Talk:Norfolk (disambiguation)

North folk

This bit looks wrong: The name Norfolk, originally a region in England, comes from "north folk" (referring to people in part of what is now England, as opposed to those in the east ("Essex"), south ("Suffolk"), and west ("Wessex"))

Different naming systems must have been in operation here - Essex and (most of?) Wessex were further south than Suffolk, so clearly the "South Folk" (and by extension the "North Folk") were not being contrasted with the people of Essex ("East Saxons") and Wessex ("West Saxons"). The "North Folk" and "South Folk" together make up the region of East Anglia, so I would guess that the contrast was only meant within that area. -- Oliver Pereira 23:24 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

Right. They were talking about their folks as the north and south branches of the "family" just as the Saxons named their part of the island for their kin to the east and the ones to the west. So the analogy is to their subdividing their area geographically, just as the tribes in the other parts of the island did. (Confer "highland" and "lowland" Scots.) -- isis 23:46 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

Duke of Norfolk

Isis, you are the one that started being silly. "The Duke of Norfolk" means little - there have been many dukes of Norfolk. When I asked which one, you replied, "whichever (all of them)", which is nothing but silliness. Clearly, whoever designed the jacket designed it for whichever duke was living at the time, and not for "whichever", or for "all of them". I have done a brief search of the Web for confirmation of the jacket's origins, and all the pages just seem to repeat the same story that it was designed for "the" Duke of Norfolk. There is nothing more specific, so it sounds like little more than a rumour. If you can find a reliable statement as to which duke it was designed for, then put in which duke it was designed for. Until then, all that can be said is that it is said to have been designed for a past duke of Norfolk. -- Oliver Pereira 00:01 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)

Glad to see you being more precise now. :) Incidentally, what is your reference for deciding that it was the 11th Duke of Norfolk? (As a general query - should we all be including references for everything, in fact? Otherwise, how do we know where people are getting things from...?) -- Oliver Pereira 02:09 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)

---

Isis, please could you let me know what's going on with the Duke of Norfolk thing? You yourself said that it was Charles Howard, 11th Duke of Norfolk, but now you have removed his name. Is it that you couldn't find a reference saying that it was him, or is there some other reason? I would never have much cared who the Norfolk jacket was named after, but now after all this fuss, I have to know! -- Oliver PEREIRA 04:25 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

US Navy base

Norfolk, VA is the site of a major US Navy base but is itself a city, not a navy base.

Norfolk, USA?

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, though I know enough to know that any humble American who suggests something inclusive of America runs the risk of being accused of cultural imperialism. (Not by the majority, mind you, but by a certain element.) So please don't bite me for this suggestion; I mean it with the purest of intentions. Norfolk, Virginia has a population of about 250,000 and most Americans (all ~300 million of us) think of it when we hear the word "Norfolk". Yes, yes, "America is not the world", but isn't a disambiguation page the most inclusive thing to do? It seems that that was the status quo until about a year ago when there was near-unilateral action to move Norfolk, England to Norfolk (see Talk:Norfolk) and no one has undone it. About 1000-1500 links each point to both Norfolk and Norfolk, Virginia, and I guarantee you many of those "Norfolk" links are intended for Norfolk, Virginia as placed by misinformed countrymen of mine. What are your thoughts? Raggaga 02:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"Jockey of Norfolk, be not too bold..."

My apologies, I should have checked the discussion page before making a change. I was searching for the reference to the phrase "Jockey of Norfolk, be not too bold//For Dickon thy master is bought and sold", and I was surprised to find that although the subject of the saying, John Howard, had an article in Wikipedia, my query sent me to the disambiguation page. so I added that reference.

