Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Discussion regarding wording of a proposed exception or prohibition

Prohibition proposal: "Use of an LLM to produce or format any form of Wikitext is prohibited. For example, this prohibition includes but is not limited to: utilizing an LLM to wikilink, create citations, create infoboxes, etc."

Exception proposal [to become point "3" of NOLLM: "LLMs may be utilized to assist users in generating Wikitext, to a limited extent, and all work must be checked thoroughly before final publication. Such exceptions include basic and simple tasks, such as adding Wikilink bracketing, crafting an infobox, etc. Users are still responsible for 'hallucinated' or otherwise false content and are responsible for ensuring all of their inserted content publishes without error." — MWFwiki (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

My issue is that wikitext needs to be clearly defined if not wikilawyered. Is everything we type not technically wikitext too? Katzrockso (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, we could call it wiki-markup. But WT is defined at Help:Wikitext. We could just wikilink "WT" to there. Or we could use its definition in the exception. "Text which formats the page." But indeed, your question is yet another reason we need to clarify the guideline, as people can argue "all text is wikitext" or that "all wikitext is text."  — MWFwiki (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Many word processing programs (e.g., Microsoft Word) are now also embedding LLM-based AI functionality, as are email platforms, social media platforms, and so forth. Are we going to get to a point where any kind of application that contains a spellchecker will end up being prohibited because they are accomplishing the task with AI rather than a traditional spelling library? BD2412 T 01:25, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, I would argue that this is already covered (as an exception) under the current wording of NOLLM. Basic copy-editing, spell-checking, etc. If you are asking whether I think a prohibition on the use of an LLM in formatting WT would contradict the current exception, no, I do not. Otherwise, why have explicit exceptions at all?  — MWFwiki (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

It's covered if you actually use it for "copy-editing, spell-checking" etc.

E.g., if you copy paste a proquest header (citoid usually does not work with proquest), with the source details (title/publication/date/volume/issue/page/location/author/etc) into an LLM and ask it to format it into wikitext cs1 templates and make no other changes, then check it after. I've tested this out offwiki and it worked basically perfectly and any hypothetical errors would be easy to catch (LLMs tend to make stuff up less when they're working directly with a small amount of text you give them). I see no problems with that basic usage, and there's no way to tell the difference - unlike with generating new prose.

However, explicitly saying it is allowed will make some people who don't know any better use it to generate full citations, which is totally problematic, and to defend themselves against sanction that way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I was discussing prohibiting (formatting wikitext) in the thread you replied to. Again, if the concern is your last sentence, why have explicit exceptions at all? It's either used well and it's no problem and no one knows... or it causes an issue. Very generally speaking, at least. The current guideline is already overly-ambiguous and ripe for wikilawyering  — MWFwiki (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Because having no exceptions will make people go the opposite way and attack people for mundane, correct uses that are baked into all spellchecking programs. If you use a modern program with a spellchecker you are "using AI" - the problem is letting it rewrite larges swathes of text. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The issue is proving it, short of an admission. LLMs are getting better, slowly, but they are getting "better." A year ago, it was extremely obvious when an LLM was used. I feel those days are waning (though they are not completely gone, to be clear). Regardless, having no exceptions isn't on the table, so I suppose the point is moot. My argument is simply that virtually nowhere else is having clearer, less-ambiguous guidelines an issue. Funnily enough, the way this RfC is heading, its consensus can be used to show that there is no prohibition against formatting wikitext, the community simply does not want to codify it... nevertheless, the consensus is there.  — MWFwiki (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no prohibition against formatting wikitext, the community simply does not want to codify it... Precisely this: acceptable types of formatting are already de-facto permitted under the current guideline, so codifying an exception accomplishes nothing except encourage wikilawyering in support of unacceptable types of formatting. If you have to ask which side of the line a particular use case falls on, it probably falls on the prohibited side. In the rare case that someone is asked to stop using LLMs even though they would have used them responsibly, the mild inconvenience to that person is a more than worthwhile cost to pay for the streamlining of the slop cleanup process. It's just like our rule about disclosing conflict of interest: COI editors are required to disclose their COI. Yes, they could theoretically make non-controversial edits to their pages without disclosing, and if their edits really are non-controversial they are unlikely to be sanctioned for it, but the COI guideline doesn't and shouldn't say "you don't have to disclose as long as you only make totally non-controversial edits", nor is it acceptable to waste our time arguing that your particular undisclosed COI editing was fine. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 20:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I'm leaning towards codifying a prohibition, but that is neither here nor there. Maybe I'm dumber than I thought, but I just can't wrap my head around not wanting to codify an exception that there is clearly consensus for... while simultaneously arguing (not you) that wikilawyering will be an issue if we clarify the guideline. I understand your COI analogy, but we decide these things independent of each other.  — MWFwiki (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

As I've discussed in my essay on addressing problems without creating new specialized rules, it's impractical to codify all guidance. As far as reasonably possible, it's better to lay out general principles to be followed. As I discussed previously, the general guidance is that guidance about content is about what the reader sees: the rendered HTML output. There's no special exception for one type of tool being used to generate the underlying wikitext. Guidance on using wikitext (like how to format lists) explicitly refers to wikitext. isaacl (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

this slope is so slippery it has ceased to be a slope and is now just straight oil Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Was it ever realistic for anything like a hard ban to be viable? — VPP (t/c) 18:41, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Reading these evolving discussions I'm more worried over time that we're being ideological rather than realistic. Your examples of AI-native tooling getting embedded into so many products is a perfect example. — VPP (t/c) 18:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Most writing-related guidance on English Wikipedia focuses on the rendered HTML output, rather than the wikitext source, since that's what affects reader experience. Historically, tools have generated wikitext through a deterministic process, whether it is using templates, Visual Editor, or off-wiki tools filling in skeletons based on some data source. With a generative tool, though, the result is produced through a black box that no one explicitly programmed. If there is a consensus that the risk of users not verifying the result is greater that the benefit of using such tools, then it's not clear to me how to carve out a set of allowable uses in a practical way. Although it might be the case that a user is less likely to check the result of a generated infobox than a single verb tense change, I think there is a point where the probability of that user checking a mass set of grammar and spelling changes starts approaching the same level. isaacl (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Process comment: As with the prior RFC on LLM-assisted citations, we have a substantial set of editors !voting to keep the policy as it is (Option 1 here; No on the prior RfC) with the understanding that non-disruptive LLM-assisted Wikitext formatting will not get anyone in trouble. And we have another substantial set of editors arguing to keep the policy as it is with the understanding that any LLM-assisted Wikitext formatting should get editors in trouble. Resolving this tension is what I take to be MWFwiki's purpose in opening the RFC.

To put too fine a point on it, these are statements in this and the prior RFC that are all in the prior camp:

• PARAKANYAA: but if you do it right no one will ever notice! This is not an issue!
• Seraphimblade: Honestly, if I were to write a "nutshell" for NOLLM, it would be something to the effect of "If anyone can actually tell that you're using an LLM, you're using one in a way you shouldn't be." If a human editor really is carefully checking over the LLM output, and changing it as needed, the final result will be indistinguishable from something they wrote themself.
• Hason-LEK-SIN: If someone decides to use AI to help with their edits but review its suggestions before publishing, then the end result would not look like a LLM wholesale wrote it (and thus should not warrant a user warning).
• From here on, from the citation RFC Fermiboson: In practicality, anything they did which we are unable to tell was done with an LLM is permitted, and anything they did which we are able to tell was done with an LLM is not.; we are swamped enough with the rate of obviously bad AI edits that, quite frankly, we are happy to let your slightly sloppy wikitext formatting go
• InfernoHues: My rule-of-thumb is that if I can tell that an LLM was used, it's likely a violation of this guideline. How would you know an LLM was used for wikitext unless a hallucination/errors occurred?
• Katzrockso: If it was perfectly accurate and introduced no issues, I would argue whoever is strictly enforcing the guideline is putting the letter of the guideline over the spirit to the detriment of the encyclopedia., seconded in this by HTGS
• SarekOfVulcan: If you check it thoroughly enough so that you're sure there's no error, you're not going to get flagged, and if you don't, you should be.
• Mycetae: I would not expect a well formatted, error-free citation to raise any eyebrows unless there is something else going on.

The impasse that we stand in is that some editors believe that no written change (Option 1) means that the policy is effectively Option 2 (in competently executed cases) -- presumably those quoted here -- and others believe that no change means the policy is effectively Option 3. I'm not sure how to get out of this impasse, but do think that we should use this RFC to do so.--Carwil (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Our votes for status quo aren't motivated by a misunderstanding of what the status quo is, they're motivated by the understanding that the status quo includes some useful ambiguity and reasonable restraint in enforcement while leaving no excuse for defending AI text when it is challenged. This status quo is better than what we'll get if we adopt either of the other options proposed here. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 14:12, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is that two groups of people are voting to support the status quo based on different interpretations of what the status quo allows. That is not "useful ambiguity", that is bad policy that allows for inconsistent enforcement and biting of good faith editors. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I just re-read all the votes and I'm not seeing this "substantial set" of editors with the "status quo is option 3" interpretation? Every single Option 1 voter appears to broadly agree with my position. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 15:42, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that Gnomingstuff's !vote (plus comments here: Wikipedia_talk:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models#Proposed_reword) is based on reading Option 1 as implying that Option 3 is already in effect; their opinion was seconded as well. Numerous examples in the citation RFC. Ditto this essay.--Carwil (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I can see how you could read it that way, but based on my experience of Gnomingstuff's cleanup activities and comments re sanctions on ANI, I don't there's actually much gulf between our interpretations of the status quo. Gnomingstuff is of course welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. I would argue that WP:YESLLM is broadly consistent with all the Option 1 votes, especially Seraphim's nutshell "If anyone can actually tell that you're using an LLM, you're using one in a way you shouldn't be." That essay also doesn't really address the question posed here (wikicode formatting) except to say that if your "formatting" is introducing new words to the article text, it's not just formatting (which I think we all agree on here). -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 00:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about re: ANI but my stance is pretty much identical to PARAKANYAA's, with the added point that since there is often a language/competency barrier with people who use AI, we do not need to carve out more exceptions to be misinterpreted (which already happens all the time with people claiming their substantive rewriting is just "copyediting"). Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about re: ANI maybe I'm misremembering the venue but I seem to recall you contributing to discussions of sanctioning LLM-using editors and I can't remember you ever calling for sanctions on an editor who was just using the LLM for non-semantic tasks like formatting wikicode. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 00:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't usually call for sanctions in general unless there's a behavioral issue as well, like if someone is continually lying or sealioning about it Gnomingstuff (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Also see my comment here regarding Gurkubondinn's statements (which I think I shared with you, already, and I apologize if that is the case) which led me to start this RfC. Clearly there are editors that believe option 3 is the status quo (and are supporting option "1" in-support of that status quo). Tagging @Carwil — MWFwiki (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm really gratified to see that Gnomingstuff might have the same general intuition here, though I walked away from our 9 September conversation with the opposite impression. I really, really get the concern about wiggle room being an invitation to un-monitorable content. But I also think a lot of long-time contributors, myself included, take the letter of prohibitions and the possibility of a ban after many years of contributing as very serious signals. Clarity matters to us. I, for one, am not contributing with the kinds of tricky Wikitext formatting edits that I could do (and did do) before WP:NOLLM was passed (like this one). Let's try and get creative about how to enable this understanding without opening the floodgates for slop. Maybe an autoconfirmed status as stage gate? Maybe a formal limitation on banning that requires actual damage to the content of the encyclopedia?--Carwil (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Let's try and get creative about how to enable this understanding without opening the floodgates for slop. Maybe an autoconfirmed status as stage gate?

See below. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 23:47, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

a lot of long-time contributors, myself included, take the letter of prohibitions and the possibility of a ban after many years of contributing as very serious signals. Maybe I'm naive, but it's hard for me to imagine anyone in this conversation advocating for a ban of someone who was editing in good faith, doing no damage to the encyclopedia, and willing to follow the discuss part of Bold, Revert Discuss when challenged. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 23:51, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Given that people have seriously argued that all AI use is, in and of itself, damaging to the encyclopaedia and that using an AI to edit Wikipedia is evidence of bad faith, I truly can see people advocating for the banning of editors using LLMs. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Then again the general vibes on AI to a sizable amount of people on the internet (not just people on the encyclopaedia) is "any AI use is bad, just get rid of it already" (keyword: any). Sigh, if only they knew it was not just for LLM chatbots and AI generated media/"slop" (after all, it is other humans that are producing the slop, so, who to blame?). Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 00:17, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The comment I was referring to was not Gnomingstuff's, but Gurkbondinn's. My point was to support your argument that there were indeed additional users arguing that LLM use is currently prohibited. However, Gnomingstuff similarly indicated they want LLM-use prohibited while simultaneously arguing the guideline should not be changed. It seems obvious to me that the desire is to keep things vague so that the policy may be wielded on a case-by-case basis. I'm fine with that, personally, but I argue that even that must be codified. Something like "generally, any LLM-use, admitted or otherwise, is subject to local consensus if called into question." My contention is that there should be no ambiguity in policy and if there is, the reason for the ambiguity should be explained.  — MWFwiki (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The reason for the ambiguity is that "generally, any LLM-use, admitted or otherwise, is subject to local consensus if called into question." will result in endless time-wasting arguments of the sort WP:YESLLM is trying to preempt, often with one side of the argument itself being walls of LLM text, but maximalist prohibition is not desirable if a lesser prohibition can prevent the slop. If we are going to clarify anything, I would focus on the clause generate or rewrite article content and consider saying something like some uses of LLMs that do not alter the article content (such as converting an existing citation from one format into another, or wrapping an image in wiki code to make it float left on the page) may be permissible, however the editor using the LLM must review the output and ensure that the LLM has not gone beyond its directive and altered the article content in any way while doing these tasks. Such non-semantic uses of LLMs should be totally indistinguishable from a human accomplishing the same task, since there is no stylistic element to tasks like plugging human-specified information into a Cite X template or pulling syntax from Help:Extended image syntax to make an image have a human-specified position on the page. If they are distinguishable as LLM output, then they probably haven't been adequately reviewed. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 02:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

People have overwhelmingly !voted for the status quo, approaching WP:STICK here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you please stop putting words in my mouth? If I wanted to !vote something else, then I would have done that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't indicate you meant to !vote anything else; could you please point-out where I did that? I had asked you earlier, admittedly. When you write things, your words are subject to interpretation.  — MWFwiki (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Sure let's go through this one by one:

• unless I'm misunderstanding you, then don't you mean option "3"? No, if I meant option 3, then I would have said option 3. There is no possible way to "misunderstand" 1 as 3.
• It seems obvious to me that the desire is to keep things vague so that the policy may be wielded on a case-by-case basis. I did not say this, nor do I think this (in fact I think the opposite, interpreting things on a "case-by-case basis" results in nothing but sealioning), nor is it a charitable "interpretation" of (really just making-shit-up-about) my words.
• It seems pretty clear that Gnomingstuff's !vote [...] is based on reading Option 1 as implying that Option 3 is already in effect. No, if I thought Option 3 was already in effect, I would have said that. As for my "comments here: Wikipedia_talk:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models#Proposed_reword", my comments were to tell you to stop vagueposting about unnamed individuals and attributing supposed radical opinions to them.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

People are referencing WP:IAR, it doesn't matter if NOLLM is interpreted as prohibiting using LLMs for formatting in all contexts or only when someone else can tell, the result is the same. This seems like textbook WP:CREEP to me Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

( peanut gallery comment) Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, AI here refers to LLMs. Technically, AI is used to power other tools on Wikipedia, such as reverting vandalism (ClueBot) or the Editor Suggestions tool (example), but that usually falls under machine learning and aren't usually as problematic as random editors asking LLMs to generate content since they are more refined and controlled. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 23:08, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the WP:NOLLM page may need to be restructured in a way that says:

1. If you are a new editor, DON'T.
   • If you are scared that the output you will give will be full of grammatical errors, or if it might not be allowed, be bold and do it it yourself. Someone will visit the page and help you fix it later, or revert it painlessly and tell you about what was wrong. Your human input is more valuable than AI generated content. I swear, I saw the "human input" part on one of our guideline pages before...
2. Once you have edited Wikipedia for long enough (typically extended-confirmed users), you are allowed to use AI for:
   1. Rough translation of articles to English,
   2. Basic copyediting, or
   3. Any other minor formatting fixes.
   • However, you should always review the output of the LLM before publishing your edits, to ensure that the content is still supported by the works cited (ie the meaning of the text has not changed).

Optionally, I also believes WP:AI needs to be a bit more detailed on how AI could be helpful other than writing articles from scratch (for example, Google AI Overviews), but that's another whole can of worms for another day to ensure that AI is still used "alongside our human knowledge/creativity, and not a replacement". Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 23:47, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Option 2 — with a narrow exception. I support explicitly permitting the use of LLMs to assist with Wikitext formatting, provided that the underlying substantive content has been independently written or verified by the editor.

The key safeguard should be the distinction between formatting/syntax assistance and substantive content generation. An editor should remain responsible for checking every resulting edit, including citations, templates, links, and markup. This would also avoid treating all AI-assisted editing as equivalent when the actual nature of the assistance is quite different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasNamRahegaAllaKa (talk • contribs) 05:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC) BasNamRahegaAllaKa (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Struck comment from sockpuppet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right way of looking at it. To me it appears like the camps are in agreement that if LLM-use can be detected then you are violating the guideline. If it can't be detected, then who cares whether the guideline is to be interpreted as prohibiting or allowing it? Regardless of what the guideline says, for cases of LLM-use that we cannot detect the outcomes will always be the same as if we had chosen Option 2 here. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 21:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

There are actually more than just two camps, very broadly in no particular order:

1. LLM use should not be permitted at all as a matter of principle, whether we can detect it at all is not relevant. If someone admits to using it that's a violation and should be treated as such, even if we wouldn't have known if they'd said nothing.
2. LLM use should not be permitted at all, but if we can't detect it then it's not worth worrying about (but don't tell anyone that)
3. LLM use should ideally not be permitted at all, but if we can't detect it then it's not worth worrying about, and policy should be open about this.
4. LLM use should not be permitted at all, and it's ok if are inconsistent about how we treat stuff we can't detect and policy should allow this inconsistency.
5. Only LLM use that is actually problematic should be prohibited and policy should explicitly allow non-problematic uses, whether they are detectable or not.

Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I think I'd see it a lot like the sockpuppetry policy. It is, for example, forbidden to use a sockpuppet to evade a block or ban. We realistically know, though, that if someone got blocked/banned, really did learn from that and changed their ways, and never got up to their old tricks again, chances are very good they'd never be caught (and realistically, that's probably going on as we speak). Nor would catching such an actually reformed sockpuppeteer particularly be a priority. But I would not want the sockpuppetry policy to say that, or to encourage it; it's just the reality of the situation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. I disagree on a couple of points, first the sock-puppetry policy does not leave it ambiguous as to whether that is permitted (it makes it clear it is not) even if it isn't usually enforced that way - the LLM policy does not make it clear either way. Secondly I don't think either policy should work that way - we should be explicit that if you aren't causing problems then you won't be blocked on a technicality so that those who do sanction on a point of principle know that this is not the community consensus. My main point above though was that not everybody is on the same page regarding what is desirable. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you discovered a sock puppet editing uncomfortably close to their old ways and they dragged you through a long argument where they first denied that they were a sock puppet and forced you to prove that, then argued that their socking should be overlooked because they've changed and forced you to show a bunch of diffs proving they haven't, and then finally argued at length that their sockpuppetry is justified because they disagree with whatever policy led to their original block in the first place, your patience would probably wear thin, and if people who walked in on the tail end of a couple interactions like that proceeded to open multiple RFC saying that policy needs to more clearly state that we should only block sockpuppets who do bad things, that would be understandably frustrating. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 02:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

There are exactly four possible scenarios here, none of which require an ambiguous policy:

1. Their contemporary editing is unproblematic and it's not clear they are a sockpuppet.

   No need to do anything - nobody benefits from sanctioning unproblematic editing.

2. Their contemporary editing is problematic and it's not clear they are a sockpuppet.

   Deal with the problematic editing as if they were a new user doing that. Bringing socking into it will not help.

3. Their contemporary editing is unproblematic and it is clear they are are sockpuppet.

   No need to do anything - nobody benefits from sanctioning unproblematic editing.

4. Their contemporary editing is problematic and it is clear they are a sockpuppet.

   Deal with them for both the problematic editing and for being a sock.

None of these circumstances requires ambiguous policies, inconsistent enforcement or policies to mean something other than what they say. The project gains no benefits from any of those things in any of those circumstances.

I understand that this will sometimes be frustrating to some editors, but policy does not and should not allow us to sanction editors just because they are frustrating. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

An edit is policy compliant based on what lands in the edit window and is saved. — VPP (t/c) 02:46, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, nor how it relates to my comment? Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry - what I meant was you seemed to be getting at. At the end of the day, if what is "saved" is policy compliant, there's almost no possible way to sanction an editor for such an edit based on whatever happened to get that edit created before it reached Wikipedia, if the editor simply chooses to not say "how they work".

