I don't have a strong opinion on this, so the only comments I have are
to just list some of the factors that should influence our decision.
1. Consistency -- consistency might argue for all place names to be
qualified in some fashion. If some are qualified and some are not, we
are inconsistent. But consistency is only one factor.
2. Familiarity -- Every English speaker knows where [[New York]] and
[[Paris]] are, but possibly not [[Tallahassee]] (Florida) or
[[Canberra]] (Australia). That's probably relevant.
Probably the only town named [[Gnaw Bone]] is in Indiana, but that
uniqueness is probably not an argument against adding some more
information in the title.
Are there any objections to my setting a new standard
for Australian
city and town names, favouring simple names such as [[Canberra]]?
Probably there's nothing special about Australia here, so if we're
going to set a standard, it might be more general than that, i.e. a
standard for all city names.
We've discussed this in the past, but I don't remember the result.
--Jimbo