Talk:List of mountain passes in Washington

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Mid-importance).

On 4 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from List of mountain passes in Washington (state) to List of mountain passes in Washington. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 16 June 2023

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

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for the proposed mass-move at this time, and specific concerns as to certain of these titles, such as those in reference to federal lands, ferries, and infrastructure. BD2412 T 04:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– These requested moves are a follow up to a previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_61#Parenthetical_disambiguation_for_all_topic_articles where Reywas92 questioned the need for a batch of moves made by Thrakkx of Washington (state)-related lists and articles to include the (state) parenthetical disambiguator, including in cases where there is no Washington, D.C.-related analog to be disambiguated. Through work mostly by that user, many cases where a subject is covered on enwiki for both the state and the district now have disambiguation pages or set indices at the base name, which is fine when there is no obvious primary topic. In contrast, The articles I've compiled here currently either 1) have the base name redirect to article currently at base name (state), or 2) the page at the base name currently does not exist. In all cases above, there either is no D.C. analog to disambiguate (for example, the page I chose to host this discussion), the state topic is clearly the primary topic and the D.C. content can be linked in a hatnote, or there conceivably could be a D.C. analog, but enwiki currently does not have a good place to point users; regardless, the base name should host the content about the state. In cases where the base names are currently redirects, the article should be moved over the redirect per WP:MISPLACED. It also doesn't make sense for an article to have parenthetical disambiguation if there is nothing at the base name, per WP:DISAMBIGUATION. There are a few other cases I've left out of this request that I plan to deal with separately, either in a separate discussion or will create a disambiguation page at the base name or other bold actions. I hope this doesn't become a WP:TRAINWRECK, but please feel free to separate out any that merit further discussion if the there is general support for the majority of cases. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, a Scouting in Washington, D.C. article exists. I assume some sort of note will be placed at the top for those looking for DC on the Scouting in Washington (state) article and vice versa. If so, I see no problem with that. and it has my support. Buffs (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a WP:HATNOTE may be added to serve the D.C. article, per WP:ONEOTHER if the state is deemed the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as I believe it is. But I would be fine making Scouting in Washington a dab page too and there being no primary topic. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we make a whole dab page for 2 articles when, if you reach one, you might possibly want the other? Just add a note at the top of each and move on. Buffs (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think your assessment that this is a "trainwreck" is probably way overblown. To be blunt, if you select any of these and your get the "wrong" page for DC or the state, a link at the top should take you where you want to go in a single click and it should be obvious. The page naming convention is reasonable as-is, but I'm not opposed to moving them either. I think any extended discussion should be a simple !vote and let's just stick with it. If you have a policy-based argument that hasn't been noted, please add it. Buffs (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: I think you misunderstood my reference to WP:TRAINWRECK. It refers to the risk of being unable to discern a clear consensus out of a discussion where multiple pages are being discussed. It has nothing to do with the issues being discussed. As for disambiguation, if the state or DC are the primary topic, then the base name should bring users there, with a hatnote linking to the non-primary topic, per WP:ONEOTHER. In cases where there is no clear primary topic, i.e., users could equally be seeking the state or DC, then the base name must bring users to a two-item dab page, per WP:NOPRIMARY. We should follow WP:TITLES policy and WP:DISAMBIGUATION guidelines. Presently, the pages above do not. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one way to fulfill that policy. Buffs (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Scouting in Washington (state) --evrik ^(talk) 23:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move all Parenthetical disambiguation is not needed in these cases and many others. While there are several "Washingtons" that warrant disambiguation for the top-level name by itself, the parenthetical does not need to be applied for all other cases as well. Even for articles where both places have similar articles, readers can easily enough tell that Washington, D.C. articles have "D.C." and the state's articles have just "Washington", and a hatnote may also be used because the state is often overwhelmingly the primary topic because people understand from context that Washington by itself is the state. For example, 96% of visitors to List of high schools in Washington go to the state article, 92% for List of colleges and universities in Washington, and 95% for List of law enforcement agencies in Washington.