It's that implied nebulous thing here that makes me uneasy in so many of these comments. "No AI anywhere in the entire thought process pipeline," and "editors can be stopped if they seem TOO good at the Wikipedia game" or some similar vibes. I don't know what to make of it. — VPP (t/c) 21:01, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The thing is that editors do sometimes disclose that they used AI at some point in the pipeline. I believe that everything other than what is saved should be completely irrelevant, but some other editors do not and believe that AI use at any point in the pipeline can and should result in sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

some other editors For the sake of clarity, please name these editors, so they have the opportunity to correct you if that is not actually what they believe, and so any editors you aren't talking about don't have to wonder if you have misunderstood their position. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 00:36, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

the prohibition is on LLM-generated content, i.e. text produced by an LLM, there's nothing nebulous about that. Because LLMs are typically used habitually, AI cleanup tends to be focussed on a user's contributions within a certain time period rather than just individual edits in isolation. By extension, the focus is sometimes on how the LLM is used, in an effort to understand what we're looking at and ig address the crux of the problem. It's completely fine for people to use LLMs in their workflow for copyediting or research (along w other uses that aren't generating text), we even have an essay giving advice about those things, I'm not aware of anyone who thinks any kind of LLM use should be sanctionable and it seems to me like you're projecting (?) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The only nebulous thing is the subject of whatever you are vagueposting about. Name names. Provide names and diffs of the people who are producing "similar vibes" to editors can be stopped if they seem TOO good at the Wikipedia game or No AI anywhere in the entire thought process pipeline.

Can't do it? That's because "so many of these comments" are not saying this. The only people who have said anything close are Laxman, JyotiTheLightHouse (which is somewhat weird since there is evidence they are contributing AI-generated content themselves), and people who are not participating in this discussion like EEng. See, look how easy it was for me to name names? See how easy it is to not vaguepost? Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

1 week later and no one has managed to identify these "similar vibes" Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Under current policies, #3 still merits a block, for better or worse. Katzrockso (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

There was very recently an editor who seemed to have moved on from their previous negative behaviors and had positively contributed tens of thousands of edits that ended up being a sockpuppet and was blocked. Katzrockso (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Honestly my camp would be somewhere between 2 and 3:

LLM use should ideally not be permitted at all, but if we can't detect them (can't tell they used LLMs), then it's not worth worrying about (but don't tell anyone that).

I'm emphasising the underlined point because, as what @Chaotic Enby said, to avoid more wikilawyering (using a portion of the rules in a literal manner that goes against the rule's intended message), noting that a carveout for wikitext formatting may be used by editors arguing [...] that large content additions inside templates would be acceptable as only "wikitext" was edited, and [...] encourage editors to rely on AI to make such changes. Note: quotation edited for emphasis. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 10:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

There is currently no agreement about what the rule's intended message is: Some believe the intent is to prohibit all AI use that isn't explicitly allowed, whether detectable or not. Others believe the intent is to prohibit prohibit only problematic AI use, with undetectable uses not being problematic. The current wording allows for people in both groups to claim that their interpretation is the correct one. Enforcement is thus inconsistent.

Separately there is also disagreement about whether explicitly allowing and/or not explicitly prohibiting something will or will not encourage people to wikilawyer about it and/or encourage people to do it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

While that makes sense in principle, I don't think it should be codified in an actual rule, very much for the reason you underline. People using LLMs are not necessarily the most qualified at realizing whether their LLM use will be detectable (or, more crucially, at spotting the errors their LLM use might introduce), and we don't want to give them false confidence that they can just sneak by.

In a way, all of our rules already operate that way: if you're editing about your company without disclosing it, but it's just fixing a broken template's formatting and no one will catch it, then it's not worrying about. But we don't make an exception for undisclosed paid editing about editing templates or wikitext, as it will only encourage people wanting to fudge company sales numbers in the infobox or add their manager in the "Key people" entry. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The comment I responded to said that there are editors voting to keep the policy as it is with the understanding that non-disruptive LLM-assisted Wikitext formatting will not get anyone in trouble. And we have another substantial set of editors arguing to keep the policy as it is with the understanding that any LLM-assisted Wikitext formatting should get editors in trouble. What I disputed was that is any difference in practice between the two camps that the comment I'm responding to have presented, not that there are different camps when it comes to how to phrase the guideline or even how the guideline should work, it was only in response to the comment I responded to. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 10:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

There is a very much a difference in practice between "doing this won't get editors in trouble" and "doing this should get editors in trouble" in this case because, as policy stands, an editor admitting to AI use but which is not detectable otherwise will sometimes get into trouble and sometimes won't depending whether the review thinks editors doing that should get into trouble or not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

But there isn't anything in the wording about whether it is detectable. To use an analogy, if you admit to fraud and no one would've caught it otherwise, you still suffer the consequences for it. The fact that undetected fraud will otherwise go unpunished doesn't matter in that calculation, beyond the fact that <not legal advice>if your goal is to not get caught, it's an odd calculation to confess to fraud that you know no one would've found out about otherwise</not legal advice>. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Plus, the determining factor in whether someone’s AI use is “detectable” is not always editor competency or advances in technology (GPT-5.6 on have actually kind of faceplanted into really obvious tells compared to predecessors) but whether the handful of people actively doing AI cleanup have gotten around to them yet.

For instance, in the LLM paste log are by now hundreds of people whose AI use is confirmed but “has not been detected” because there is too fucking much of it and only 24 hours in the day. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I would rather not actually add any wording to the guideline about LLM-use being okay if nobody can tell you're doing it. An exception specifically for editors formatting Wikitext with an LLM with an output identical to what you would have done themselves and who then admit to doing it for some reason (which as I stated below is not something we should sanction regardless of what the guideline says) is going to encourage people to use LLMs more and then wikilawyer about it. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I have thought of someone admitting to it out of the blue (I was going to include a clarification about this in my reply to you but I seem to have forgotten to do so), but I don't see it like you do here becaude I view an editor admitting to breaking a policy or guideline with no detectable impact on the Wiki, so no clean-up work and really nothing to actually be "fixed", as a simple case of WP:IAR; last I checked we don't enforce rules merely for the sake of enforcing them. Unless there is actually a problem with the substance edits there is nothing to sanction. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

There are two problems with this:

1) There is no way to violate WP:NOLLM without having a detectable impact on the Wiki.

2) If someone is unwilling to follow guidelines that they know full well are guidelines, then they probably shouldn't be here as they are demonstrating that they do not care about what people are asking of them. This is uncontroversially true with every other policy and guideline, and yet for some reason people think that the AI guideline is an exception. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

1. The whole context of my comment is that there are editors who disagree with you, and that I think it is a disagreement with no practical relevance. You say that NOLLM cannot be violated without a detectable impact on the Wiki, others say that if you got an LLM to format wikitext exactly like you would have yourself then it is a violation to copy and paste that text instead of typing it out yourself.

2. I would argue that I'm treating NOLLM perfectly in line with other guidelines by saying that the purpose of the guideline is more important than the exact wording, and that common sense exceptions exist because of that. That's what it says at the top of every guideline page after all. That does not mean that I advocate for a relaxed view of NOLLM; none of what I have said entails giving any sort of excuse to an editor who has been detected using an LLM, nor more ammunition for wikilawyering. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 09:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Neither exception not prohibition, more in the nature of suggestions for positive usage notes to add to WP:NOLLM.

1) Editors should generally refer to available WP:AIRESOURCES on the relevant topic.

2) Editors may use AI to suggest WP:Wikitext for layout, formatting, links, musical notation, images, tables, and columns. Editors may include suggestions after human review of the resulting page appearance.

3) Editors may use AI in developing edits in areas that is individual to them that are outside of the article space. For example, usage may be done in developing content within a user's own WP:Userpage, shown as illustrative example in wikimedia, and AI assistance may be used in filing a WP:BLPSELF complaint. If it is not content to be viewed by the public reader, concerns about AI results are greatly lessened.

4) Editors may use AI assistance in checking any content for differences from WP policy, guidelines, essays, or individual criteria. Results may be taken as helpful, but are not to be regarded as authoritative or conclusive as the tool or prompting may have led to errors.

5) Editors may show AI outputs in discussions if explicitly allowed by the project, TALK thread originator, or editor of the Userpage. Editors should be careful with the number and size of such posts to avoid [[WP:BLUDGEON|overwhelming] input of other editors, and clooapsing the AI content is a useful step.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Background

Recent RMs involving US secondary school articles have produced many different outcomes regarding how their titles should be geographically disuated. Assessment of actual practice in article titles reveals a lack of consistency. The issue has been whether it should be identified by its state, its city or other settlement, or both its city and state.

Recent RMs on the topic:

• Talk:St. Francis de Sales High School (Chicago, Illinois)#Requested move 23 August 2026
• Talk:Aiken High School (Cincinnati)#Requested move 1 October 2026
• Talk:East High School (Cleveland)#Requested move 27 August 2026
• Talk:All Saints High School (Detroit)#Requested move 29 August 2026
• Talk:Marist School (Brookhaven, Georgia)#Requested move 14 September 2026
• Talk:Marist High School (Chicago)#Requested move 22 August 2026
• A longer list including older discussions is compiled at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)/History

For more context, see WT:NC(S)#Background and summary from above, which summarizes recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:NC(S) and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article advice § Title. There have been four failed proposals for a schools naming convention in the past.

Some editors favor state-based disambiguation. Others favor city-based disambiguation. Always using '(City, State)' regardless of the need for further disambiguation would produce a consistent result but is less concise than state-only or city-only. Other suggestions have included considering whether the US city is the primary topic for its name or whether it is a major city as described at WP:USPLACE.

Existing practice is inconsistent even at GA level; see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (schools)#GAs and DYKs. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• Notified: User:Dekimasu, User:LuniZunie, User:Huwmanbeing, User:Truthanado, User:Djflem, User:Waggers, User:Kudpung, User:Victuallers, User:BarrelProof, User:WhatamIdoing, User:Myceteae, User:Very Polite Person, User:JonRidinger, User:Timrollpickering, User:Necrothesp, User:Crouch, Swale, User:FaviFake, User:Livid and User:Jmabel. Reason: Participated in earlier discussion. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Notified: Wikipedia:Libraries, Wikipedia talk:X, Wikipedia:MUSEUM, Wikipedia talk:WPSCH/AG, Wikipedia talk:WPSCH, Wikipedia:WPSCH/H, Wikipedia talk:EDUCATION, Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis/Education, Wikipedia talk:RFC, Wikipedia talk:NCGN, Talk:Aiken High School (Cincinnati), Talk:Marist School (Brookhaven, Georgia), Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name), Wikipedia talk:RM, WP:RELIGION and Wikipedia talk:AT. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
• Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
• Notified: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture). ~~~~
  —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Question 1 responses

Should the name of the city be included when using geographic disambiguation for primary and secondary schools in the United States?

