Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 14

message: Serge wrote "Yet whenever someone proposes an exception, there are inevitably a number of opposers who state that the guideline should be changed if you want an exception. So I, for one, would like to see the guideline to be clearer on this point (that exceptions are allowed whenever a consensus is formed in favor of the exception)."
This is a concrete proposal, which I applaud. I have no objection to adding some form of words like and some other exceptions to the present three examples, if it will end this. The point is already stated in the  template. Septentrionalis 19:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure it's concrete unless more specific wording is provided.  I would like it to say something to the effect of exceptions are made whenever a majority of the editors agrees the most common name of a given city is clearly the name alone (and, of course, the primary use of that name is to refer to that city).  --Serge 20:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This new request is the same proposal Serge has failed to get  consensus for already. Enough. Septentrionalis 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps my mind is going, but I don't recall ever having a survey that rejected this proposal before. --Serge 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you're thinking of the proposal to adopt the Canadian guidelines, but that did not include the whenever a majority of the editors agrees ... aspect that is key to what I'm thinking here (to be clear, I'm not actually proposing anything).  --Serge 21:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  It's not exactly the same proposal of Serge's that was rejected, but it seems to fit nicely between two rejected proposals, so it's probably safe to say it would be rejected.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I'm not proposing it.  I was just saying what I would like the guidelines to say.  --Serge 22:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I was thinking about removing the two cities added to the guideline.  While they did get consensus in WP:RM to be moved, that was not a vote to change the guideline.  Vegaswikian 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no vote to mention that New York City was an exception either.  The fact is, the listed cities are actual exceptions.  It's a statement of fact.  Why would there have to be a vote to make a statement of fact in the guidelines? --Serge 23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be consensus to modify the guideline.  Consensus to move an article is not consensus to amend the guideline.  So, maybe all exceptions should be removed from the guideline pending consensus to add any.  Vegaswikian 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But voting is not required to establish consensus.  Being bold and making uncontroversial changes is with consensus and legitimate.  The exceptions have been listed for months, and you are the first one to mention anything about it.  Even you have yet to even express an objective reason for not having them listed.  Are you simply trying to be disruptive, or do you actualy have a point to make?  --Serge 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disruptive?  Sorry.  Maybe I just need to ignore this entire conversation and process since discussion is not wanted. Vegaswikian 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Vegaswikian that there's no need to list exceptions in the guideline. Every guideline may be overridden with cause, but those exceptions aren't typiclaly listed. -Will Beback · † · 01:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But other guidelines have the  tag, which explicitly makes that point. We should have one or the other. (I can see why we don't; we don't need a parade of little boxes; but I could go either way.) Septentrionalis 04:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: However the fallout from those last changes has been controversial.  Small changes may appear to be innocent at first but over time you can see how they are not.  Vegaswikian 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vegas' comment sparked "light bulb" moment and in looking at some of the archived discussion this page you really see a BIG jump in activity (about the US) occur follow the "Chicago Exception" and increasing as the "Philadelphia Exception" came and so forth. I have to admit finding humor in that due to Serge's assertion about the "peace" that it would bring if City, State convention was junked. It seems like the use of "exceptions" to start deviating from the convention is the cause of more unrest and turmoil on this page then anything else. Agne 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concrete proposal

message: While we don't yet have a specific alternative to the current U.S. city naming guideline that a consensus or supermajority will support, a small majority (21 vs 18) does support Tariq's proposed change at the top of this page.  That doesn't justify a change, but isn't that voting result, plus all the discussion on this page (not to mention the archives), enough to justify placing a disputed tag on the current guideline?  I think placing it there might be helpful to motivate everyone involved to work towards a guideline that is supported by consensus (or at least a supermajority).  --Serge 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There is no evidence in that discussion that a majority finds the present guideline unacceptable or disputes it. We do not need a dispute tag every time somebody gets substantial support on an improvement of wording. Septentrionalis 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current guideline - mark as disputed? 

message: I've suggested (above) that the current U.S. city guideline be marked "in dispute" because support for Tariq's proposal along with discussion here indicates that it is in dispute.  This has been challenged per the salient argument that support for a change does not necessarily imply a dispute with the status quo.  Because I feel it's important to mark the current guideline in dispute (in order to motivate folks to work towards wording that is supported by consensus), I think it's important to establish this point.  Hence, unfortunately, the need for another survey, albeit a simple one.
QUESTION: Do YOU agree that the current U.S. city naming guideline discourages use of the most common name -- the city name alone -- as the article title, for even well-known and unique city names like Seattle, Houston and San Francisco, and that so many people feel that because of this it contradicts Wikipedia-wide policy, guidelines or conventions, that the best option here is to declare the current U.S. city naming guideline to be in dispute?
===Vote YES (U.S. city naming policy should be marked in dispute)===
Vote with "# YES. Optional Comment. --~~~~
# YES. --Serge 18:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey: do you agree the current U.S. city guideline is in dispute? 

