Wikipedia talk:Communities strawpoll

message: comments moved back to main page - please don't edit the commetns of others. -Will Beback 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was on 1 page with a grand total of 5 votes. This is for a much larger scale of voters. Hollywood, La Jolla, and Anaheim Hills all have been protected at one point or another. Furthermore, I have only been involved in one community, however, dozens of other communities face this same turmoil without my involvement. Ericsaindon2 07:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Editors coming here cold would be well advised to first consult this article talk page, this RfArb, and this digest of the issue before voting on this latest attempt at gaming the system. But, to play along for the moment until this page is deleted. --Calton | Talk 07:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is in regard to the currently 103 feuding community pages, not the 1 I am involved in. I am not trying to provide a vent for the minor defeat on the page, but to put a rule in place once and foreall. There is a much larger community than the 5 people that participated in the vote you are referring to. And this user should not be bashing others for he/she recieved a block just two weeks ago [] Ericsaindon2 07:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Vote

message: I've been bold and refactored the straw poll so that there's a section for each poll choice. Mackensen (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish that you hadn't been so bold. Since it is supposed to be a straw poll for determining community consensus, rather than a formal vote, the usual formatting is to leave each comment or choice in the order of entry. BlankVerse 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactored 

message: I suggest that this page be moved to [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (community names), since that will be where the page will eventually go if it becomes policy (for a similar name, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). BlankVerse 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal page move suggestion

message: I know that there have been several proposals for page moves to simpler names for city articles, including Los Angeles, California and Chicago, Illinois, but none of those page moves suggestions have been reached consensus AFAIK. I've only seen a very small number of disputes over the naming of community articles. I'll start the list and anyone else who knows of any article name disputes for communities can add to it BlankVerse 15:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the currently 103 feuding community pages"? 

message: I am rather upset that there are not more votes for Choice 4. It is a perfect solution, and my vote is the only one. It allows large communities to drop the city from their name (the communities that have community councils) and makes smaller neighborhoods and communities (ones that dont have their own council) keep the "city" in their name. Is this not the perfect solution?? Ericsaindon2 20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the absence of other votors should let you know it's not a good solution?  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In the few years I've contributed to Wikipedia, I've proposed many ideas that I thought were the "perfect solution" which were shot down. (And some for what I consider were stupid reasons.) I've found that if I dwell on these failed proposals I just grow disillusioned, bitter & depressed; I'd rather help improve articles. And in the long run, all that matters in choosing a title for an article is that it be as consistent as possible -- & that there be a few disambiguation links with the language I expect to help me search for the article. -- llywrch 22:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The city of Los Angeles has over 90 neighborhood councils, whose borders do not necessarily follow those of recognized neighborhoods. -Will Beback 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Choice 4