• Yes. The name of the city should be included by default. This has been the trend in recent RMs, although these are not definitive given divergent outcomes in a number of ways, previous RMs, and overall variation in practice. It is natural and logical to localize schools, churches, bank buildings, and similar buildings and institutions to the city where they are located. Article titles should be recognizable to people familiar with the subject. Most people familiar with a school will know which city it is located in. The use of cities to disambiguate is the overwhelmingly common approach used in every other place we have looked during these RMs, including England and Wales, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India, and Hong Kong. This is true for obscure villages and major metropolises. We can use parenthetical disambiguation since that approach appears to be favored already, e.g. Wikipedia High School (Chicago). I don't have strong feelings about whether to always include the state or to take a different approach based on primary topic, WP:MAJOR city designation, or the need for more complete disambiguation. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• No, because most "cities" are small towns. Nobody has any idea where these little towns are. Give the name something that someone can recognize, whether that's a major city, a state, or a country. Wikipedia High School (Chicago) is fine, because Chicago is a major city, but let's not have Wikipedia High School (Smallville), and let's also not have the very long Wikipedia High School (Smallville, Massachusetts) when the WP:CONCISE option of Wikipedia High School (Massachusetts) is sufficient to differentiate it from all others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  And mostly: Let's not actually care so much about whether the article titles for schools in one country use the same dab format as the schools in another country. I think that a rule of "if it doesn't conflict with another, then leave it alone" would do. Or maybe we could set up a WP:QPQ-like system: Anyone who persists in suggesting this type of page move has to add or improve a paragraph in Hobgoblin first. I suggest the one about Emerson on foolish consistency as a starting point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Well, wait.

  What if we had Central High School? In fact we do:

  > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_High_School

  It seems the norm is what we did with the Connecticut and Illinois examples? — VPP (t/c) 01:30, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  There's no norm, as evidenced by the dozens of RMs and thousands of article titles we've looked at. See here and the various other discussions linked in the background for more info. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Furthermore even at GA see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (schools)#GAs and DYKs Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe look through the list at Central High School and give us a list of the article titles there that

  1. are the only "Central High" in that state that needs parenthetical disambiguation
  2. aren't from a WP:MAJOR city, or at least one of the largest cities in that state
  3. and have the whole "City, State" location spelled out.

  I'll help you out with a complete list of all the "Central Highs" that just one in the state and have a parenthetical dab:

  • Central High School (Phoenix, Arizona)
  • Sussex Central High School (Delaware)
  • Central High School (Washington, D.C.)
  • Central High School (Louisville, Kentucky)
  • Central High School (Maryland)
  • Central High School (Jackson, Mississippi)
  • Central High School (Independence, Oregon)
  • Central High School (Providence, Rhode Island)
  • Central Valley High School (Washington)

  At a glance, Independence, Oregon is too small to meet my compromise approach for kind-of-major cities, half are already at the state name, and all the others are already correct and consistent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  I've looked at dozens of lists of schools and they are all over the place. For example, for whatever reason, '(Cincinnati, Ohio)' is a more common disambiguator than '(Cincinnati)' for schools, buildings, etc. despite Cincinnati being WP:MAJOR. For your compromise, how are we determining kind-of-majorness? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Well just MAJOR it, and only if there are two high schools in the same state, go to further disambiguation according to the standard practice, add 'community, state'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Although that's true for Cincinnati schools, it's different for other institutions and other cities. Overall, there is a 51:43 split between articles using '(Cincinnati, Ohio)' versus '(Cincinnati)'. It's also very different for different cities. For Chicago, it's 1:314, and there is an open RM for the 1. For Detroit, it's 7:99, with an open RM for 1 (the same RM). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  In re "how are we determining kind-of-majorness": A kind-of-major city isn't in Wikipedia:List of U.S. cities with Wikipedia article names without state (because those would be WP:MAJOR instead), and editors form a consensus that it's still large/famous enough to be recognized by many Americans. I would predict that their decision would be correlated with state capitals (e.g., Providence, Jacksonville, Phoenix), being the biggest city in its state (e.g., Louisville), and – for better or worse – professional sports teams (e.g., Phoenix again). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:List of U.S. cities with Wikipedia article names without state also lists a few neighborhoods and other sub-city-level settlement names. NYC boroughs are covered at WP:NYCPLACE. How should those be approached? The articles Jackson, Mississippi (which for some reason you piped as Jacksonville); Jacksonville, Florida; Providence, Rhode Island; Phoenix, Arizona; and Louisville, Kentucky all follow City, State either because they are not "MAJOR" or because the base title is ambiguous (e.g., Phoenix). There was an RM last year at Talk:Jacksonville, Florida#Requested move 11 July 2025 that failed to move Jacksonville, Florida to Jacksonville despite the fact that it is recognizable, is the primary topic, and is home to an NFL team. So I think you are saying if they are MAJOR or listed at Wikipedia:List of U.S. cities with Wikipedia article names without state or editors successfully argue that that the city (or neighborhood, district, or borough?) is sufficiently famous and there is no need for additional disambiguation (which there usually would not be) then use the city/neighborhood/district/borough alone. Otherwise we use the state alone or (City, State) only when there are more than two like-named high schools in the same state. Did I get that? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  That's my impression. Several of the kind-of-major cities use a City, State format, e.g., for Louisville, Kentucky, and I guess I don't hate that in small amounts, even though Central High School (Kentucky) would be sufficient. (Also, #TIL that there is a town called Central High.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• No: For the US, anyways, for most states would be WP:COMMONNAME Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  What I have written at WP:NC(USS), seems to cover this, and would make the most senes.

  If the school name is sufficiently unique, no geographic qualifier should be used.

  • If two or more schools with the same name exist in different states, state should normally be used as the geographic qualifier. - MOS:US
  • If two or more schools with the same name exist within the same state, city or municipality should normally be added to distinguish them.
  • If there are two Example High Schools in the given state, use the city:

  Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• Are there no similarly-named schools within a single state? CMD (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  There are. Currently these are either disambiguated as '(City)' or '(City, State)'. There are also similarly named schools in different states. These are currently disambiguated '(State)' or '(City, State)'. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  I tried to clarify the scope and intent of this RFC below. If we pick one default standard approach, there will inevitably be cases where a different title optimal in terms of particular considerations like the need for additional disambiguation. Using '(City, State)' for all would address most of this but some editors are (understandably) bothered by forcing a less WP:CONCISE title where it's not otherwise necessary. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. People primarily look up schools in terms of what city they are located in, not what state. If I were looking for my local school in Smallville, Mystate, I would be searching for "Wikipedia High School Smallville", not "Wikipedia High School Mystate". Schools are local institutions, not pertinent to an entire state. Wikipedia High School doesn't matter to most people outside of Smallville.Katzrockso (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Except when the school that is physically located within the city boundaries also serves students who live in Neighborton and Tinyville, and now you're looking for the school in the wrong city.

  This happens a lot in rural areas. Traveling 50 miles (an hour each way) to get to high school is not unheard of in rural areas. I learned recently of relatives who had to move to a different town so he could attend high school. There simply wasn't a high school within daily commuting distance of their home, so when you finished 8th grade, they sent you off to the nearest big town, where you rented a room and got an after-school job to pay for your room and board. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Wherever the school is actually located, even if it serves students from another area, the residents of Neighborton and Tinyville are still going to think of the school as "in Smallville". Katzrockso (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed. I don't think we make these considerations for churches or parks. I'm sure the following situation does arise: "I know my cousin lives in Smallville, and I know the name of her high school, but I don't know the names of any of the surrounding communities, and I'd like to read about her high school on Wikipedia". I'm just not convinced this should be the dominant consideration in naming articles about (hyper)local institutions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, for exactly the reasons stated by Katzrockso. - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Yes. Absolutely. City makes far more sense than state. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Probably for schools that are clearly in a city and not outside the settlement but within the municipality. Otherwise no, just the state should be used unless further disambiguation like the county etc is needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Very much Yes per taxonomic rank. There's no reason for us to be quirky or iconoclasts. We should be boring and procedural. — VPP (t/c) 12:37, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Yes City is clearest and makes more sense per above. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• No Hometown High School (Hometown) is redundant. And Centerville High School (Centerville, State) is likely not concise. The usual disambiguation should be just state if needed, and 'city, state' if there is an in state conflict. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Yes per Katzrockso. Schools (typically) serve very local communities and should be titled to reflect that. I would be amenable to an exception for cases where the school's name is "TownName High School" (or Middle School, etc) verbatim, but otherwise I think the approach is sound. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• No. The point of disambiguation is to distinguish titles, not to provide precise locations or make assumptions about what location a school is "associated with". As I've said on other discussions, WP:TITLEDAB: "According to the precision criterion, only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used." Since a standard title without disambiguation won't have a city or state (even when a high school is named after the town it's in), it seems odd to require "city, state" to disambiguate in all instances. States are well-enough known on their own to accomplish that and a natural way to distinguish between topics of the same name. When two or more of the same school names exist in the same state, then yes, you add the city since just the state in those cases isn't enough detail to distinguish. Also bear in mind that many rural high schools have a mailing address for a city they are not located in.

And yes, as others have said, using "city, state" across the board would make many titles both unnecessarily redundant and unnecessarily long, giving us something like "Salem High School (Salem, Massachusetts)" and "Salem High School (Salem, Ohio)", when in both cases (and as they currently stand) the state alone accomplishes the job of distinguishing between the two. -- JonRidinger (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the point of this RFC is to declare that, if we have two "Central High Schools", the detail that is necessary to distinguish them is that one is Central High School (Smallville) and the other is Central High School (Neighborton), rather than by saying that one is Central High School (Florida) and the other is Central High School (New York). The "(City, State)" style would only come into play if there were two Central Highs with cities of the same name, e.g., Central High School (Smallville, Iowa) and Central High School (Smallville, Ohio). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

As put together at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)/History, there is no consistency or consensus. It seems that for RM in schools are often changed with no policy based.

Furthermore, as I put together at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (schools)#GAs and DYKs, you can see the dropdown Of those 12 that use city and sates, there are: that also illustrates this point. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

The point of this RFC is to determine which approach we should use. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• No. Unless it is needed for precision to avoid conflict with other similarly named schools in the same state. Many schools provide services to multiple localities, not only to the city/town where it happens to be located. older ≠ wiser 17:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• No per Alanscottwalker and Whatamidoing. A sizable proportion of high schools are named after the city they are in; an article title like Smallville High School (Smallville, State) is redundant. If this proposal is passed, it should be with a clause that the city name need not be included as a disambiguator if the high school is already named after the city. Shocksingularity (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  A provision like this is reasonable. The question is whether the name of the city should generally be included. The main argument in favor is that primary and secondary schools are local, not statewide, institutions. Smallville High School (Nebraska) accomplishes this. We do have a pair of articles that satisfies this approach in Aiken High School (South Carolina) and Aiken High School (Cincinnati). I thought about this during the Cincinnati school's RM but didn't raise this point. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• No. I would argue that if a school is named after the city it resides in and/or is the only school going by a certain name, a disambiguator is unnecessary. In other cases, the state/province/region should be used. If the city it resides in is particularly large and widely known, the city may also be used, but not both. In solidarity, DollarStoreBa'al (Converse) 18:20, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
• In the interests of gathering more evidence, disambiguation by state alone seems quite common for higher education institutions in the US, e.g.:
  • Lincoln University (California), Lincoln University (Missouri), Lincoln University (Pennsylvania), Lincoln College (Illinois)
  • Concordia College (Indiana), Concordia College (New York), Concordia College (North Carolina) (but Concordia College (Moorhead, Minnesota))
  • Central College (Iowa), Central College (Texas)
  • St. Johns' College (Arkansas) (misplaced apostrophe?), St. John's College (Kansas) (but St. John's College (Annapolis/Santa Fe), St. John's College, Cleveland, St. John's University (New York City), St. John's University (Springfield, Louisiana))
  • St. Mary's College (Delaware), Saint Mary's College (Indiana), St. Mary's College (Kentucky), Saint Mary's College (Michigan), St. Mary's College (Minnesota), St. Mary's College (North Carolina), St. Mary's University, Texas (but St. Mary's College (Ilchester) in Maryland, which is distinct from St. Mary's College of Maryland; and St. Mary's University (Galveston, Texas), now defunct)

