@Peter_pbn​ I'm not aware of anyone advocating for merging city keywords into "reference-to-" keywords, either.

In fact, I would support the exact opposite, and I would broaden it to all geographic areas. In other words, I would be fine with merging all "reference-to-specific-geographical-area" keywords into their counterpart "specific-geographical-area" keywords. 

There is absolutely no need to have "reference-to-" as a prefix in front of any geographic keyword. 

Unfortunately, a handful of contributors have overused the "reference-to-" prefix on IMDb.

Some contributors apparently believe the "reference-to-" prefix is mandatory for all proper names, including geographic areas. (It's not.)

Others use the "reference-to-" prefix similar to the "character-says-" prefix: they believe that if something is spoken rather than shown on the screen, the "reference-to-" prefix is mandatory. (It's not.) 

Still others overuse the "reference-to-" prefix for anything that is "referenced" but without being an important plot point. (Why would something that is not an important plot point be in the keywords? That's what we have movie scripts and transcripts for.)

Anyway, I agree with @bradley_kent that city keywords should not be merged into counterpart "reference-to-" keywords, and I agree with @Peter_pbn that nobody is even calling for this to happen.

There is absolutely no need to have "reference-to-" as a prefix in front of any geographic keyword. 

This is untrue in how "reference-to" is typically used. For example, a couple discusses a trip to the Poconos but they are never actually there as it is either a discussion of a past trip or planning a future trip that doesn't occur in the context of the feature. That seems to be a valid use of "reference-to-the-poconos".

That's exactly why I would submit a "reference-to-(geographic location)" keyword.

@adrian​ Did you read the rest of my comment? My point is that a "reference-to-" prefix is not mandated under such circumstances, and a handful of contributors have overused "reference-to-" prefixes and turned them into de facto transcripts of every single thing spoken about in a movie, similar to the "character-says-" prefixes.

You used the word "typically" in your comment, but I don't think it's possible to characterize the "typical" use of "reference-to-" prefixes for cities. Instead, I covered a few of the various interpretations I have seen from different contributors. For example, some contributors seem to believe that even if a movie is set and filmed in a certain city, they are required to use a "reference-to-" prefix for that city, because a city name is a proper name. 

The community would stand to benefit from clarifications by IMDb staff as to when "reference-to-" prefixes can, must, and cannot be used. Right now all the guidelines say is that "reference-to-" prefixes must be used to refer to people's names, like "reference-to-marilyn-monroe," and to other titles, like "reference-to-shawshank-redemption." Although the policy behind these two particular guidelines is not expressly stated, my understanding is that IMDb does not want the links for keywords involving persons' names and titles to be misinterpeted as links elsewhere in the database (in a non-keyword context) to the actual names and titles (e.g., Marilyn Monroe and The Shawshank Redemption). These are literally the only mentions of "reference-to-" prefixes in the guidelines, so these are the only instances where we know for sure IMDb wants us to use "reference-to-" prefixes. 

(As an aside, @gromit82 has recently and quite correctly pointed out that the guideline regarding references to other titles (e.g., "reference-to-shawshank-redemption") can end up discouraging use of the movie connection feature on IMDb. I agree. But that is a separate topic to be resolved separately.)

I think it's possible to extrapolate the same logic as in the "reference-to-marilyn-monroe" and "reference-to-shawshank-redemption" guidelines to cover a few more instances of when "reference-to-" prefixes should be used, especially when construing these guidelines in conjunction with the other guidelines. Basically, if something is otherwise prohibited as a keyword and could otherwise have an entry in the database in a non-keyword context, then a "reference-to-" prefix should be used.

Some good examples are production and distribution companies (and by extension networks as well), which are expressly prohibited as keywords and therefore the "reference-to-" prefix must be used if these companies are actually an important part of the plot (e.g., "reference-to-dreamworks," "reference-to-paramount-pictures," "reference-to-fox-news"). These companies each have their own entries elsewhere in the database, so IMDb does not want keyword links to these companies to be confused for links to the actual companies--hence the (implied) requirement to use "reference-to-" prefixes for the companies when they are important plot elements.