Now I see there has been a whole discussion about it, that moved every Duke of Norfolk out of the disambig page and into the Norfolk County page. I suspect this is a mistake by Americans who don't realise that peers often have no connection to the place their peerage is named after, any more than the Manhattan Project should be placed in the "History of New York" article, or the Omaha Beach landings placed in the "Nebraska" entry, or the USS Maine in the state of Maine. I'll leave it alone, but given that my searches for that famous phrase led me nowhere even though Wikipedia actually has the article on it, I think Richard I's Norfolk, at least, deserves a place here. — Del C 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move - 2009

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 no consensus. Aervanath (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Norfolk (disambiguation) → Norfolk
Norfolk → Norfolk, England (or the appropriate name for an article on an English county)

The reasoning for this is simple. There are two major population centers with the same name. Norfolk, Virginia has a metro population of over 1.5 million. The English county has a population of 800,000. How is anything but a disambiguation the appropriate course for this? Oren0 (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC) — Oren0 (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose - the English county has been in existence since before the Norman Conquest giving it about 700 years head start before the Virginian one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • And exactly how does this make this the primary use of the name? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Norfolk Virginia is the site of a major military concentration, frequently referenced in the press and military publications. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - the usage "Norfolk, Virginia" is well-established not only on Wikipedia but also and more importantly in spoken-English in both Britain and America. The usage "Norfolk" to refer to the county is likewise well-established. Hatnotes are perfectly sufficient to deal with any fleeting confusion. DuncanHill (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but that's not true in America. I can say with a high degree of confidence that people within the United States think of Norfolk, VA when they hear "Norfolk". Cities may often have international associations, but counties do so much more rarely.--Kubigula (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But do they say "Norfolk" when they mean "Norfolk, Virginia"? DuncanHill (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would. Can't speak for anyone else necessarily. I would, though, point you to the way it's referenced by the official city website's title. I would also point you to Hampton Roads, a quite extensive article regarding the Norfolk area, which always refers to it as "Norfolk" rather than "Norfolk, Virginia". As an American who has heard of both and never been to either, when I hear "Norfolk" I think of the Virginia city. As a Wikipedia editor, I was surprised to find that Norfolk wasn't a dab page given that it's the name of two large population centers, hence this RM. Oren0 (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I lived in Norfolk for a while, and I would simply say "Norfolk" when people asked where I lived. Nobody ever took that to mean that I was from a county in England. Of course, my accent probably made it clear I wasn't British.--Kubigula (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I've never lived anywhere near eastern Virginia and if someone mentions Norfolk in conversation, I'd assume they were referring to the place in Virginia unless context made clear they meant something else. older ≠ wiser 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: There does not seem to be any confusion at all at the moment, and the present system of distinguishing them seems to work perfectly adequately. Additionally, as DuncanHill points out, the Norfolk has clear precedence in terms of establishment and use of the name on its own (with Norfolk, Virginia being the established name for the USA settlement).  DDStretch  (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Current wording and dabbing seems more than adequate. Norfolk is an important county of ancient origin and encompassing several towns and cities. All naming conventions and best practice seem satisfied presently. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: For the same reasons as above, and Norfolk Virginia is named after the county, making the county the primary topic. waggers (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Which came first or which has a longer history is irrelevant. The metro population of Norfolk, VA is almost double the county population of Norfolk, England. The question we must ask is whether it's clear that users who search for "Norfolk" are overwhelmingly looking for the English county. It seems likely to me that users could be looking for either (as evidence by the two pages' very similar page view stats [1] [2], keeping in mind that some % of those were likely looking for VA and increased the traffic at Norfolk). If the traffic is a 60/40 split, there should be a dab page. Oren0 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that this shows nothing of the sort: it merely shows that the split between page views was 60 to 40 (if that is what it was). There is nothing other than speculation underpinning the notion that a preponderance of some of those views were of the wrong article from the viewers' points of view. For that, we need other figures, or how many people, for instance, went on to click for the "other Norfolk" after clicking for each of then. Even then, we would not know for sure how many of those wanted to do that, and how many of those would have preferred to have visited the second article they looked at first.