message: Vote with "# YES. Optional Comment. --~~~~
# YES. --Serge 18:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote YES (U.S. city naming policy should be marked in dispute)

message: Vote with "# NO. Optional Comment. --~~~~
#NO. I add another option, with which I also agree. Septentrionalis 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote NO (U.S. city naming policy should NOT be marked in dispute)

message: #Enough. This is a continuing campaign by one or two users. Any poll begun by Serge before March should be summarily closed. Septentrionalis 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serge has started enough polls.

message: It seemed like the consensus in previous discussion was that of fatique and a desire to take a break from this discussion. However, it seems like that might not be possible with the continuation or more polls and more activity to try and overturn this convention. Maybe we should consider some of the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes steps if we hope to see any progress or get a reprive from the constant polling. Agne 19:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, something is needed. This is getting a tad ridiculous. --Bobblehead 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)I would like to think that we don't.  The discussions are pointing out the problems with the current proposals and the existing guideline.  It may in fact be that the consensus is to leave the guideline as it was before the changes that really caused this discussion to grow.  However if we keep having a vote of the week before there is any indication of consensus or a clear need for a vote to help establish a direction, then we need to do something.  Vegaswikian 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well there is certainly not a "dispute" to extent that you are suggesting or implying that there is consensus backing of. However, there is disagreement among the "regulars" on this page to the point that it seems like "Poll warfare" is taking place--keep polling till the other side gets tired and doesn't participate. Then declare a win. If we are at that point, then maybe we need mediation or if this "poll warfare" is improper conduct then maybe we need a RfC. Agne 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, if I was attempting to "keep polling till the other side gets tired and doesn't participate", I'd be starting a lot more polls.  I'm certainly not trying to do that, and I never would!  As for this particular poll, it came directly and obviously from my discussion with Sept.  You can read how it evolved for yourself, just above.  If someone objects to a suggestion on the basis that there is insufficient evidence, is it not logical to try to gather the evidence?  --Serge 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Serge turned a discussion into a poll, which was unnecessary. I am glad to hear that the suggestion of "polling until exhaustion" is still false, and I am still willing to believe Serge when he says so. But I see why others are not; and I am very tired of hearing the same voice pushing the same arguments. Septentrionalis 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I'm sorry for tiring you.  That is not my intent.  But, seriously, when A suggests X, and B says there is insufficient evidence that X is supported, why is it not appropriate for A to start a poll to find out if indeed X is supported or not?  After all, the results of Tariq's proposal certainly indicated that there is strong support to change the guideline.  The issue is whether the current guideline is "in dispute".  I also suggest that those who support the guideline and deny that it is in dispute in the face of, well, years of substantial dispute about the guideline, perhaps are not acting in good faith.  Perhaps (and I realize that is not your position, Septentrionalis - that you are simply arguing that, regardless of the merits, this is not a productive move). --Serge 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem of not being sure about what we're discussing here is exactly what I'm trying to address by suggesting we put a "guideline in dispute" notice on the guideline.  Then the problem would be clear: the guideline is in dispute, and the goal would be clear: find wording for which there is consensus support.  Otherwise, we'll just keep going in circles, I'm afraid, because the status quo defenders have no incentive to seriously work towards a guideline for which there is consensus. --Serge 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The impression Serge is giving, however, (and although it be false and unintentional, it is quite clear) is that he is looking for a dispute tag in order to justify massive moves away from City, State, a position for which there is no consensus. A corollary of WP:AGF is "see yourself as others see you." Septentrionalis 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Massive moves away from City, State" is indeed the way I would like to see the dispute resolved (there is no secret there!), but is hardly the only way for the dispute to be resolved, nor does it diminish in any way the reality of the fact that the guideline is in dispute.  --Serge 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Serge, the only reason it is in dispute is because you keep claiming it is in dispute and engaging in trolling and a war of attrition; as a lawyer, I recognize the tactic because I see opposing counsel doing that all the time!  If you had any formal training in psychology, computer science, formal logic, geography (by which I mean the social science), or GIS you would concede that the "city, state" convention is a superior addressing format in the context of federal entities like the United States.  By the way, this is the third or fourth time I have raised this issue and you have never answered my challenge on the merits, which reinforces my suspicion that you cannot repudiate it because you truly have no such training.  Full disclosure: I have completed college-level courses in formal logic, geography, psychology and computer science (although my undergraduate major was history).  --Coolcaesar 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) I don't recall you asking me this before, but may have ignored it as being irrelevant (I expect arguments to me evaluated at face value, whether I'm making them or evaluating them - who is making them or what their background is is irrelevant to me).  2) But if this is so important to you, I have a B.S. in computer engineering, the requirements for which were a superset of the computer science degree.  --Serge 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was only tangentially involved in the debate; I'm not an American and not an native English speaker, and my interests were mostly related with my opinion that I hold the current convention contradictory with the global policy and illogical to most people outside of US. To put it simply, I find those article titles ugly. Thus, I happen to share (a part of) Serge's opinion. However, I completely endorse your analysis: Serge's zeal and methods of throwing (sometimes valid, sometimes not) arguments everywhere and scheduling polls every while were for by and large counterproductive. I think that John K's "AP list" and subsequent Tariq's proposal, which triggered this entire debate, had a good chance to succeed, and made many people happy (myself included—I don't really care whether Foobar Creek is at Foobar Creek, South Dakota, but Los Angeles, California hurts my eyes and my pedantry regarding WP:NC) but were largely spoiled by Serge's actions, as the opponents came piling in just out of spite and being annoyed. Maybe this is turning into an informal RfC of a kind, but then, maybe we should fill a RfC on Serge and limit the audience only to those who oppose the City, State convention 
. Being right doesn't entitle you to be dick dense. And I'm really trying to say that out of good faith (and assuming Serge's good faith). Duja► 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need mediation or an RfC? 