This would also include fictional persons or characters that either appear in or are referenced in the title (e.g., "reference-to-batman," "reference-to-zeus-the-greek-deity," "reference-to-peter-pan"). Although these fictional names do not necessarily have their own entries in the database, their names can appear in quotes pages for specific titles, so it makes sense to use "reference-to-" prefixes to avoid confusion for them.

Geographic names are a little more tricky. Technically there are database entries for geographic places as filming locations, such as this one for New York City:

https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?locations=New+York+City%2C+New+York%2C+USA

Thus, an argument can be made that any time a geographic place like "new-york-city" occurs in the keywords, a "reference-to-" prefix is mandatory. Indeed, as I have pointed out, some contributors seem to interpret the guidelines that way and they accordingly always use "reference-to-" prefixes for all geographic keywords (and some contributors also use the prefix for all other proper names as well, such as all other non-movie-related companies, print publications, nonprofit organizations, etc., but that's another story).

I can understand this interpretation for geographic names, but I don't think it is correct, and I don't think actual usage has played out that way. 

For example, consider the relative prevalence of these two keywords:

new-york-city (9673 titles)

reference-to-new-york-city (174 titles)

When you combine these two numbers and divide to get the relative percentages, the result is that "reference-to-new-york-city" has less than 2% of the occurrences of these keywords. Something tells me that if IMDb required a "reference-to-" prefix for all geographic names, then we wouldn't see "new-york-city" even be allowed as a keyword, let alone 98.2% of the relative occurrences of New York City exist as "new-york-city."

I stand by my original statement that you have quoted: nothing in the guidelines mandates or necessitates "reference-to-" prefixes for cities. And while the "reference-to-" prefix is not banned or prohibited for cities, it should be unnecessary in the vast majority of, if not all, circumstances. If a city is an important plot point but the title is not set or filmed in that city but is only spoken about, then go ahead and use the city as a keyword without the "reference-to-" prefix.

A good example might be the 1945 film I Know Where I'm Going!, in which the main character is trying to travel to Kiloran Island in Scotland, but never actually reaches it. In that case, "kiloran-scotland" or "kiloran-island-scotland" is a perfectly valid keyword for the title, because it is an important plot point (which is what keywords are largely about). And in these circumstances it does not make sense to use a "reference-to-" prefix,  because you would be bifurcating keywords, thus interfering with keyword searches. Users should be able to search for and find all titles where a city is an important plot point by searching for the city, and that should include titles not actually filmed or set in that city, but where the city is an important plot point. Using a "reference-to-" prefix in these circumstances would mean that these titles would not be picked up in a keyword search for that city.

But if a city is not an important plot point and is instead merely mentioned in passing in one sentence of the dialogue, then that city probably does not belong in the keywords. Contributors should refrain from adding keywords listing every single person, place, and thing "referenced" in a title. The overuse of "reference-to-" prefixes in these circumstances can be regarded as keyword spamming and can quickly turn a title's keyword section into a de facto transcript. This practice should be discouraged; that's what we have movie scripts and transcripts for. 

In conclusion, nothing in the guidelines mandates or necessitates the use of "reference-to-" prefixes for cities. Are "reference-to-" prefixes required or needed for cities? No. Are "reference-to-" prefixes allowed for cities? Possibly, but even if so, it's a bad practice that should be discouraged for the reasons I have explained in this comment.

@Michelle​ 

I hope you will consider posting a draft for discussion in the community before adding new guidelines.

If I were researching New York City as a subject for a film or other project, I would want to know when it was used as a geographic location, as well as when it was referred to in dialogue or text.  

As I've said before, I approach IMDb from the viewpoint of a researcher and research librarian, and I want all  possible "factual" information on IMDb.  To me, IMDb should be an extensive archive, NOT just a quick referral for fanboys.

Michelle: I strongly agree with Peter that posting a draft for discussion of the keyword guidelines would be a good idea.