Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 12

message: #We're actually voting on a fact here. That's not really helpful. The discussion section below is more useful. (Radiant) 15:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Voting is evil

message: Can someone please archive a good part of this page? It took me three cups of coffee just to get down here.
Thanks. THEPROMENADER 21:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just from the last couple days that I've kept track here, it sounds like the whole issue should be shelved indefinitely.  I think we'll just need to live with city naming conventions that are not consistent internationally and get on with our lives.  Although I disagree with  regarding the current methodology, I have to agree with him that this is going nowhere fast.  As much as I'd like to see American cities represented here in the same vein as international cities - i.e., clearly recognizable just by name instead of name and state - it's obviously not worth the time that's being spent.  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Tariq's proposal (at the top of this talk page) is still open.  It is currently being approved by 55% to 45%.  The majority clearly wants a change, but we'll never get it if we stop pushing.  Let's not give up yet, please!  --Serge 22:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That survey has been going on for far over a week. It does not show anything close to a consensus. It's time to close it. -Will Beback · † · 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People are still voting.  There was a vote today.  Closing now would be very premature.   It takes time to get the word out about stuff like this.  I would give it at least a month before closing it.  --Serge 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: #Strawpoll: do current U.S. city guidelines violate WP:NAME and/or WP:DAB? was opened and closed by you in about 24 hours, so I'm not sure what your precedent is. Preivious surveys on this page have lasted a week. Why drag this one out longer? -Will Beback · † · 23:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be closed because it is still a very active poll (3 votes today) and is a poll about the guidelines that are supposed to be discussed on this talk page.  My strawpoll was something else entirely intended to resolve a relatively minor side issue, which it did and so I closed it.  --Serge 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of precedent, Will is correct in that the survey has been going for a relatively long time and does not show anything resembling a consensus. It serves no purpose to keep it open any further, and we should fall back on discussing the issue rather than voting on proposals. (Radiant) 11:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A few suggestions for how to proceed. First, one major drawback to previous votes/surveys/polls is that many of them were shoot-from-the-hip questions tossed out by individuals, usually reflecting that individual's bias (or the frustrations of the moment). Before commencing any new voting, I think there should be a period to discuss how to frame the issues in the poll as well as thresholds for acceptance. Second, I think the initial question/issue is determining whether there is consensus that the current U.S. convention needs to be changed (deliberately staying far away from what the specifics of any change might entail). Until we can demonstrate that there is a consensus that the current convention needs to be changed, any discussions of specific changes simply get bogged down with factional infighting between various camps, with the net result that nothing changes. Depending on the outcome of this first question, we'll either discover that there really is no consensus support to change and we'll have to agree to live with the current convention or we can then proceed to Phase II and begin discussion about how to frame the issues of what to change. I think there may be some merit to using a consensus polling sort of process (sorry I don't have a link for this handy anymore--it had come up before and Serge attempted his own interpretation of the process, though I think that exemplified the problem of having only one individual framing the questions). As I understand how that process works, there is an initial period of discussion during which the proposal on the table is fluid and can be re-framed and modified until it reaches an initial threshold, after which it is frozen until it reaches a second threshold for acceptance or the set time limit expires. Part this initial phase is also determining the thresholds for participation and acceptance (things like, the proposal remains on the table for X number of days, if it doesn't gain acceptance or proceed to the next stage by then it is withdrawn; a minimum of X number of people must participate; acceptance is X% of the vote, etc.). Although I don't think it would be enforceable, I also like to see participation in the process contingent on accepting the outcome, even if the result might not be exactly what you would have preferred individually.  older ≠ wiser 15:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great suggeestions. For sure it would be best to get discussion into a solid framework with solid goals - Juggling issues just leads us in circles and leads to  exasperation. THEPROMENADER 15:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to get too parliamentary about things, but it might be a good idea to hold a "quorum" straw poll to measure only the intent-to-vote, especially if we use a minimum number of votes standard and/or a longer poll period.  Some of these recent polls suffered from low vote counts.  Given the potential scope-of-impact for a convention change, I think it would be a good idea to ensure a "meaningfully large" vote before undertaking the vote.  The "quorum call" would last only a few days at most.  Feel free to let me know that I'm being overly pariamentary.  --ishu 16:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent idea, Bkonrad.  The multiple polls (all changing per the respective proponent) are confusing at best.  As for ishu, I'm not sure about a "quorum call", except on the appropriate Wikipedia-wide survey question, although some WikiProjects should probably be pinged (again).  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to address all of this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (November 2006). Your assistance would be appreciated.  --Serge 06:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All naming conventions are guidelines, and all guidelines have exceptions. That's implicit in every guideline in Wikipedia. Other than that, the current convention on U.S. cities is very clear. That's a good thing. -Will Beback · † · 06:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Given the recent multi-day vote of the International Astronomical Union, it seems that astronomers can't agree on the definition of planet with any unanimity.  Perhaps the disorder in conventions is simply the order of the universe.  --ishu 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confusing the process with an inability. Today it looks like an inability to agree.  100 years from now (perhaps much sooner) they will look at today's process as brilliance.  Sometimes, it just takes time to work it out... --Serge 21:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In any case, the lack of consensus (either way) indicates there is more work to be done... --Serge 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No-one has even discussed anything in any organised manner yet. What are you two going on about? : ) THEPROMENADER 21:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientists can't define ''planet'':  A lesson for us?