message: :Anaheim Hills (Anaheim, California); La Jolla (San Diego, California); Hollywood (Los Angeles, California)....etc...... How about Community (City, State)? Does Anyone like that set up? It still defines the community independently, but tells you the city and state on the side. Sounds like a good compromise to me!! Ericsaindon2 03:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though it looks odd, it would have the advantage of enabling use of the pipe trick. -Will Beback 04:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "pipe trick"? Ericsaindon2 04:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ->  Black. Using a pipe ("|") alone will omit the text in parentheses. I once asked developers if the same trick could be extended to the first comma in an article name, but I never heard back. -Will Beback 05:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For more on the pipe trick, see Help:Pipe trick. Where I find it most useful is for eliminating the namespace in a wikilink (e.g.  becomes Pipe trick). BlankVerse 07:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The answer to your question is NFW.  The reason is because the meaning of a comma in an article title is poorly defined.  Even with city, state it's unclear whether it separates the common name from disambiguation information, or whether it's part of the name.  But, in terms of your question, its meaning is sometimes as a disambiguation separator, sometimes part of the name (e.g., John F. Kennedy, Jr.).  It confuses the software and the readers. --Serge 06:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So there is only one way that would satisfy you. Anaheim Hills would show up as 'Anaheim Hills' as its title. However, it would be technically named 'Anaheim Hills (Anaheim, California)'. The only purpose of the parenthasis would to extend its exposure on Google search engine (because it would pick up its technical name). I do not know, but the point is compromise, not giving in. It just does not work that way. It would satisfy the people who believe that the city should be included in the title as well as the community, as well as people like you and I who think it should just be the name of the community. It would satisfy both parties, and I feel it is definately worth a try. Ericsaindon2 07:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirects can always be created for search queries. --Polaron | Talk 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand. I do think it looks a little odd. BUT, there would be no exceptions under this (so no more arguements). All I want is to end these silly arguements on the community pages, and the only way that can happen is finding a compromise. It is rather practical in identification, and I do think, that while people let it sink in, it will be a winner choice. I really did not know, nor take the time to read things about straw polls. The two I have been involved in on Anaheim Hills, I did not see any "pre setup" all I saw were arguements. Although I was never active in the La Jolla one, I noticed that this particular straw poll had no pre discussion, so I did not understand the magnitude or necessary time for the preparation. Also, I do not know how much time I have before I am banned, or whatever from Wikipedia, and as I understand it, discussions can take weeks, and I do not know if I will be active at that time per the results of the Arb. Case, and all the people against me in it. I took all these factors in to consideration before doing it, and I know it might be selfish, but all I want is a compromise on the debate that I can contribute a solution to, and if I am banned, that cannot happen, so this is my time right now. Ericsaindon2 08:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, this does not look like a compromise to me, as much as it looks like you grasping at straws to prevent Choice One from being the consensus, while still avoiding a decision of No consensus. At the moment, it looks like the final results will be Choice One as the most common choice, but still no overall consensus. My recommendation is to just let this poll run its course, and then in a month or two after it has finisned I can help work on a better planned Wikipedia:straw poll that should have a much lower number of No Choice/No Votes and be more likely to reach consensus. BlankVerse 10:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with BlankVerse's analysis.  --Coolcaesar 04:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not really grasping at anything. I do not like the (community, city, state) set up, but I would go along with it per consensus. I dont really like any of the choices all that much, and thus far, nothing really has come about that would be a compromise. I believe that Community (City, State) would allow for the most common middle ground. Since, it is clear, that the choices people like are Choice 3 and Choice 1, those are the two that need to be compromised to reach a consensus. Now, the people voting for choice 3 argue that a community is referred to as just Community for simplicity. But, Choice 1 supporters think that this would be the most precise way to name the communities from an outside point of view. Community (City, State) takes into account both views. It would allow the Choice 3 people to say that the communities are still being refered to in their most common form (Since just Community outside the parenthasis would indicate the common name), and the people who think City and State should be included would still have that there as well. If it were up to me, I would not include city anywhere in the title, but it is not up to me. We need a compromise, and this would provide a compromise. Obviously, if the community name is outside the parenthasis, that would indicate what people  refer to the place as, however, with the city and state being in parenthasis, it gives a little more information and precision to point out the fact that it is just a community. I think it is the perfect compromise, and I think it will satisfy everyone. Plus, it would also eliminate exceptions. Places like Queens could still have Queens in their title, but it would be Queens (New York, New York) or Bayside (New York, New York). It allows Wikipedia to indicate the community, the city, and the state, while still enforcing the most common name outside the parenthasis. Ericsaindon2 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Some examples might be Hollywood (Los Angeles, California), Westchester (Los Angeles, California), La Jolla (San Diego, California), Anaheim Hills (Anaheim, California), Harlem (New York, New York)....etc. Ericsaindon2 20:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think "Hollywood, Los Angeles, California" is simpler than "Hollywood (Los Angeles, California)" and I would rather defer to proponents of choice 1 than support the compromise as constructed. The latter implies that Hollywood is an alternate name for Los Angeles, while the former at least makes it clear that it is geographically subordinate to L.A. Soltras 05:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Community (City, State)''' Setup

message: How will the result of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006) affect these community naming conventions, especially if the result is Adopt The Canadian Convention? Tinlinkin 08:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of another proposition 

message: I am trying to work on a large City Strawpoll to end the feuding about larger cities in the United States. Please visit the page, User:Ericsaindon2/Sandbox and leave comments on the talk page, but dont edit the actual page. After it has been modified to satisfy the community, I will go ahead and open it. But, please review it and comment, to avoid controversy over its structure. I hope to open it in a few days after discussion, so please be timely in making your comments. Thanks. --Ericsaindon2 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: dont edit the actual page.  Noooo, that's not how it works, especially if it's intended to eventually result in some sort of Wikipedia-wide policy or guideline. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I have no objection to that.  Once it's formally proposed, it can still be edited before any voting occurs.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your lack of objection is immaterial. See WP:OWN. --Calton | Talk 02:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Large City Strawpoll Construction