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Fine, forget that then. If two topics with the same name receive a 60/40 split of traffic, their name should be a dab page. Oren0 (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support: The current primary usage is neither defined by the fact that Norfolk, England was established first nor by the fact that the other places derive the name from the English county. - 3247 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support There is no primary topic (I think the city in Virginia has just as much of a claim as some random county in the UK), so Norfolk should be the disambiguation page. TJ Spyke 23:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It clearly is not a random county. Please try not to diminish your opinion by inaccurate hyperbole.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per GraemeLeggett and DuncanHill above. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose'. The move would inconvenience everyone familiar with the naming conventions who expect English counties to be at <name> and US places to be at <name, state>. 12:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Is that an established naming convention? If there were an English county with a population of 1000 with the same name as a US city with a population of 5 million, would you still argue for this? Oren0 (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Re established conventions, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#United States. There isn't a formal convention it seems regarding English counties, but with the exception of County Durham (which is the usual way it is known to distinguish it from the city of Durham that is the county town) all of the traditional counties (of which Norfolk is one) are at <name>, even if there are other places that share the name, e.g. there are 4 US counties called "Somerset" but Somerset is the English county. So, yes, I would support the English county in the hypothetical example you give. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Excuse me! Are we now going to claim that primary usage is never an issue and that naming conventions that create problems by default override all other considerations? Clearly the naming convention you are siding with, needs to deal with cases where another place is the primary use or no place is the primary use. If you look, you will find ample precedents to allow a move like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not claiming that primary usage is never an issue. Naming conventions should always be used unless there is a clear reason (for example primary usage) why in a particular instance they should be. There are, as you say, many cases where such clear reasons do exist and articles have been rightly moved away from where naming conventions say they should be. My point is that in this case there is no such compelling reason. Links that should point at the place in the USA but instead point to the place in England will not, by virtue of this move, be retargetted correctly - either they would point at a disambig page or they would be (auto)retargetted to point at the renamed article about the place in England. Links that currently correctly point to the existing English county will continue to point to the correct article, but new links will be much more likely to be to the dab page than to the correct article, especially as it will be the only article about a traditional English county not at <name>. In short, there will be little or no benefit to this move and significant disbenefit. All that needs to be done is to educate editors about the simple rule "articles about places in the United States are located at <name>, <state>". Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry but primary usage is always an issue when you have a dab page. There is no primary use here! What links to which article is not a factor since editors have dabed these to the correct article when they found a link to the wrong article. Clearly the surprise of finding oneself at the wrong article violates the principle of least astonishment. How can pushing an article into the main name space rather then a dab page help the readers or the encyclopedia? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Having the article about the English county at the same location as every other article about English counties helps readers who are familiar with Wikipedia, just as having the article about the US place at the same location as the articles about every other place in the United States helps the encyclopaedia's readers and editors. When you have a dab page at the main title, everybody ends up at the wrong place. Currently only those looking for the place in the US who are not familiar with the naming convention end up at the wrong place - how does making it harder for more people to find the article they want help, especially given that the very first line of Norfolk directs uses to where the article about the US place may be found? What we have here is not a clash between two articles that would normally be at the same title, as the article about the place in the US is and would normally be at Norfolk, Virginia - there is therefore no clash and the current setup is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Your contention that US placenames are always at [city], [state] just isn't true. For major US cities, the convention is the opposite. See Boston, Denver, Seattle, Detroit, and Los Angeles. Note that these were the first five major US cities I thought of and none of them are at [city], [state]. Oren0 (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I beg to differer. Clearly not every article about English places follows the convention. That's when you use exceptions. Saying that because you are using a defective naming convention, one that creates disambiguation problems, an article has the right to the main name space is simply a variation of the WP:ILIKEIT argument which is basically discredited. I also bothered by this anti American bias. If age was a criteria, then this is a completely unreasonable bias for England over America. I'm still waiting to hear a strong case for primary use here. If your naming convention is flawed, as it appears to be, then it needs to be fixed and not used as an excuse to make a bad decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I deplore the introduction of the allegation of "anti American bias" here: it has not been demonstrated to apply here, because it simply is not the sole explanation for the objections here. Consequently, the accusation fails to assume good faith in other editors, whose views are mischaracterized by the allegation that an anti Americam bias somehow brings about their objection, rather than the specific nature of the objections made.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
              • If you read the naming convention I linked to earlier regarding American places you will see "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may have their articles named City provided they are the primary topic for that name.", Norfolk is not one of them. Every one of those also has a redirect from the "city, state" form (e.g. Los Angeles, California). Regarding British places, indeed many are not the primary topic (Boston, Lincolnshire springs to mind), but I am talking specifically about traditional counties where every single one is at the canonical form. If there was a clash between two places of equal importance that would (if the other did not exist) be at <place> then the dab page would be appropriately located at <place>. However, even if the English Norfolk did not exist the US Norfolk would be at Norfolk, Virginia so there is no clash, so the "primary use" argument applies only to the English Norfolk and any of the other Norfolks around the world that would otherwise be at <place> (I am not familiar with the naming conventions for the countries concerned), and as far as I am aware the English Norfolk wins that hands down (or at least nobody has commented differntly). The topline disambiguation at Norfolk means that users typing "Norfolk" wanting the English county are at the right page, while those wanting the US Norfolk need only read the very top line and make 1 click. If the dab page was at Norfolk, everybody ends up at the wrong page and those wanting the US Norfolk have to scroll beyond the first page (for Firefox users with 1024x768 and smaller displays using medium or larger fonts, probably users with other browsers two but I can't be bothered to check) - how is this benefiting anybody? If you believe the long-established naming convention is "broken" then I suggest you bring this up on the talk page (with examples and/or other reasoning you have not given here) for the relevant naming scheme (I should probably state that I have had no involvement of any naming scheme, other than the one for rail transport stations in the United Kingdom). Also, as for the accusation of anti-American bias, I can assure you I have none in this matter, and your accusation feels to me in bad faith and makes me wonder if you have a bias in the other direction. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
                • So your contention is that everyday Wikipedia readers will know that Norfolk is not in the AP Stylebook and therefore will search for Norfolk, Virginia? I've been around WP a long time and I've never heard of this guideline or the AP Stylebook, so I'd argue our readers have no chance. The naming convention isn't relevant here except to decide where the article currently at Norfolk, Virginia will go, which is not currently up for discussion. That naming convention expresses no opinion at what should be included at Norfolk. For example, I'd point to Phoenix which is a dab page despite the fact that Phoenix, Arizona is on that list. Why? Because WP:DISAMBIG takes precedence over those naming conventions. If we believe that users who type "Norfolk" are close to equally likely to be looking for either page, which I believe is demonstrated by the traffic stats I've linked above, then the page should be disambiguated. As a side note, I don't believe the "50% at the right page is better than 100% at the wrong page" argument against disambiguating has any merit at all, as this argument could be used to get rid of all disambiguation pages at a main name (such as Mercury or George Bush). Oren0 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia article titles are mainly derived from current usage. As it looks like there is no overwhelming global usage of the term "Norfolk", a disambiguation page is the most appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support No clear primary topic based on contemporary usage and clearly potential for confusion for which the general solution is a disambiguation page at the base name. older ≠ wiser 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with all reasons opposing stated above. Chrisfortier (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• And what do you think of the counter-arguments that refute all of opposing reasons stated above? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Norfolk, Virginia will remain at Norfolk, Virginia regardless of the outcome of this debate, so people typing 'Norfolk' hoping to see an article on Norfolk, Virginia will not be saved any mouse clicks by this move. Whereas people typing 'Norfolk' hoping to see an article on the county would be given an extra unnecessary mouse click as a result of this move. Making a move that offers no improvement in the situation for one set of readers whilst inserting an additional step for the other set of readers doesn't seem worthwhile to me. —Jeremy (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As I asked above, couldn't this same line of reasoning be used to remove all disambiguation pages located at a common name (such as Mercury or George Bush)? In any case, we could choose one page and save some people some typing. Why does Wikipedia need disambiguation pages at all? Oren0 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you point me to the policy change that recommends directing a significant portion or readers to the wrong article? That is all that the current arrangement does. Also can you expound on why you believe that having one of the two primary uses of Norfolk disambiguated and the other not is somehow correct? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support There is no topic that meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. The fact that cities in the U.S. are (unfortunately) predisambiguated does not diminish the claim that any city has for usage of that name alone. People typing in "Norfolk" are just as likely to be looking for the city in Virginia whether the article happens to be at Norfolk or at Norfolk, Virginia. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I have waited to officially take a position to see if any of those who are opposed to this would offer a reason that in some way might be supported by a guideline or policy. Basically all of those supporting this move have been making that decision based on existing guidelines and policies. There is no policy that in any way endorses the amount of time that a place has existed as giving it preference over a newer place. This is simply anti American since if this was to be a policy English places would always take preference over like named American places. Clearly this is not supported by any policy, but seems to be a primary reason for opposing this nomination. I find it humorous to read that "Norfolk, Virginia" is well-established so we don't need to disambiguate. Let's say thay you were to by this logic. Then let's do this for the English settlement naming conventions so that we don't need to discuss this over and over. I wonder if those taking this view have read any of the US settlement naming convention discussions where that very point was strongly opposed by many editors. To say that there is no confusion at the moment is simply a statement without any basis in fact. How many readers or editors have had to fix articles when then wound up at the wrong one and were confused about how they could have gotten there? The argument that the current disambiguation page and the hat notes are adequate again ignore the fact the problems with directing readers to the wrong article and in fact point to the fact that there is no primary use. Assertions that English counties and American cities need to be at county and city, state are patently false. When there are multiple uses for a title in the main name space that you need to follow the disambiguation guidelines and not a settlement naming convention. In the end, this should be a simple decision. Is there a primary usage for "Norfolk"? If the answer is no, and that point has been made by those supporting this proposal, then we need to make the changes. On the other hand, if there is a primary use then that article deserves to be located in the main name space. However this case is not made by any of those opposing the move. Why is that? Maybe because there is no primary usage and to admit that fact would undercut their opposition? All in all, the fact and the strength of the support discussion clearly mandate a move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - England has had a "State" of Norfolk since 100 AD. before that it was its own kingdom and the ruling part of the Iceni, and as such we have a 1000 years of history (which I intend to add to on the page). I can only say that my comments are stated below concerning this delicate matter, and can hear Nelson, Princess Diana and Boudicca (Bodicea) groaning in their graves. This is not an issue about who is better than whom, nor about who will get the most traffic through their page, it is about whether we demote a "state" to be lower than a city for the sake of nationalism over sensibility. Leave it as is and put Norfolk (Virginia) Chaosdruid (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Your premise is incorrect. Wikipedia article titles are strongly dependent on page traffic and contemporary global usage. Being more historic is not the issue here. --Polaron | Talk 01:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • And this logic still ignores the FACT that it is clear that there is no primary topic. Oldest is clearly not a defacto proof that an article belongs at the main name space. Syracuse being only one example of this fact. So please explain why you think that there is a primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If the American city naming convention is adhered to it will remain Norfolk, Virginia. If the exception to that rule is adopted, Norfolk City (see my note at bottom of page) more difficulties would arise, however if that were the case, most of the adult population of the UK under the age of 50 knows it as Norfolk, Virginia through such great TV shows as NCIS, JAG etc.