message: Serge has  agreed to my suggestion, in general terms, that he back off, and let things cool down. (Repeated from above; but I think this deserves its own section.) Septentrionalis 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Armistice

message: Will, above you wrote:
: Word for word, articles names are perhaps the most argued-over part of Wikipedia. Strong conventions minimize unproductive debates over small details. We certainly can't look back on our time spent here as being the high points of our editing careers.
I agree.  In fact, this is one reason I support a change to the U.S. city guideline.  Arguably, a measure of how problematic a given naming situation is, be it over a guideline or over a particular article name, is how much debate there is over it, and how long it has lasted.  Here are a few examples, to illustrate.
* Recently, there was a furious debate about the city in Ireland named Cork.  It was at Cork and many of us felt that Cork should either be the article on the material or a dab page.  The debate lasted for several weeks if not months, went through a few surveys, admin wars, etc.  Finally, the city article was moved to Cork (city) and Cork became a dab page, and everything stopped.  The dust settled, and everything was fine.  No more debates.
* As you know, the Canadian and U.S. city guidelines used to be shared, and there was much debate over that and over individual Canadian city names.  Eventually, the Canadian guideline was split away, and changed, to explicitly allow for use of Cityname name only in certain cases, and, there again, all the debate and warring stopped.
As you also know, this debate over the U.S. city guideline has been ongoing with few if any short periods of peace (check the archives) since it was established some three years ago.  It was going on when I got here and will be going on long after we're done with it, unless the guideline changes.  If you really want to stop the unproductive debates regarding U.S. city article names, then you have to stop defending the current guideline and start working towards finding a guideline that can be supported by consensus.  I remind you again that in recent surveys, while we did not establish that there is a supermajority that supports a change to any particular new wording, it is clear that there is no consensus or supermajority agreement to stay with the current guideline either.  This is exemplified in how often move requests are made by folks who are completely unrelated to this debate, and how much support they usually get (if not enough to warrant a move).  
The reason there is so much angst over the guideline is because it flies in the face of perhaps the most adhered-to naming convention in Wikipedia, which is reflected at WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.
You also wrote:
: ... I support keeping a clear, straightforward naming convention.
So do I, but a narrow naming convention that creates blatant conflicts with common Wiki-wide naming conventions is hardly clear or straightforward.  It creates confusion, questions, conflict and unproductive debates.  For abundant evidence of this, see this talk page, the archives here, and the talk pages of dozens of U.S. city articles.
The U.S. city guideline has to change to allow for U.S. city naming that is consistent with WP:NAME to end all this unproductive debate, and we would get there sooner if you and others would help.  Thanks.  --Serge 17:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the arguments will settle when you stop arguing an unsupported position.  Gene Nygaard 22:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen the archives of this page alone?  That's only a fraction of the debate that has been going on for years before I got involved.  Putting this on me is disingenuous.  Anyway, I'm working towards a big survey in March, and, if that fails, I'm going to back off for at least a few months, if not forever.  But rest assured, the debate will not stop until the guideline changes.  --Serge 23:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimizing unproductive debates