Support per nom and above comments, as well as WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:CONCISE. Where there is only one article with a given title, that title should be as simple and straightforward as possible, as there's nothing to disambiguate. Adding unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation also implies WP has an article about, say, waterfalls in a Washington other than the state, when that is not the case. Station1 (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, Buffs, Reywas92 and Station1. The parenthetical qualifiers "(state)" within the main title headers of above-listed entries are excessive and unnecessary. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would add that in cases where it is deemed necessary to include the word "state", it would be better to say "XXX of Washington State" than "XXX of Washington (state)". The latter makes it seem as though there is a state named "XXX of Washington". YBG (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support those that cannot also apply to DC per In ictu oculi's comments below all but 'List of reptiles in Washington' which is already covered. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move only those that cannot apply to DC. Sure that more than just reptiles. Category:Lists of companies of the United States by state. Why no list article for DC? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom I have one refinement: Washington (state) court system should be moved to the more natural Court system of Washington (state) and a dab created at Court system of Washington with Washington court system redirecting there. I have created a redirect at Court system of Washington, D.C. that points to a section, with a section hatnote there to another page with overlapping info. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose works fine as it is. No need to change. --evrik ^(talk) 23:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, several of these were moved to add "(state)" in January and February – this was done without discussion, even though it worked fine as it was. Reywas92^Talk 02:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a WP:QUALIFIER when the WP:Base name doesn't exist is antithetical to WP:TITLES and WP:DISAMBIGUATION, as is having the base name redirect to a page with a qualifier. Things are not "fine as it is". Mdewman6 (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There may be some exceptions where the disambiguator (state) is needed, and in some cases there may be a need for a disambiguation page, but Wikipedia's general rule is that disambiguators are not used unless needed because there are two or more articles properly titled with the same name. Follow the general rule unless there's a good reason. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. About two thirds of these could also refer to the city, which is generally more notable than the state (sorry Washington State!). I mean, I think most people would think of the city (or even the US government) when they saw Outline of Washington infrastructure. And that's just one example. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NWFCTM Red Slash 03:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant to what I said, as should be fairly obvious. We're not talking about a primary topic here. It's clearly ambiguous, therefore it needs disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