Should the style with the state only (with exceptions perhaps for WP:MAJOR cities – I think Cleveland and New York City are the only ones in these examples) be used for US educational institutions across the board, or should secondary (and lower) schools follow a more "localized" style? Ham II (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I think colleges/universities are often different in this regard than elementary, middle and high schools, so that would make sense. They're often more associated with a larger area than just a city or even an entire state. Katzrockso (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The scope of the RFC question is intentionally limited to primary and secondary schools—which is not to say we shouldn't discuss related cases and the extent to which they are or are not similar. I agree with @Katzrockso. Primary and secondary schools are local, often hyperlocal, institutions. Of course it's true that some students attend school in neighboring communities. College and universities have important similarities but I find the justification for a state or even national designation stronger there, depending on the institution. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• No with caveats Pretty much all the comments above sum up what I would have to say besides the fact that I think it might be possible with a particularly large city. A city like Baltimore could possibly be as good of a disambiguator as say Idaho or Nebraska. Possibly the 30 cities listed by the AP stylebook could be given an exception. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
• No Not necessary unless there are two (or more schools) with the same name. --Enos733 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yes the question asks if the city should be included when using geographic disambiguation. If the school's name is unique (unambiguous) then there would be not need. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

• No, except for WP:MAJOR cities. WhatamIdoing's proposal here is the most workable solution I've seen, and it happens to match what is apparently the most common practice for higher education institutions in the US, as I've argued here. I'm happy to go with this and consider the more "localized" style to be more appropriate for single individual buildings, structures, etc., which schools often are not.
  There seems to be an aversion to disambiguation terms that diverge from the article titles for cities by shortening them to the "base name" of the city, minus the state. WhatamIdoing's proposal avoids ever doing that; instead, it achieves concision by having the state as the disambiguator, or because the article titles for WP:MAJOR cities are already concise, and sacrifices concision only if naming the non-"major" city is unavoidable. Ham II (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
• No Having made thousands of edits to school articles and having done extensive research on the data from the National Center for Education Statistics, the overwhelming majority of such schools -- well more than 90-95% -- need no disambiguation at all, and forcing the addition of city and state means that the vast majority of readers will have to wade through multiple pages to find the article they're looking for. Sure, there will be an example of a Central High School or a Memorial High School, where there is occasionally a need for disambiguation, but even within those it's the exception, as most of the articles have a full name that disambiguates the Central / Memorial, as needed. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, we should be using city and state as disambiguators where it's needed, not for every single article for every single primary and secondary school. Alansohn (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

  The question was posed in the context of "when using geographic disambiguation". It does not say that a geographic location identifier needs to be used all the time. It's only about ambiguous cases. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

  Again, no. We should always be using the minimum disambiguation needed. Why use "(city, state)" when "(state)" is sufficient. Alansohn (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry for previously misunderstanding your comment. Now I see what you meant. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

• No, except for WP:MAJOR cities. I think User:Very Polite Person (VPP) is correct. We should be boring and procedural. Country subdivisions are a form of taxonomy. And taxonomic rank is the boring and procedural way of distinguishing between similar things. And it tells us to start at the most specific rank when determining where two things differ. That would be the city/town/village level. However, as WhatamIdoing pointed out, we run into the problem that we can't actually disambiguate by "city" in most cases without being ambiguous and contradicting the title of the corresponding article for the place the school is located in. Forrest School (Chapel Hill, Tennessee) would be Forrest School (Chapel Hill), which sounds like it's in North Carolina because no one knows Chapel Hill, Tennessee. That town's article is not titled Chapel Hill. But neither is Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Whereas White County High School (Cleveland, Georgia) would be titled White County High School (Cleveland) which sounds like it's in the Ohio city of Cleveland, which is where that city's article is located. But if we conform to corresponding town article titles, we get Town High School (Town, State), which is not WP:CONCISE because it provides more detail than is necessary in cases where no other same-named schools exist in the state. Οἶδα (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Question 2 responses

If yes (to Question 1), should the state also be included by default, or only under certain circumstances? If the state is not always included, when should it be?

• I don't have strong feelings about whether to always include the state or to take a different approach based on primary topic, WP:MAJOR city designation, or the need for more complete disambiguation. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2026 (UTC) Will update my response below —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
• I think:
  • If it's a WP:MAJOR city, then we should use the major city (unless that's not sufficient): Wikipedia High School (Chicago) but never Wikipedia High School (Chestnut) for a school in Chestnut, Illinois, with its total population of just 220.
  • If it isn't a WP:MAJOR city, then we should use the state (unless that's not sufficient): Wikipedia High School (Illinois).
  • Only if it isn't a WP:MAJOR city and we need further disambiguation because there's more than one school with the same name in the same state should we use both the city and the state: Wikipedia High School (Chestnut, Illinois). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Agree, Wikipedia:List of U.S. cities with Wikipedia article names without state is very short. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  The list of small towns whose kids have to go to the neighboring town for high school is much larger. If you know your friend lives in Smallville, State you don't know whether the high school will be "Wikipedia High School (Smallville)" or "Wikipedia High School (Neighborton)". You'd still be able to find it if the article were titled "Wikipedia High School (State)", though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  I know you don't think we should care about consistency between countries, but I'm curious why you think the global recognizability of towns and cities should be a determining factor in the US but not elsewhere. Yorkshire and New South Wales are more recognizable than many of the tiny villages and hamlets within them. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Because readership is likely to be within a single country (e.g., I want to know about my friend's kid's school), I think that we should do what makes sense within that country. This RFC asks about US schools, so my answers are oriented towards US schools. That said, if "St Wilfrid's Secondary School, Yorkshire" works for UK folks than "St Wilfrid's Secondary School, Skeffling", then I'd certainly prefer it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Where your preference is state only, does it matter if the name of the state is ambiguous, as in Georgia (U.S. state), New York (state), and Washington (state)? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Not in the case of Washington, as Washington is the state and Washington, D.C. is the capital. In the case of Georgia – are you aware of any schools in the US state of Georgia that have the same name as a school in the non-English-speaking country of Georgia? I'm not, and I think it's unlikely to be a problem. Therefore I consider that hypothetical conflict to be irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  I would have thought '(Washington)' always meant the state and was therefore to learn of Portrait of a Young Man (Botticelli, Washington) but maybe this is a different matter. I agree the Georgia situation will occur rarely. Just trying to understand not only what people are recommending but why. If we only care about people in-country and not globally, that's helpful to confirm. This did sort of come up in consideration of some of the Marist School titles. The schools are found all over the world, including in countries where English is not the primary language of instruction or everyday life. There's not one in Georgia so in actuality confusion is unlikely. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  In short, no. I've thought about that and honestly it seems like in most cases the title provides enough context that using a state even in those instances is sufficient. Again it's about distinguishing titles of the same name, not necessarily providing precise locations. For readers and editors looking for the article, these titles are either going to appear on search results with other high schools (and include the short description which also includes the city) or on a DAB page where the city is usually included.

  • Secondary schools in the country of Georgia don't use the "Name High School" format that North American schools do, so there aren't any overlaps with schools in the US state of Georgia or anywhere in the US that I'm aware of.
  • "Washington, DC" is the common name for the city and is already consistently used to disambiguate schools in the city. There doesn't seem to be any confusion about using "(Washington)" for schools in the state of Washington.
  • Schools in the city of New York seem to consistently use "New York City" and some use just the borough ("Queens" or "Bronx") to disambiguate. Like Washington, there doesn't appear to be any confusion using "(New York)" on other school articles. While we could try to be more consistent and only use "New York City" or add the state to the borough ("Queens, New York") for schools in NYC, it seems more like a case of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" as there are only a handful of schools that use the borough, plus even the articles on each borough don't use the "city, state" or even "neighborhood, city" format.

  -- JonRidinger (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think that anyone concerned about confusion about using "(Washington)" for schools in the state of Washington should consider changing it "(Washington state)". "(Georgetown, Washington)" doesn't really help, as we have both Georgetown (Washington, D.C.) and Georgetown (Washington state). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  It seems that it may be a special case. Thus, a specific rule just for that state may be useful, depending on the consensus on Question 1. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think that anyone concerned about confusion about using "(Washington)" for schools in the state of Washington should consider changing it "(Washington state)" … or '(City, State)'! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  A relevant RM was Roosevelt High School (Washington) → Roosevelt High School (Seattle) in Talk:Roosevelt High School (Seattle)#Requested move 27 August 2025. There is also a Roosevelt High School (Washington, D.C.). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Seattle is a WP:MAJOR city. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. Anecdotally, in my cartography class, I teach that if you are going to show a local area (town, school, etc.), include enough context in the title so an international audience can locate it on a map. I believe this is the same situation. I would frame it as city & region so we can include schools in areas without States. For example, a school in a country with provinces would be consistent with the ones in the US. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:54, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, include it (except for certain large cities). Use exactly the place name used for the category for the place. - Jmabel | Talk 06:50, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• No. Not necessary unless needed for disambiguation purposes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• This seems to be the normal rule for most other building to include the state even when not needed but for WP:MAJOR cities then no unless still ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Yes per expert resource User:GeogSage and taxonomic rank. — VPP (t/c) 12:35, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Very Polite Person, could you explain what you mean about Taxonomic rank? Are you recommending that since we normally write E. coli, we should always dab pages as (City, State)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Not per se, just that there's no reason we can't do somethig simple and uniform akin to that for our URLs and page titles. Decide on what, how to implement, and then we can and should lock in something that can scale... as far as we need to. If some day we have Central High School (New San Diego, Moon) or whatever else, a format that anything can easily just plug into. — VPP (t/c) 22:15, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  The question here is "should the state also be included by default, or only under certain circumstances?"

