Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (November 2006)

message: The purpose of this subpage is to construct through consensus evolution a comprehensive/official/organized survey about the U.S. city guidelines.  In particular, should the guidelines change, and, if so, to what?
Note: This is a work in progress and not an active survey. Please don't vote yet.
===Options===
There are several outstanding issues, which are summarized here:
#Style:  Whether to use parentheses or commas.  
#Rules:  Whether disambiguation is to be used pre-emptively or only as-needed.
#Exceptions:  Whether or not to permit exceptions.  If exceptions are allowed, then guidelines for exceptions must be determined.  
It might be more productive to discuss the issues separately instead of presenting a crazy-quilt ballot of permutations.  Style is relatively independent of the other issues.  As-needed disambiguation rules would nullify the need for exceptions.
--Ishu 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose

message: There are several outstanding issues, which are summarized here:
#Style:  Whether to use parentheses or commas.  
#Rules:  Whether disambiguation is to be used pre-emptively or only as-needed.
#Exceptions:  Whether or not to permit exceptions.  If exceptions are allowed, then guidelines for exceptions must be determined.  
It might be more productive to discuss the issues separately instead of presenting a crazy-quilt ballot of permutations.  Style is relatively independent of the other issues.  As-needed disambiguation rules would nullify the need for exceptions.
--Ishu 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Options