generally more notable than the state implies you believe in most cases the D.C. topic should be primary, such as the example you give. Therefore WP:NWFCTM is relevant. I agree there should be disambiguation, if there is D.C. content to disambiguate, but in most cases I still believe the state is the primary topic and disambiguation should occur via hatnotes. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support all per WP:CONCISE - most of these could only refer to the state, which is by far the more notable topic anyway (sorry Washington DC!). Red Slash 03:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Most? Hardly. Two thirds of them could refer to either the state or the city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in general, but some cases will need to be evaluated. For example, Ferries in Washington could refer to historic service crossing the capital's two rivers in addition to what we have in Washington state. Sounder Bruce 06:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but is there a target that discusses ferries in Washington, D.C. in general? There would need to be a good target to disambiguate, either in a hatnote or as a dab page. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose except for those unambiguous per WP:SHORTFORM of which this one may be but many probably won't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose can be confused with the District of Columbia, whose categories and pages are also called Washington (which should instead be renamed to District of Columbia) -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Current situation works fine. WP:DONTFIXIT applies here. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it is broke. Anyone searching the base name for those which are red above are out of luck. And for some of those that are blue, the user reaches the state article, but there are not hatnotes to content about D.C. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply delete the bluelinks, and the search function will take people to the choice between the state and DC -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how disambiguation works. And the search function is not the only way users reach articles. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is how disambiguation is currently working, as we can see all the redlinks in the proposed name list, so it is working that way already. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support The purpose of parenthetical disambiguators is to disambiguate existing pages whose names would otherwise clash, not to alleviate other forms of confusion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that, for example, List of federal lands in Washington, D.C would be meaningless, since the entirety of Washington D.C is a federal land. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, federal lands refers to land owned by the U.S. government, and the entire city of D.C. is not owned by the federal government. But, there is not an analogous list for D.C., and in most cases "lands" includes large areas like national forests, national parks, BLM lands, etc., so the state is the primary topic. But a hatnote to the most appropriate D.C. content would be appropriate, perhaps National Capital Parks or if we have to Template:Protected areas of the District of Columbia. Perhaps Reywas92 has a better idea. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support when there is no DC-related article that the title could possibly refer to. If there's a PTOPIC debate on any of these (where there's actually two relevant articles), I'd rather handle it separately, even if hatnotes are sufficient (just for WP:TRAINWRECK-related reasons). (For example, because of the redirect for List of professional sports teams in Washington, D.C., I'd oppose the move of List of professional sports teams in Washington (state).) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and break out individual discussions as necessary. This does meet the definition of WP:TRAINWRECK; a significant proportion of the supporting comments above indicate that pages should be renamed if there is no possibility of ambiguity, but there is no way for a closer here to determine a consensus as to which articles that applies to. In the absence of any way to distinguish, the only options are to restart the discussion or to have the closer make a personal determination (which is not the way this sort of discussion should be conducted). Dekimasuよ! 03:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested move 4 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to support move to the suggested titles, except List of Public Utility Districts of Washington (state) which will be moved to List of public utility districts in Washington per WP:LOWERCASE. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 19:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– After the WP:TRAINWRECK that resulted above, let's try again. The above articles about the state either have no content about D.C. with which to disambiguate, or in a few cases there may be some content for the topic related to D.C., but the state is (in my opinion, at least...) the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; in either scenario no parenthetical disambiguator should be used per article title policy (WP:QUALIFIER) and the article about the state should exist at the WP:Base name. In all cases above, either the base name currently redirects to the state, which means the base name is WP:MISPLACED, or doesn't exist; either way, the above articles should be moved to the base name as the only/primary topic. If there is a concern with specific moves, please indicate them explicitly to avoid another trainwreck. Other entries from the previous RM I will address in separate discussions or bold actions, or are moot. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support move all None of these examples have ambiguity with Washington D.C., and there does not need to be a parenthetical merely because the related article does. I still strongly believe that a standalone "Washington" clearly represents the state in the vast majority of cases and people will be able to tell the difference from the lack of a "D.C." and the possible use of a hatnote. Reywas92^Talk 02:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: City government in Washington is a disambiguation page (which I created immediately after closing the previous move request, and before this one was created). It requires a separate discussion. BD2412 T 03:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that one. I support the disambiguation page at the base name and therefore withdraw City government in Washington (state). Mdewman6 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have removed this article from the listing above because the bot isn't liking its presence there, WP:RMCD#Possibly incomplete requests. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Are you seriously saying that City government in Washington (state) is the primary topic and not the government of DC? -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Or "Hemp in Washington", for which there is so much conflict between the federal jurisdiction and local wishes in DC for both hemp and cannabis -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - and "List of professional sports teams in Washington" should be about DC not the state -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - "List of professional sports teams in Washington" is not part of this nomination. BD2412 T 04:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Marijuana as legally defined in the U.S. does exist in both jurisdictions, but I'm not aware of a hemp industry in D.C.; however it is definitely a thing in the state. The USDA governs hemp now since the 2018 Farm Bill which allows state and tribal ag programs; it requires a state/tribal/territorial regulatory scheme, and there is none in D.C. because it falls under none of those categories. See USDA's Status of State and Tribal Hemp Production Plans for USDA Approval ☆ Bri (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The oppose immediately above is seriously flawed for many reasons. Having a silly disambiguation for earthquakes, mountain passes, refineries, etc. which never existed and probably never will in the District is just nonsense. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support all except Washington (state) legislative districts, City government in Washington, Wind power in Washington (state), Women's suffrage movement in Washington (state) and Emergency operations centers in Washington (state). All these are clearly ambiguous. And List of Public Utility Districts of Washington should be lowercased. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City government in Washington is withdrawn. I still believe the state is primary for Washington legislative districts, as legislative districts in the city are called wards, though a hatnote would be appropriate to List of members of the Council of the District of Columbia. As for the others, is there D.C. content to disambiguate? Certainly the state is the primary topic for wind power. I concur about the utility districts. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a better hatnote for D.C. wards would be Neighborhoods in Washington, D.C.. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Legislative district" here is used as a generic term, not a formal term, so could equally apply to the city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no wind power in DC and there is not going to be an article for that, I don't think it is ambiguous. Reywas92^Talk 20:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom Per the above, I agree that List of Public Utility Districts of Washington (state) should instead be moved to List of public utility districts in Washington per WP:LOWERCASE. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Oppose We just had this discussion and there was no consensus. If you want to rehash this right after the same request (basically) was closed, contact all those who voiced an opinion. Please don't repeat the same request over and over until you get the result you want. Buffs (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs:, the reason there was no consensus previously was because the net was cast too widely, and users had issues with some of the pages included, making it impossible to determine consensus. This is a different, pared-down proposal. I'll also note you did not oppose these moves in the previous RM. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

clarified... Buffs (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Articles about Washington D.C. will all be naturally disambiguated. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant, given "Washington" (undisambiguated) can refer to either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of these state articles don't even have a correlated D.C. article, which means disambiguation is completely unnecessary. We don't just inject a parenthetical disambiguation into an article title unless there is another article title of the same name. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. None of these articles have direct counterparts using the same title to refer to Washington, DC. Most cases are simple reversals of redirects per WP:CONCISE (some just revert previous undiscussed moves). Most cannot possibly have a DC counterpart, and those that could, hypothetically, don't, and aren't likely to, and we don't preemptively disambiguate hypothetical articles. For the few cases where we have an article about some similar topic regarding DC, hatnotes easily take care of any possible reader confusion. Station1 (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and a round of applause for trimming down the list to those which are unambiguously (pun intended) in accord with WP policies YBG (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as sufficiently distinguished as page names since Washington DC is a useful unbracketed term. Jorahm (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unnecessary disambiguation. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also nudge @Raydann who said they were reviewing this over a day ago.

CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.