  Does your "yes" mean "Yes, the state should be included by default" (e.g., Central High School (New York City, New York)) or does your "yes" mean the "Yes, the state should be included only under certain circumstances" or does your "yes" mean "Yes, it should be one of those two [mutually exclusive] options?" or does your "yes" mean "for pity's sake, I wish I'd never gotten involved in this" (or something else)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

• No Only when disambiguation is needed, not as a default. Keep the disambiguation as short as necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• No, unless necessary to distinguish from other similarly named schools in similarly named cities/towns. older ≠ wiser 17:15, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• I voted no for Q1, but if it passes anyway, then I vote yes for this one except in the case of WP:MAJOR cities. Shocksingularity (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Weak yes. We should generally follow the convention at WP:USPLACE.Katzrockso (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Katzrockso, what about WP:THEUNI? Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Issac I Navarro unless I'm crazy, I don't see the pertinence of WP:THEUNI here. Katzrockso (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

No as under WP:CONCISE. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• Yes with the exception of those in the AP styleguide allowed to be mentioned without states. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• No I still say no. In most cases, based on the data I've seen, the name is unique across states. We should be as concise as possible, and if the state adds sufficient disambiguation, then why should we add city? Sure, there are cases where the same school name exists within the same state, and that's where (city, state) should be used; otherwise (state) is sufficient. Alansohn (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, except for WP:MAJOR cities. And only the state name, unless two schools with the name exist in the same state, as laid out in WhatamIdoing's proposal above. Οἶδα (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, the city and state should both be included by default when geographic disambiguation is already necessary, with a WP:MAJOR cities exception. This approach best balances the various article title considerations:
  • It reduces astonishment in cases like Paris, Texas and London, Ontario (if the approach is to be extended to Canada).
  • It properly situates these local, often hyperlocal, institutions.
  • It provides a clear and WP:CONSISTENT framework that will reduce variability among US schools titles.
  • It addresses WP:NATURALNESS and WP:Recognizability for locals, who are the readers most likely to be familiar with the school, and for the global readership.
  • It achieves greater WP:CONSISTENCY with schools outside the US, which almost always use the city, while incorporating local conventions as described at WP:USPLACE.
  • It addresses some of the potential ambiguity with Georgia, New York, and Washington (however minor these concerns may be).
  • The tradeoff is over-precision/loss of concision for some articles. The Article titles policy allows for this when balancing other considerations and following subject-specific naming conventions.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Question 3 responses

Should we develop a naming convention covering all school articles?

• As I am to draft up WP:NC(S) with the ideas from others at WT:WPSCH/AG, I think it could be helpful to point to when closing RMs. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. Per my comment above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

To anyone saying yes, here. If that page was to be developed, I would love some feedback on that page's talk. I think that page could greatly benefit from others' points of view. Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, folks may want to take look at the very rough draft proposal at WP:NC(S). It's somewhere between the brainstorming and draft proposal stage described at WP:PROPOSAL. It is mostly compiled from past failed proposals listed at Wikipedia:Schools § Article titles. It does not reflect any clear consensus. @Issac I Navarro has done a nice job pulling it together and cleaning up some portions. Per WP:MULTI, and for everyone's sanity, let's not start a parallel discussion about US schools or anything else within the scope of this RFC on the draft proposal's talk page—or anywhere else. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• No harm in trying. Not so sure it will work well for all countries, but we can at least develop standards for many countries. - Jmabel | Talk 06:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Probably not necessary. Comma disambiguation needs to be used for all Commonwealth countries (except Canada) incidentally, which includes Australia, as is standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Yes although it might be better as part of a wide guideline for buildings etc although in America as least it seems that we often treat school as being organizations rather than buildings which I (in England) would normally consider them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Possibly, for US only; absolutely not for a global attempt. Since I'm not in the US, I won't comment further on US schools. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Yes per taxonomic rank. — VPP (t/c) 12:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Yes but make clear it does not cover higher education even if a few countries call universities "schools". And all disambiguation should be brackets, not comma, to avoid giving the misleading impression the full article title is the institution's full name, regardless of country. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• No. Possibly ones per country will make sense, but there is too much variety in how the world organises its education system, how it names its educational institutions and how best to disambiguate places (e.g. "City, State" doesn't work for the majority of the world) for a single system to be practical. I'm also not convinced such a system would be desirable even if it was practical. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  These are important concerns that would need to be addressed, and you may be right that it's too difficult to be helpful. A single guideline ≠ A single system. We have existing naming conventions like WP:PLACE, WP:NCEVENTS, and WP:NCSTATION that provide a general approach for the category and varying levels of region- or subtype-specific guidance. A guideline for schools might look similar. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• No. While it sounds nice, as long as articles are following the general rules and guidelines for titles and disambguation, which allows for multiple formats, I don't think we need a strict uniform format for all schools. As others have said, how we name schools and places differs, so it would be impractical, and I seriously doubt any consensus could even be reached. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  The general rules and guidelines for titles and disambiguation don't yet provide a clear answer to the problem at hand, which is how to disambiguate entities (other than populated places) by location in the United States. A naming conventions page doesn't mean a strict uniform format for all schools; the page can indicate what Myceteae has called varying levels of region- or subtype-specific guidance. Ham II (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• Meh, leaning towards No. Considering that many agree that the naming conventions for settlements needs to be changed, there has been no consensus about how to change it. Seems even less likely that any single convention would be applicable for schools (or other institutions) world-wide (and I suspect having a set of multiple conventions would likely create more confusion). older ≠ wiser 17:21, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• No, I really don’t think this is necessary. Most school articles already use city/state names as disambiguators when necessary. It’s not like there’s school articles currently named Wikipedia High School (founded 1956) or Talk Page Middle School (brown brick building) that would justify creating a whole naming guideline (at least afaik). Shocksingularity (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, preferably as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (educational institutions) given that the convention I support (above) for US schools is also applicable to US colleges and universities, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools) would have much the same effect as the US higher education naming convention seems mostly to have fallen into place already. NB also that there are differing interpretations of "school", although that doesn't necessarily rule out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools) as a title if the scope is clarified in the text. Ham II (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
• No WP:COMMONNAME does a fantastic job of giving us guidance on names, with disambiguation added when (and only when) needed. Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
• A wider guideline? Yes. A school-specific guideline? No. Taxonomic rank combined with existing WP:PLACENAME guidances should result in smooth application. But this should not disrupt WP:COMMONNAME in any way. But it's basic placename taxonomy, so it goes beyond the disambiguation of school articles... which is the next question. Οἶδα (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Question 4 responses

Should we develop a naming convention that covers schools, museums, churches, libraries, and similar institutions and buildings?

• Yes. Ideally, something like: institution name, city, region/state/province. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:56, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• I don't have any strong opinions on this one. Possibly, as since we are doing schools we could better check all similar type buildings and build off off of the consensus reached here. Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Ambitious. Worth a try. If you do, consider that for many of these things you need to account for:
  • Sometimes a building and an institution should be "lumped," especially if the institution has always been associated with a single building or a series of buildings on a single site. However, this is not a given: museums, in particular, often move and often occupy buildings that are notable independent of the museum. Library systems often exist independent of particular library buildings. If universities are to be included, it gets even more complicated: the University of Washington, for example, has at least five present-day campuses, a former campus in Downtown Seattle, and numerous buildings elsewhere, including (for example) marine-oriented facilities in Friday Harbor, Washington. - Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Much to consider. If a more comprehensive guideline is developed, it would presumably default to WP:COMMONAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the common name, and other broad considerations in many cases. So the likes of University of Washington, Holworthy Hall, and Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library would not need to be changed. I don't want to digress too much into what exactly such a naming convention might say but it would be critical to define its scope. Another critical question would be whether the disambiguation considerations and outcomes should be the same for each type and, if not, what special rules or factors could be described for, say, libraries as distinct from high schools. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel, point, that seems to make the most senes. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• Probably not necessary. See above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Yes as I said above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Probably not, for US only; absolutely not for a global attempt Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• Johnbod, why would one country get special handling versus everyone else? — VPP (t/c) 12:32, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• To avoid yet more cultural imperialism by guess who. If other countries want their own standard, fine. But a standard devised by and for the US should not be imposed globally, as too often happens here. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  There's no reason region-specific guidance and considerations should not be included in such a guideline. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. I don't believe any country on Earth would feel like we're imposing US standards if we use their specific regional terms. For example, China has a different system of administrative divisions, and none are called "States," but are employed in a similar way to describe places in China. Each country has their own way of doing things, and we can respect that while still having some standard that is roughly consistent globally. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  As pointed out in the Article Advice Talk, UK schools use commas instead of parentheses. Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  The point is less what symbol goes where in the title as opposed to what level of place goes where in the title. — VPP (t/c) 06:24, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  To be clear what I mean is that anyone should be fine with if one country's norm is (this, then) vs this, then. THe point is the this and the then, not the other errata. — VPP (t/c) 06:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• This seems like an obvious yes.. I mean... this is all a solved problem: Taxonomic rank. — VPP (t/c) 12:32, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• I don't see a fundamental Wikipedia article titling difference between a school and a museum, church, library, or other institution or building. They fundamentally involve the same issues. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• No, per my answer to question 3 but this one has even more variables. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• I've long intended to rework WP:CHURCH into a more fully developed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (church buildings). That would necessarily have different guidance for different parts of the world, as much of it would be about when to use English and when to use other languages. For the United States, article titles with disambiguation would follow the pattern "St. Foo's Church (Placename)" (which is the status quo). I don't think there'd be any circumstances in which "Placename" would be a US state. Whether "Placename" should be, e.g., "Chestnut, Illinois", or just "Chestnut", is another matter; see my comment below. Ham II (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Ham II, after consensus, if you would like, send me a ping. Maybe we can work/build off the school naming convention. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Aha, I wasn't aware of WP:CHURCH. This says to use the name of the settlement or administrative division in which the building is located and to use commas instead of brackets (parentheses). A quick look at Category:Churches in Chicago and Category:Churches in Nashville, Tennessee shows that we do use parentheses, use city only for the WP:MAJOR city Chicago, and we use a mixed approach for the 'kind-of-major' city Nashville. We do not use state alone, at least not in this small sample. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Ham II and @Myceteae, should we mass message that WikiProject? Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  No. It is still my understanding that this is not a standard practice. For others, please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Mass messaging RFC notifications for context and to share insights on the matter. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Parenthetical disambiguation is the norm for articles on churches in North America, and WP:CHURCH not reflecting this is one reason I want to revise it. I think it's had very little attention and not much would be achieved by mass-messaging the relevant WikiProject(s). Ham II (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  For a live example of WP:CHURCH not being followed for a European church, and not being cited as a rationale for preserving or changing the title at RM, see: Talk:Alhóndiga (Toledo)#Requested move 13 October 2026. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• Same as #3: Meh, leaning towards No. Considering that many agree that the naming conventions for settlements needs to be changed, there has been no consensus about how to change it. Seems even less likely that any single convention would be applicable for schools (or other institutions) world-wide (and I suspect having a set of multiple conventions would likely create more confusion). older ≠ wiser 17:23, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• No, see my answer on question 3. Most of these are already disambiguated with place names so an official guideline isn’t that useful. Shocksingularity (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• No, this is overstepping it. Proper names exist, we don't need to open up the doors even more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
• No Sure, there are cases at WP:RM dealing with contested names coming up. But to imagine that we're going to develop and then impose an overall naming convention that is goung to cover all "schools, museums, churches, libraries, and similar institutions and buildings" is biting off far more than we can chew and will only be likely to create far, far more problems than could possibly be resolved. Alansohn (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, a basic guideline for disambiguation by placename. But not anything wider than that, and certainly not anything that steps on WP:COMMONNAME. As BarrelProof wrote, there isn't a fundamental difference between these institutions and what we must consider when disambiguating them. And as VPP wrote above, the point is less what symbol goes where in the title as opposed to what level of place goes where in the title. So it needn't be parenthetical disambiguation. Οἶδα (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  If I've understood your other posts correctly this guideline would start from the state and work down. First United Methodist Church (Laurel, Maryland) and First United Methodist Church (Nebraska City, Nebraska) are apparently the only churches of those names in those states with articles. Should they therefore have the article titles First United Methodist Church (Maryland) and First United Methodist Church (Nebraska)? Or would that be the point at which we're stepping on WP:COMMONNAME, as you put it?

