
I have a proposal for handling the general case of hierarchy failures of the sort where a subordinate entity like a town is contained in multiple of the next higher entity like county, but it depends on my being able to convince people that this special sort of page which takes no links (other than the ones required by the convention) makes sense. (I have an example on the sandbox, but that appears to be down right now. Let's resume this discussion once that's back.)
--pkeegstra 12:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)