message: Please decide which of the following are acceptable or unacceptable to you.
Vote under the acceptable or UNacceptable section for each option as follows:
 # Optional Comment --~~~~
===Survey===
The U.S. city guidelines should be:
1a) Status quo
:The canonical form for cities in the United States is  City, State (the "comma convention") (exceptions include Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City). Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina).
:A United States city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").
-Vote: 1 is acceptable-
-Vote: 1 is UNacceptable-
1b) Status quo - but no exceptions
:The canonical form for cities in the United States is  City, State (the "comma convention"). The only exceptions are those cities that need disambiguation to include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina).
:A United States city's article should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").
-Vote: 1a is acceptable-
-Vote: 1a is UNacceptable-
2) Based on Canada
:The canonical form for cities in the U.S. is City, State (the "comma convention").
:Places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name, such as Oklahoma City or Houston, may have undisambiguated titles.  Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina).
:A United States city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").
-Vote: 2 is acceptable-
-Vote: 2 is UNacceptable-
3a) Do not disambiguate when unnecessary - use comma convention for disambiguation
:The canonical form for cities in the U.S. is City (the "common name convention").
:Cities which require disambiguation, such as Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, are disambiguated by adding , Statename to the article title.  Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina).
:A United States city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").
-Vote: 3a is acceptable-
-Vote: 3a is UNacceptable-
3b) Do not disambiguate when unnecessary - use state in parentheses for disambiguation
:To conform with WP:NAME and WP:DAB, the canonical form for cities in the U.S. that do not require disambiguation is City.
:Cities which require disambiguation, such as Portland (Oregon) and Portland (Maine), are disambiguated by adding (Statename) to the article title.  Those cities that need additional disambiguation use their county or parish (for example Elgin (Lancaster County) and Elgin (Kershaw County)).
:A United States city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").
-Vote: 3b is acceptable-
-Vote: 3b is UNacceptable-
3c) Do not disambiguate when unnecessary - use appropriate disambiguator in parentheses for disambiguation
:To conform with WP:NAME and WP:DAB, the canonical form for cities in the U.S. is City.
:Cities which require disambiguation from other cities in the U.S., such as Portland (Oregon) and Portland (Maine), are disambiguated by adding (Statename) to the article title.  Cities which require disambiguation from cities outside of the U.S., such as Paris (U.S.A.), are disambiguated with the U.S.A. parenthetic disambiguator.  Those cities that need additional disambiguation use their county or parish (for example Elgin (Lancaster County, South Carolina) and Elgin (Kershaw County, South Carolina)).
:Cities that require disambiguation from topics other than cities, such as Mount Shasta (city), use a parenthetic disambiguator that differentiates them from the other uses accordingly (usually "city"). 
-Vote: 3c is acceptable-
-Vote: 3c is UNacceptable- 
===Proposer's statement===
This is a first draft.  Feel free to take this and add on to it in your own proposed revisions below.  Also, the point allocation scheme should probably be discussed. --Serge 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole reason to use the city, state "style" is to "predisambiguate", is it not?  That is, if there were no U.S. cities, or hardly any U.S. cities, that shared the same name, there would be no reason for the city, state "style" at all in any case, would there?  If so, then the city, state "style" is a form of disambiguation, and there is nothing misleading or inappropriate about framing the survey accordingly.  --Serge 23:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The wording in the current guideline includes "those cities that need additional disambiguation...".  Additional disambiguation (with county) implies there is already some disambiguation with just , state.  That's not how it's framed just in the survey, that's how it's framed in the current wording in the guideline in question.  --Serge 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your option B has been rejected already, so it shouldn't be on the table.  Tariq's proposal (without the list) was:  "If a major city has a unique name or is unquestionably the most significant subject sharing its name, ....".  Your options C, D, and E haven't been formally rejected (yet).  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't we try to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion in giving participants options?  For example, if consensus hasn't changed about option B, then it will get few if any positive votes.  Anyway, we should be able to get much more participation this time around, so results may change.  I'd rather avoid predicting how popular a particular choice may be.  But, if we have too many options, we might want to have a "runoff" between the top 2 or 3... (on second thought, the ability for everyone to vote for multiple "acceptable" option should obviate the need for a "runoff")   --Serge 01:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: edit conflict x2-Use of city, state is a form of style definintion in my opinion.  The phrase "those cities that need additional disambiguation..." implies that we are disambiguating.  I'm saying that this is a style issue and the current guideline takes a position that may not best serve this wiki.  If you accept that point, then the focus changes and it may be easier to reach consensus.  When I was watching 60 Minutes this weekend, they always used city-state, even one of the mayors on the show used this form.  Makes you wonder that if a national news show does it this way, probably because it is in their style book, then maybe we should be following in their footsteps.  Vegaswikian 01:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then all we have to do is add a version which uses your framing.  --Serge 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The ability for participants to vote for multiple acceptable choices, and to assign "negative" points to the "unacceptable", should allow for achieving clear consensus regarding the most acceptable option among all those offered. --Serge 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think for the sheer mechanics of tallying the votes accurately (as well as minimizing edit conflicts and confusion as you'd have to be scrolling up and down to read the proposals then remembering which letter corresponded to which proposal), it may be clearer if each proposal had a separate voting approve/oppose sections in which people marked their votes with # counters. Despite a notorious reputation for toxic voting, the structure of the voting at WP:RFA is actually pretty good. And should we have the usual disclaimer about at least being a registered user, and perhaps registered for x months and n edits? Much as I dislike such criteria, sock puppet voting is something to be discouraged. older ≠ wiser 04:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, how does it look now?  --Serge 06:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, although I think numbering as 1a/1b 3a/3b may be a little confusing. And when voting begins, each proposal would be in its own section to enable section editing, right? We need to make the directions about approve=+2 and oppose=-1 much more prominent, as that is a little unusual. Also emphasize very prominently that you can vote for as many options as you like (and that to state the obvious that it is not necessary to record a vote for every option). I almost hesitate to suggest this for fear of bickering over endless point/counterpoint, but for the benefit of those editors who haven't been following the voluminous prior discussions, perhaps there should be a section of short bullet point pros and cons for each proposal. 12:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, we're doing weighted votes? If I really don't like a proposal, I can vote it down -2, -3? That seems like a bad idea that lends itself to fanaticism on either side. I do like the idea of "here are multiple solutions, check all that you find minimally acceptable." I think perhaps we may get rid of the "not acceptable" votes and simply take the option the most people find acceptable. See approval voting. -Anþony (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision Multi-Choice 1.0

message: This is a first draft.  Feel free to take this and add on to it in your own proposed revisions below.  Also, the point allocation scheme should probably be discussed. --Serge 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposer's statement