  I think that disambiguation by US state would work for schools (and already does for colleges) but wouldn't for churches, and I would work from the assumption that the more "localized" style (localized to, e.g., a city, and using the format "City, State" for any non-WP:MAJOR city) would be best for any institutions/buildings other than schools, colleges and universities. Ham II (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  this guideline would start from the state and work down

  Except for WP:MAJOR cities, yes. Because I believe we should match the current city/town/village article title. Otherwise disambiguation "by city" would mean First United Methodist Church (Laurel) and First United Methodist Church (Nebraska City). The latter is less ambiguous, but still contradicts Nebraska City, Nebraska. "(Laurel)" is far more ambiguous and confusing as a disambiguator. So the answer would be First United Methodist Church (Laurel, Maryland), but that is a level of WP:PRECISION that is not required to unambiguously identify the church because First United Methodist Church (Maryland) does not conflict with the names of any other churches in Maryland. Or, at least, any churches that currently have an article on Wikipedia. Whereas I wouldn't have an issue with St Giles' Church, Mountnessing because the main place article is Mountnessing, not Mountnessing, Essex.

  And by "stepping on WP:COMMONNAME" I'm simply referring to a naming convention that somehow implies topics that do not require disambiguation should apply such disambiguation, instead of simply using the unambiguous expression WP:COMMONNAME tells us to use.

  But what is your thinking in saying that any institutions/buildings other than schools, colleges and universities should include the full city/town/village + state in its disambiguation? Why would Cathedral of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Grand Island, Nebraska) be preferred over Cathedral of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Nebraska) when you would also agree White County High School (Tennessee) be preferred over White County High School (Sparta, Tennessee)? What is the fundamental difference between these institutions that we must consider when approaching disambiguation by placename? Οἶδα (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  Is your suggestion that disambiguation (when used) always matches the name of the city article, or rather that we use the city for schools everywhere except the US? Or cities for England, states for the US, and perhaps separate rules for every other country? For schools located in cities in England where the city article requires disambiguation, would you then use 'School Name, City, County'? For example, should Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Penrith be moved to Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Penrith, Cumbria to match the title of the article Penrith, Cumbria?

  What is the fundamental difference between these institutions that we must consider when approaching disambiguation by placename? I have the same question. Schools and churches are both local institutions, though they may serve members of neighboring communities. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  should Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Penrith be moved to Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Penrith, Cumbria to match the title of the article Penrith, Cumbria?

  Only if there is more than one Queen Elizabeth Grammar School in Cumbria, which there does not appear to be. Applying the previous logic, Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Cumbria would be my choice. Of course you could argue that because no other place named Penrith has a "Queen Elizabeth Grammar School" that Penrith alone is sufficient. That would be similar to how two television shows can have the same name--like Shameless (American TV series) and Shameless (British TV series)- but we don't disambiguate the episode titles with anything other (Shameless) because there isn't ambiguity between both shows' episode titles. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel placenames are a different beast. If the wider community hasn't even agreed that a place is the primary topic for its name, meaning we consider it insufficiently distinctive to title its own article without qualification, I feel like we would be treating it as if it were if we departed from the established article title in our disambiguation. The fact that most placenames are not identifiable by their unqualified name alone + the fact that there are placenames that share the names of primary topic cities renders that distinction necessary in my view, even when there is no known ambiguity between shared placenames. I would say article titles should be understandable and appropriately disambiguated without relying on readers' knowledge of every possible place name. Do we really think St. Peter's Cathedral Basilica (London, Ontario) should be named St. Peter's Cathedral Basilica (London)? How about Zion Church (Rome, New York)? Should it be Zion Church (Rome)? I now realise that existing practice is inconsistent, as stated in the OP here, but I have always perceived disambiguation by placename as being downstream of the place's article title. Οἶδα (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

  From, what I have seen, it seems other countries use a comma, while the US uses brackets. Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

  I am aware. I wasn't making any point related to that. I did say above that such a guideline wouldn't be dependent on parenthetical disambiguation. Οἶδα (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks you, this is clarifying.

  I would say article titles should be understandable and appropriately disambiguated without relying on readers' knowledge of every possible place name.

  I tend to agree though there is tension between various editors' preference for and application of concision, precision, consistency, and other principles. Article titles should be recognizable to someone familiar with the topic. For local schools, the city is a basic piece of information and would cover this. Strictly speaking, the title doesn't need to make sense to or define the topic for readers unfamiliar with the school, but in practice we often include identifiers or descriptors beyond the absolute minimum that is required for disambiguation, in the name of both consistency and serving a global audience. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

  That is interesting. If the consensus is that local institutions are foremost defined geographically by the city/town/village/etc they are in, then I suppose the argument becomes that (State) can sufficiently distinguish the topic but not appropriately define it for recognizability. I would tweak my opinion to account for that consensus, assuming it is reached. I would concur that a museum in the Chicago metro area is probably defined more by its locale than it is as an institution of Illinois. Or a high school in Western Mass by its town. I still wouldn't ever depart from established article names and get First United Methodist Church (Laurel), which vaguely suggests to me it has something to do with plants. Or Spring Hill Farm (Lebanon, New Hampshire) becoming Spring Hill Farm (Lebanon), which sounds like it is located in a certain Near East country. Οἶδα (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

  The principle of matching the current city/town/village article title has my support. For places in the US, I can get behind disambiguation terms matching the article title exactly – e.g., "(Cleveland)"; "(Cleveland, Georgia)"; "(Laurel, Maryland)"; "(Washington, D.C.)" (though if I'm truly honest I'm hoping for the likes of Adoration of the Shepherds (El Greco, New York) and Portrait of a Young Man (Botticelli, Washington) to retain the most concise disambiguation terms, even if their cities are New York City and Washington, D.C.). This seems justified by WP:USPLACE, where even a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC like Nashville follows the "City, State" format. In other countries, I'm in favour of treating that construction as comma-separated disambiguation rather than a name unto itself, so that (as I note below) differently named churches in Richmond, North Yorkshire, and Richmond, London, are both disambiguated as ", Richmond" with no further disambiguator.

  On US schools, colleges and universities, I think the latter two are already most often disambiguated by state. Reading over the arguments again, I'm starting to waver somewhat in my support for doing the same for schools. But I was thinking of a distinction between institutions occupying multiple buildings with potentially sprawling or little-known catchment areas only recognizable from the state, versus individual buildings. One thinks of a building as being in a specific settlement; something further up in the taxonomy reduces WP:NATURALNESS and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. One especially thinks of a cathedral (since you mention one) as being in a city. (That article's lede suggests it could be given a more concise base name, "St. Mary's Cathedral", which would make the length of the disambiguator less of an issue.) A settlement or populated place rather than anything larger is usually the best starting-off point for disambiguation of a building. Ham II (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  That sounds good, since only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used. But I'm not sure how we can simultaneously say via WP:PRECISION that exceptions exist because of how we factor other WP:CRITERIA into the equation and that as such Bothell, Washington is more natural and recognizable than Bothell. Why should we disregard those same conclusions of naturalness and recognizability when deciding how much geographic detail to include in a disambiguator? I wouldn't feel comfortable disregarding what has already been worked out (sometimes ad nauseam) at the main article. Why would First Church of Christ, Scientist (Paris) be more natural or recognizable than First Church of Christ, Scientist (Paris, Texas)? And why would the latter be more concise than First Church of Christ, Scientist (Texas) in defining the topic? Speaking for the articles that exist on Wikipedia, of course. Οἶδα (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with most of your reasoning but reach a different conclusion, which is that routine usage of '(City, State)' for geographic disambiguation of schools, churches, etc. in the United States is the best balance of the considerations, with a WP:MAJOR cities exception. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

  That works, but it does give you Smallville High School (Smallville, Illinois) and Smallville High School (Smallville, New York). And when scaled, it does give you Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Penrith, Cumbria. All of those objectively have a layer of unnecessary disambiguation. But if one believes that state is an unnatural disambiguator, then it becomes less unnecessary.

  Anecdotally, I have a Smallville High School (Smallville, Mystate) in my area that has only one doppelganger in the whole US. I checked Google Trends and it does appear people are searching the full "Smallville High School Smallville Mystate" just as frequently as "Smallville High School Mystate". Οἶδα (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

  I could get behind an exception for cases like Smallville High School (State) where the name of city is reflected in the name of the school. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think colleges and universities with sprawling campuses and satellite locations are a different matter (also touched on elsewhere in this discussion). This situation is far less common with grammar schools and high schools. And colleges and universities, which more often have significant state, national, even international prominence, may warrant distinct treatment overall. Many, probably the large majority, will have a unique common name like University of Washington that doesn't require disambiguation. The article properly covers the parent institution and main campus, with separate articles on Campus of the University of Washington (covering the main campus), University of Washington Bothell, and University of Washington Tacoma. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (Geographic disambiguation)

• I'm not sure at this time if we need a comprehensive naming convention for schools or for other, similar institutions. It is sensible to me that these would all follow similar principles. However, the major sticking point at RM, and the major point of variation across the project, is primary and (mostly) secondary schools in the US. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Clarification/scope: The intent is to create a standard approach that will usually be used when disambiguation is needed, i.e., when two or more schools share the same name. As with other guidelines/naming conventions, this would not be required when the school has a unique WP:COMMONNAME that doesn't require disambiguation or when it is determined at RM that weighing other article title considerations occasionally warrant a different approach in a particular case. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Isn’t all of this already covered by WP:USPLACES? That guideline tells us to include both town and state names except for a few designated large cities. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  I asked above, but why would the USA get it's own carve out on anything ever, or any other country? — VPP (t/c) 12:57, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  I’m not going to repeat all the reasons why WP:USPLACES says what it does. We have had multiple discussions about it, and we have repeatedly confirmed that it has consensus.

  (edit conflict) It's basically a matter of MOS:TIES and WP:ENGVAR. The US has a large number of people who speak and read English, and it has somewhat different writing customs than other places. It would be rather odd to say that someone "went to Cleveland, United States", for example. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  My question is why it wouldn’t apply to these school disambiguations. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Well, for one, it could often be a bit cumbersome – including extra state identifiers where they are not a natural part of the way people write. Also, it's not clear what kind of location identification is desirable for an institution that is located in Neighborhoodplace, Smallville, Cucumber County, SomestatethatshopefullynotGeorgiaorWashingtonorNewYork, when the institution is in the Bigcity metropolitan area. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  This seems to boil down to a disagreement over whether, e.g., Chestnut, Illinois, should be treated as a place name plus disambiguation or as a place name unto itself. If it's a place name unto itself, one can simply follow the article title for the place when disambiguating something that's located there. If it's a place name plus disambiguation, following the place's article title means there is arguably one disambiguator too many, so there is then a question of whether to disambiguate by city/town/etc. or by state.