If you are referring to any of my comments, they do not mention the fact that millions of Brits know it as Norfolk the County (State) of the UK, and Norfolk, Virginia where there is an American Naval base. I cannot understand why you would want to drop the Virginia part. You also have Norfolk, Nebraska & Norfolk, Massachusetts as well as others. As you can see there is stated in the first line of the Norfolk county (State) page "see Norfolk, Virginia" as well as "Norfolk (Disambiguation)".

I do not believe that there would be notably more traffic through any of the pages than the other, and believe that, as such it should be left as is. On the disambiguation page it is listed alphabetically, and so Australia is first. There is no such redirect on the Norfolk, Virginia page.

I have already been drawn into discussing this matter at far too much length as I have other work to do so will leave you with that and hope that you understand that I did do a lot of reading about naming conventions on Wiki before I entered into posting my comments. I did not miss any part of the very instructive articles (I think there were about 6 or so).Wikipedia:Resolving_placename_conflicts#Widely_accepted_nameWikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#United_States

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#DisambiguationWikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)#Counties_of_Britain

I personally, follow this premise :-

"Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute" : Chaosdruid (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Two points: first, which has the longer history is 100% irrelevant. Second, nobody is recommending that Norfolk, Virginia be moved, but rather that Norfolk (which we contend is something that an American would first associate with the city) be a dab page. If this switch were to occur, we would move the Virginia city and the English county to the top of the dab page and call them out separately from the others. Oren0 (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• There are a lot of links to Norfolk, VA by dint of it being a Naval base, though these should probably go to Naval Station Norfolk. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: The Norfolk England article used to reside at Norfolk, England before Feb 2004, when it was renamed Norfolk. The discussion of the move is at the top section of Talk:Norfolk. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: UK Geography project informed on WT:UKGEO#Requested Move for Norfolk by myself.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that a similar message was also placed by 76.66.198.171 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Virginia. Oren0 (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I also left a message at WP:ENGLAND 76.66.198.171 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• One thing I would like to point out is that Norfolk is a County (equivalent to a US state), whereas Norfolk, Virginia is a city. If we were to class by area, then Norfolk (England) is a little bit bigger I think. As it is a County, I think it should follow the other naming conventions for counties of Countries. It is important to keep to our conventions as closely as we can to avoid Disambiguity. I have searched for both US states and UK counties, and find that they are mainly just "Maryland", "Texas", "Virginia", "Devon", "Lancashire", "Greater Manchester".
  

It is true that there are problems with states such as "New York", but you will find the city itself listed as "New York City". :There is also another problem, if it was decided to adopt "Norfolk City", similar to "New York City", then we would have to decide about a disambiguity with Norfolk City, the English football team, you see there really are some issues here.

For that reason it should be left as is, and Norfolk (Virginia) may find it better to put themselves as such.

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor point: the football club is Norwich City, not "Norfolk City". — sjorford++ 10:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I would hardly say that an English County is the equivalent to a US state. I would say "England" is the equivalent of a US state. The US state of Virginia has many counties. ... well... England doesn't have Home Rule, while Virginia does... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, in terms of order of government it is exactly the same as a state. In and area and population Virginia are only a small way behind the Whole of England.

However, we were discussing county, and I was trying to point out the difference between American stages of government and our own, as i do not want people from the US to think that it is a trivial matter, to us it's the same as asking a state to take it's name off.

US legislation goes country -> state -> county -> city

UK legislation goes country -> county -> borough -> city

I have no argument with your point apart from that. In England we had our first elected Parliament around 1300, which is not quite what it says on the Virginia pages, they mention the Model Parliament but do not cite the date that it was formed (1295) from which point on we made our own laws in a three way tug of war - see Parliament of the United Kingdom. So i suppose we had Home rule from sometime a little after that, and still do. The Monarch supposedly had the right to veto a parliament or house of Lords Laws or amendments, but it was normal for us to chop off their heads if we didn't like what they said so often-times they didnt intervene. The queen still sort of has that right, but she wouldn't dare use it unless she knew the people were behind her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaosdruid (talk • contribs) 07:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But it's now the UK Parliament, since England doesn't have a separate Parliament, while Scotland and Wales recently (re)obtained theirs (which is why I said England doesn't have Home Rule). On an organizational level, England fits between UK and county, just as Virigina sits between US and county. Since the UK was supposedly a unitary-state (until NI, Scotland and Wales got Parliaments), it didn't have provincial level organization, like a US state, Australian state, Chinese province. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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