message: This proposal ignores the question of a style sheet or MoS driving the article names.  The assumption here is that the title is a form of disambiguation rather then a style issue.  If you frame the question in certain ways you will influnce the result.  Vegaswikian 23:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole reason to use the city, state "style" is to "predisambiguate", is it not?  That is, if there were no U.S. cities, or hardly any U.S. cities, that shared the same name, there would be no reason for the city, state "style" at all in any case, would there?  If so, then the city, state "style" is a form of disambiguation, and there is nothing misleading or inappropriate about framing the survey accordingly.  --Serge 23:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The wording in the current guideline includes "those cities that need additional disambiguation...".  Additional disambiguation (with county) implies there is already some disambiguation with just , state.  That's not how it's framed just in the survey, that's how it's framed in the current wording in the guideline in question.  --Serge 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your option B has been rejected already, so it shouldn't be on the table.  Tariq's proposal (without the list) was:  "If a major city has a unique name or is unquestionably the most significant subject sharing its name, ....".  Your options C, D, and E haven't been formally rejected (yet).  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't we try to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion in giving participants options?  For example, if consensus hasn't changed about option B, then it will get few if any positive votes.  Anyway, we should be able to get much more participation this time around, so results may change.  I'd rather avoid predicting how popular a particular choice may be.  But, if we have too many options, we might want to have a "runoff" between the top 2 or 3... (on second thought, the ability for everyone to vote for multiple "acceptable" option should obviate the need for a "runoff")   --Serge 01:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: edit conflict x2-Use of city, state is a form of style definintion in my opinion.  The phrase "those cities that need additional disambiguation..." implies that we are disambiguating.  I'm saying that this is a style issue and the current guideline takes a position that may not best serve this wiki.  If you accept that point, then the focus changes and it may be easier to reach consensus.  When I was watching 60 Minutes this weekend, they always used city-state, even one of the mayors on the show used this form.  Makes you wonder that if a national news show does it this way, probably because it is in their style book, then maybe we should be following in their footsteps.  Vegaswikian 01:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then all we have to do is add a version which uses your framing.  --Serge 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The ability for participants to vote for multiple acceptable choices, and to assign "negative" points to the "unacceptable", should allow for achieving clear consensus regarding the most acceptable option among all those offered. --Serge 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think for the sheer mechanics of tallying the votes accurately (as well as minimizing edit conflicts and confusion as you'd have to be scrolling up and down to read the proposals then remembering which letter corresponded to which proposal), it may be clearer if each proposal had a separate voting approve/oppose sections in which people marked their votes with # counters. Despite a notorious reputation for toxic voting, the structure of the voting at WP:RFA is actually pretty good. And should we have the usual disclaimer about at least being a registered user, and perhaps registered for x months and n edits? Much as I dislike such criteria, sock puppet voting is something to be discouraged. older ≠ wiser 04:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, how does it look now?  --Serge 06:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, although I think numbering as 1a/1b 3a/3b may be a little confusing. And when voting begins, each proposal would be in its own section to enable section editing, right? We need to make the directions about approve=+2 and oppose=-1 much more prominent, as that is a little unusual. Also emphasize very prominently that you can vote for as many options as you like (and that to state the obvious that it is not necessary to record a vote for every option). I almost hesitate to suggest this for fear of bickering over endless point/counterpoint, but for the benefit of those editors who haven't been following the voluminous prior discussions, perhaps there should be a section of short bullet point pros and cons for each proposal. 12:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, we're doing weighted votes? If I really don't like a proposal, I can vote it down -2, -3? That seems like a bad idea that lends itself to fanaticism on either side. I do like the idea of "here are multiple solutions, check all that you find minimally acceptable." I think perhaps we may get rid of the "not acceptable" votes and simply take the option the most people find acceptable. See approval voting. -Anþony (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about Revision Multi-Choice 1.0

message: When the wording for this poll, if we need another poll, is worked out, it should take place on Naming conventions (settlements). Polls on obscure pages are subject to unkindly interpretations. Septentrionalis 06:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the intent.  When I have time later this week I'll incorporate all suggestions provided so far into the working version.  --Serge 15:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where?

message: F) Based on the Australian convention
:All articles about cities, towns and settlements in the United States are named City, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is. A small number of globally-recognized cities are exceptions to this and the article is just City. The unqualified title City should always be either a disambiguation page or a redirect to assist readers searching for the article. If two towns in the same state have the same name, the disambiguation should be similar to how the local authorities distinguish the towns.
:"recognised" changed to "recognized" as this guideline should be in American English not Australian English. Scott Davis Talk 22:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: F