  As comma-separated disambiguation seems to be restricted to articles on populated places when it comes to American topics, with disambiguation otherwise being parenthetical for those topics, this probably encourages the view that an article title like "Wikipedia High School (Chestnut, Illinois)" doesn't contain "double disambiguation" (a term that's being used in this brand-new RM started today). Ham II (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  It’s not one or the other… it’s BOTH. Because sooo many towns in the US require disambiguation, it has become standard practice in US sources to include the state name when referring to the town - even when the town name is unique. The exceptions are a few large cities… and these are spelled out in the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Blueboar, USPLACES is about how to title articles about cities, counties, etc. in the US. It doesn't say anything about whether a non-geographical thing should be disambiguated as Thing (City, State), Thing (City), or Thing (State).

  For example, USPLACES does not tell editors whether they're allowed to have a page at Saint Ignatius College (California), or if it needs to be Saint Ignatius College (San Francisco, California) or at Saint Ignatius College (San Francisco). Is it the Bonfire Rally (California), or the Bonfire Rally (Berkeley, California) or the Bonfire Rally (Berkeley)? Was that newspaper The Independent (California), or was it The Independent (Long Beach, California) or The Independent (Long Beach)? USPLACES is silent on this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  This is a nice framing of the issue. We already have a standard for US places, and a mountain of other region-specific guidance, that essentially says ambiguity and concision are not the top priorities. We have other naming conventions like WP:NOYEAR and WP:TVSEASON that prioritize consistency and providing more identifying information in the title over selecting the shortest possible title. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  My question is why [WP:USPLACE] wouldn’t apply to these school disambiguations. It could. And this could be extended to other countries by saying that the general approach described at WP:PLACE is used for disambiguating schools, churches, museums, etc. It's a tradeoff between WP:CONSISTENCY and simplicity vs. WP:CONCISE. This would produce a fair number of article titles that are longer than absolutely necessary but the determination would more often be straightforward and less reliant on case-by-case assessments and the randomness of who happens to show up at RM. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  This approach would be better as something specific to WP:USPLACE rather than applying across WP:PLACE, in my opinion. The Church of St Mary the Virgin, Richmond, is in Richmond, North Yorkshire, while the Church of St Mary Magdalene, Richmond, is in Richmond, London. I wouldn't want "North Yorkshire" and "London" added to the article titles for the churches (unless they had the exact same dedication). But St. Andrew's Church (Richmond, Virginia) could remain as it is, if "Richmond, Virginia" is treated as a place name unto itself.

  Perhaps the number of separate elements in a disambiguator should be limited to two; I wouldn't want Portrait of a Young Man (Botticelli, Washington) further extended to "Portrait of a Young Man (Botticelli, Washington, D.C.)", even though the article title for the city is Washington, D.C. Ham II (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm. See, I find the title of Portrait of a Young Man (Botticelli, Washington) rather surprising. At first glance I'd assume it refers to some place called Botticelli, Washington. Washington, D.C. is a special case that should probably be treated uniformly regardless of the approach used for other US cities. Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. may also warrant special treatment. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  The WP:CRITERION of Recognizability is that "The title is a name or description of the subject that would be recognized by someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area." I think someone of that description would recognize that Botticelli is the name of the painting's artist. Ham II (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think so, too. But again we often use additional considerations and conventions to places. It's interesting to see what the actual practices are and how they are rationalized. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  I should clarify: I agree with the application of WP:Recognizability in a vacuum. But I also find Washington, D.C. better here even if not strictly necessary. Several other editors throughout this discussion have asserted that we always or usually write out Washington, D.C. for disambiguation. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  AFAIK, WP:USPLACES focuses on articles about populated places, not articles about institutions. It doesn't say what to do when a place name is part of some title about something else. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  I also suspect that people may not understand just how many articles are using "(Primarytopicville)" instead of "(Primarytopicville, Statename)" in disambiguation terms, and similar unqualified phrases in WP:NATURALly disambiguated article titles. I suspect the number is very large. One related RM was Talk:Herbert Hoover High School (Glendale)#Requested move 20 November 2023. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  That one is interesting as there is a Hoover High School (San Diego, California). Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  That one was mentioned in the RM discussion. Someone had boldly moved it from just "(San Diego)" in 2020, and the same thing had happened for Fresno in 2011. San Diego is one of the WP:MAJOR cities. Fresno is not, but it's a Primarytopicville. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  After this is over, I hope many of us can organise, to clean things up. We may need to boldly move many pages in accordance with the consensus reached here. @BarrelProof, I would like your thoughts on this: Should we add a template, similar to those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Templates#Article maintenance templates, to the talk pages of articles we move saying that it was boldy done in accordance with the consensus reached here? And if you would like to request it being moved to a back or a different title use subst:Merge school? For a lack of better words, is this a dumb idea? Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  I wouldn't think we need a template. For a bold move, an edit summary that links to the declared consensus seems like it would suffice, and perhaps trying not to move too fast. The closer of the discussion may suggest an appropriate way forward. I'm more wondering whether we can expect to reach a clear consensus to do something. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  I would hope so, after this RfC. I am okay whatever the consensus is. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, the practice is common and also variable. For (Nashville, Tennessee) vs. (Nashville) it's 51 vs. 23 but for (Jacksonville, Florida) to (Jacksonville) it's 8 vs. 51. I'v not looked at all the talk pages for RMs but I wonder if one form or another just takes hold first for some cities and other articles follow suit. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've also looked at quite a few neighborhood articles and RMs and the practice there is even more varied than for high schools. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Some people even seem to believe we shouldn't disambiguate city identifiers even in cases where the city is not the primary topic for its name – e.g., see the ongoing discussion at Talk:Alhóndiga (Toledo)#Requested move 13 October 2026. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  Interesting tensions between concision, clarity, recognizability, and other principles. The arguments on both sides make sense and are defensible but I don't think there's an obvious right answer. Some view WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE as always favoring the shortest possible title. This can be persuasive but we often go the other way. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  I see it covers Museums, and that is in the scope of this RfC in question 4.

  Courtesy ping: 162 etc., I have yet, to see you in this RfC, and you may be interested. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  As I said elsewhere in this discussion, I think schools aren't fundamentally different from other institutions, buildings, churches, etc. They all have the same issues. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  I agree on that point, hopefully, we can get some consensus on Question 4 responses: Should we develop a naming convention that covers schools, museums, churches, libraries, and similar institutions and buildings? Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  My perspective is that whatever consensus we can get would be helpful. Either way, consistency should be one of the main goals that comes out of this. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  There are different ways to understand consistency. "Everything visibly the same" is consistent. "Everything using the shortest feasible name" is also consistent. "Everything uses the article title for the city" is also consistent. "Everything includes at least a state name, except for WP:MAJOR cities" is consistent, too. Which kind of consistency are you advocating for? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing, in all honesty just something.

  I don't have a strong preference for anything we use. There has already been four failed attempts to gain any consensus. And I don’t wish for this to be a fifth or a waste of anyones time for that matter.

  I have the perspective of just having something to point to so we can stop having unproductive RM that go in either direction. I am okay with whatever the outcome is.

  That being said, as I mentioned in Question 1, that I have a preference towards state. To have something akin to: Example High School (California) vs Example High School (Alabama). Then if we had two schools with exactly the same name in the same state, then we will use city: Example High School (made up1, California) vs Example High School (made up town2, California). Thus, not haveing unnecessary detail in their disambiguation terms. Trying to make the disambiguation aspect as brief and simple as possible. Additionally, for the US, there are only 50 states, having the additional benefit of being more uniformed. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Remind

Of course, to be clear, if a school is Exaaammmple Skooool High School with its own unique name, there would be no need to add any of the three options being discussed above: (city, state)/(state)/(city) Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, I think it goes without saying, but should be clarified in the RFC outcome and any written guideline, that first we look at general principles like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. These will often produce a suitable, unambiguous name and no further analysis is needed. When geographic disambiguation is needed, the question is which consistent approach we should follow. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yep, I only brought the unique name up, as it seemed some may have brought it up in Question 1. I am leaving this more as a note to the one that closes this RfC; to keep in mind, this is not to change those schools' titles. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Shocksingularity, see this comment. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  I would support that. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with Issac I Navarro: If the name is unique, nothing needs to be done. If it isn't and the two schools are in different states, then use "Example High School (California) vs Example High School (Alabama). Then if we had two schools with exactly the same name in the same state, then we will use city: Example High School (made up1, California) vs Example High School (made up town2, California)". That's what's needed here. Yes, the 1% of cases where there are duplicated names causes confusion, but why needlessly confuse things for the other 99%? Alansohn (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
• Question 1 ambiguity Looking at some of Q1's responses, it seems some are confused whether Q1 is the scenario described in #Background regarding Always using '(City, State)' regardless of the need for further disambiguation would produce a consistent result but is less concise than state-only or city-only—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  I see. By further disambiguation what is meant is that this applies in a situation where some disambiguation is already required, and city-only or state-only provides incomplete disambiguation. Q1 is asking whether the city should be included in some way when geographic disambiguation is required. This could be in any form, e.g. High School (City) or High School (City, State). Q2 is asking which form is preferred or under which circumstances the state should also be included. I'm not sure how to make this more clear at this point in the discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Myceteae, that may be best; to point to this thread down here. I been keeping, my eye on this RfC, and for the most part it seems pretty smooth. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Issac I Navarro Yeah, I'm conflicted about meddling with the wording. It seems most people do understand what's being asked but some are confused. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Myceteae, I suggest to leave it the way it is. I been trying to keep an eye on this. If I see any that may be confused, I will try and step in. However, the rfc seems quite smooth given the amount of participants. Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed, it's going well and changes to the RFC questions or background section may actually cause more confusion. Most participants seem to understand what's being asked or are receiving clarification in the replies. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

• I discovered Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) (WP:NCSTATION) today, which includes as subpages a collection regional advice and guidelines and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) (WP:USSTATION). I don't find it particularly helpful to resolving the questions in this RFC but is something that could be considered or linked to if/when a broader guideline is developed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

  Worth noting that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) § Disambiguation advocates leaving a city's name out (i.e., disambiguating by state) if the city's name is already in the base name: Centralia station (Illinois) and Centralia station (Washington), when the cities are Centralia, Illinois, and Centralia, Washington. That could be worth considering as an exception if disambiguation terms with the format "City, State" become the default. Ham II (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I think this is a reasonable exception to consider. This would rationalize a difference between, for example Springfield High School (Illinois) and Springfield High School (Holland, Ohio). This is potentially another reason to usually include the city, lest someone think Springfield High School (Ohio) is located in Springfield, Ohio. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2026 (UTC)