Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)/Archive 4

message: The addendum consists of text that was added after the policy was voted for. I have brought the section of text following the asterix within the addendum and added an N.b. clarifying that it was indeed added as an afterthought and was not put to the vote. I thought this deserved to be made clear; nothing else has been altered. 80.255 23:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  addendum tweaks 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions for a discussion on consolidating pages. Maurreen (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant or competing pages: Places, countries, etc.

message: I see a lot of discussion on UK Counties, etc. here, but what should we do about countries we don't know much about? i.e. we don't know, say, the official format of Benin, or Afghanistan, or what not. Some areas prefer the format "X Department", some prefer "Province of X", others are simply "X", like the USA. What should we do about these? Should we have a standard naming format (in format, not name; "department" and "province" above are simply examples), or give preference to local standards? (There are proposals under discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) but there is a lot more discussion taking place here, and this is arguably the better location for it, since, well, UK counties and such are subnational entities :)) I hope this is the right place to do this. --Golbez 15:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
:afaik Term of X only used in "Province of X" (Italy) and "Canton of X" (Switzerland). Others provinces and cantons that are subnational entities of present day countries do not use this form. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other subnational entities 

message: Please don't make edits to articles during this debate unless those edits are to material not affected by the policy. Making controversial edits during the debate is just poor Wikiquette and doesn't help to keep everyone calm. No more, people, please. Thanks.
If you have made such edits you might usefully consider putting them back as they were at the end of July. Chris Jefferies 00:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't make controversial edits until later 

message: I am willing to work on text for Counties of the United Kingdom to explain the different points of view on British counties, write a clause for the policy, and then help modify British 'place' articles as suggested above by Chrisjj.
Yes
* Sign with four ~ signs
* Chris Jefferies 12:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Further up the page, Owain had a good suggestion that he called Best of both worlds which I think deserves serious consideration. MonMan 14:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to be picky, then "half the text".  Ok, I'm willing to be convinced by a a blind experiment: pick a village somewhere with a current active edit history. log out so that you are anon, add the infobox and gut the text.  Wait for a week and then reveal what it was.  --Concrete Cowboy 19:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very well - why don't we all try doing that, see the net result at the end of a week? A single place won't be very reliable evidence, but if each of us picked a place for this 'experiment', the results might be more convincing. What do you say? 80.255 19:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not willing to alter articles as an experiment so, no, count me out. I urge others not to do so either. Chris Jefferies 15:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll