Wikipedia talk:Communities strawpoll

This is the talk page for the Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll page. Please do not vote here, for they will not be counted.

Comments on Vote

comments moved back to main page - please don't edit the commetns of others. -Will Beback 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [[1]] Ericsaindon2 07:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, don't invite people to make comments and then move them elsewhere. -Will Beback 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't change the items in the poll now that users are adding their responses. -Will Beback 08:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored

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)[reply]

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. ^Blank ^Verse 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informal page move suggestion

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). ^Blank ^Verse 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the currently 103 feuding community pages"?

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 ^Blank ^Verse 15:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of US community articles with current or old name disputes

Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hollywood, Los Angeles, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
La Jolla, San Diego, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Poll

There is insufficient information to vote with. Examples are needed, many examples would be appropriate. Terryeo 15:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This poll is WAY too premature. The definition of community is too vague and the choice of options seem rather arbitrarily haphazard. E.g., what about unincorporated communities (not within a city)? What about parenthetical naming options? older ≠ wiser 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree because:

this will also be a problem outside the US. US is possibly only the first country to have so many articles there.
To calculate possible collisions - how many of these communities do you have in the US?
"community, city" is missing.

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just deal with one issue at a time! Census designated places and unincorporated communities are completely different, and in no way should be merged with this. I see no active debates on naming unincorporated communities, so it is not needed. I know Wikipedia has many problems, but we do not need to solve all of them on one strawpoll. This strawpoll is only designed for places within cities. And by no means is this premature. This debate has been around for 6 months with no end in sight. It is not like the debate started yesterday, and I am starting a straw poll today. I have seen endless feuding since March on the issue. Plus, (community, city) is part of another option. This format should only be used when another community in the state shares the exact same name as itself. It would not be practical on any other article types. Ericsaindon2 20:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this is called a "Communities" straw poll and these places are also types of communities. The definition of community given is sufficiently vague that it is not at all clear that it does not also apply to those types of communities. I don't want to include those types of comunities in this mess -- but as it stands, their exclusion is only implicit through the listing of those types of communities the poll does apply to.

Second, yes this poll is extremely premature. Please read Wikipedia:Straw polls for some general guidance. In particular, suggestion #2 Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process. As far as I can tell, this poll was quickly put together by one person. Where is the consensus about the nature of the survey? Where is the discussion about how the questions should be presented and even the various options that are being voted on? You do not address why there are no parenthetical disambiguation options. Yes, I'm well aware that the issues have been simmering for quite some time now in many places. That is all the more reason to proceed with a little more measured deliberation if there is any expectation for the results of the poll to have any validity. As it is, this poll is little more than a mockery of consensus. older ≠ wiser 21:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Ericsaindon2

"can we just deal with one issue at a time?"
- If the vote relates to several issues at a time it's maybe wiser to also deal with them at a time.
"Census designated places and unincorporated communities are completely different"
- this is IMO not true. They have some things in common and therefore cannot be _completely_ different. E.g. both have a population and an area. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the intent of the poll seems concern the districts and neighborhoods of incorporated cities. I think that communities outside of incorporated cities were included due to sloppy drafting. -Will Beback 01:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choice 4

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Choice 4 is the worst of the bunch because it is such an unclear and arbitrary criteria. An editor has to do some sleuthing to discover if a community has any "community council". Especially because the criteria allows for community council that are also unrecognized by the city that they are within, it could allow for very small and essentially meaningless groups to determine how a community article was named. ^Blank ^Verse 02:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Consequences

Because of the, IMO, extremely poor manner in which this straw poll was hastily thrown together, I wonder whether people voting for Option 1 realize that it implies that all the neighborhoods in Category:Chicago neighborhoods will have to be renamed, as well as those in the subcategories of Category:New York City neighborhoods, and some others as well, such as Category:St. Louis neighborhoods, Category:Pittsburgh neighborhoods, and Category:Minneapolis neighborhoods. These are just a few of the major cities that have fairly uniformly named neighborhoods that would be incorrectly named under Option 1. There are numerous other cities that have less consistency in naming their neighborhoods. Has anyone solicited input from editors who maintain the articles for these other cities? older ≠ wiser 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many communities that would eventually have to be renamed. I would note, however that the naming is not entirely consistent even within those categories.

Jackson Park (Chicago)
Jefferson Park, Chicago
Cultural District, Pittsburgh
Crawford-Roberts Hill (Pittsburgh)
Grand Center (St. Louis, Missouri, USA)
Lafayette Square (St. Louis)
Kew Gardens, Queens
Upper West Side

And any convention would require some number of articles to be renamed for consistency. However by comparsion to these disparate systems used in these articles, a simple convention, like Choice 1, would seem like a benefit to the project. -Will Beback 02:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, a large number of the communities in Category:Neighborhoods in the United States already conform to Choice 1. -Will Beback 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought I would say this, but I back Will up 100% on his arguement. I know many neighborhoods would have to change to conform to a naming convention. But, I know that for those of us that have been involved, it would be much more desirable to change communities to meet the consensus, rather than continuing the endless arguing that is continuing. Obviously, just "doing whatever" has not worked well, for almost every community page has seen some turmoil in its naming. In light of all this arguing, it is creating a counter-productive environment, where many community articles have much more time allocated to arguing than it does improving the physical article. Like Will, I think that conforming all communities to a convention agreed upon by the community is much more desirable than what is currently happening. And to say this was hasty! It could not come quick enough for those who have been involved. It is not like the debates started yesterday, and I am making a straw poll today. These debates have been ongoing for months, with several communities and several editors involved. When this was created, I made sure that all the active debates were "meshed" into this larger one. These are all ideas presented in other debates regarding the naming of communities. So, in a sense, I did not just "hastily create this", it has been in the works for months with other community debates serving as the heart of this large debate. Ericsaindon2 02:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to be clear, do you think articles like Bayside, Queens should be renamed to Bayside, New York, New York? older ≠ wiser 18:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York City is a special case because of its boroughs, which are equivalent to counties. I'd suggest that "Bayside, Queens, New York" would be a reasonable name. Likewise, "Upper West Side, Manhattan, New York" would be a better name than simply "Upper West Side". -Will Beback 23:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe the boroughs ARE counties -- Bronx, New York, Queens, Kings, and Richmond (The Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, rspectively). Which is nitpicking, I realize. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of a consensus reached on the issue, there are approximately 400 articles for neighborhoods in the five boroughs of New York City: Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island. See each of the borough articles for a template listing the neighborhoods with exisiting articles, and there are several dozen more neighborhood articles waiting to be created. As part of the consenus, these articles are named in the format (neighborhood, borough). These several hundred New York City neighborhoods don't fit any of the four scenarios listed. Any version of (neighborhood, New York City), (neighborhood, New York) or (neighborhood, New York City, New York) would be a disaster (nor would neighborhood, New York, New York be any better), as these neighborhoods each have a distinct identity within their respective borough. And the format (neighborhood, borough, New York City) would be unwieldly and entirely unnecessary (and adding the state only makes it worse). Either these articles would need to be exempted from this process or we need to start all over again with this process. Alansohn 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, NYC is a special case. If we can find a solution that fits the rest of the country except NYC then that'd still be worthwhile. -Will Beback 03:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all sounds nice, but it sounds like a neighborhood within a neighborhood to me. Bayside, Queens should be named Bayside, New York more approporately. For example, Peralta Hills, Anaheim, California is a neighborhood in Anaheim Hills, but is titled under Anaheim because that is its municipality. Well, Bayside's municipality is New York, and thus New York should be the name it goes under. Does that make sense? Ericsaindon2 04:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have another note that needs to be stated. Since a borough is a term used in "planning" by the city and county, it still does not explain why you think we should treat it like a municipal seperate. Obviously the 5 boroughs are communities, and really nothing more in regards to their individual pages. Compare them with the districts of California. All counties in California have districts (5 to be exact) within each county. Like boroughs, the districts serve in local debates, with a supervisor heading the district or borough. The only difference I see here is that one is named a borough, and one is named a district. Since we have determined that we dont name city and community articles on a county level, (hints using the 5 districts from each county in California as identification) then why should be use the 5 boroughs as identification? It might sound confusing, but I am not sure that there is any reason that we would use the term "Queens" as the city running the neighborhood "Bayside" in the (Community, City, State) setup, when all "Queens" really is is a planning district (county). Then why dont we name places in California "Anaheim, District 3, California", or "Anaheim Hills, District 4, California", because that is what you are doing with New York. The only difference in this particular case is that these districts, or boroughs have actual names not numbers, but still should be treated just like communities since they have no city authority. Now, do not get me wrong. Each borough is considered a county, and that is alright. That is where an article named Kings County, or Bronx County is helpful, but when addressing the neighborhood in the neighborhood articles-not on a county level-, it needs to be addressed following (Community, City, State) since all it really is is a community in the (Community, City, State) format. Ericsaindon2 04:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York City's having the same name as New York State presents special problems for changing it from (Community, Borough) to (Community, New York). It's not unlikely that there's a community in NYC that has the same name as a city in New York State. In this case, we'd have to make an exception to the rule. Also, I believe that, as much as possible, the name of the article should make it immediately apparent what community/town/city is being talked about. If there were, hypothetically, a Bayside, New York that wasn't the one in Queens, then an article titled "Bayside, New York" might refer to either. While not perfect, having the one in Queens being titled "Bayside, Queens(,New York(City))" makes this problem not as bad.--Atemperman 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community (City, State) Setup

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)[reply]

Though it looks odd, it would have the advantage of enabling use of the pipe trick. -Will Beback 04:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "pipe trick"? Ericsaindon2 04:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[Black (surname)|]] -> 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)[reply]

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. [[Help:Pipe trick|]] becomes Pipe trick). ^Blank ^Verse 07:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Redirects can always be created for search queries. --Polaron | Talk 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, you will see that this proposal is the default method for disambiguation of articles with the same term on the Wikipedia. On the other hand, I agree with Will that it looks odd. Also, it doesn't match the way that US cities are named, which I think is one of the biggest advantages of Choice 1.

For Eric: This is suggestion is one of the reasons that so many editors are saying in this survey that they thought that the voting was premature. In a survey on the Wikipedia, usually there is a discussion about the possible options as the first step, so this choice would have been discussed and included as probably choice 5 (or maybe 3a). You also often have a discussion of the pros and cons of each choice BEFORE the voting starts, rather than having the arguments interleaved with the voting as you currently have on the page. ^Blank ^Verse 07:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ^Blank ^Verse 10:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BlankVerse's analysis. --Coolcaesar 04:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You make a good arguement. But, "Hollywood (Los Angeles, California)" still would show the most common name of the community without compromising the fact that it is just a community. With just the words "Hollywood" being outside the parenthasis, it would emphasise that just "Hollywood" is the most common name not "Hollywood, Los Angeles, California". I like the idea of using the most common name, but with currently close to 40,000 communities, there are just too many duplicates for it to be reasonable. But, I think by putting "Hollywood, Los Angeles, California", you are not giving a simple enough name, and it is hard to determine what is the most common name used by the people who refer to the community. It would allow both Hollywoods in the USA to still claim "Hollywood" as their most common names, and the name that most people refer to the area as without "distinction confusion"-- Hollywood (Portland, Oregon) and Hollywood (Los Angeles, California), but this would still allow Wikipedia to provide the distinction between the two Hollywoods, and tell the reader which city the Hollywood they are researching is actually in. Ericsaindon2 06:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An illuminating error

A reflection of how complex the issues involved here may be, and possibly an argument for the impossibility of using an inflexible rule where it may violate very well known convention, is a "mistake" in the very examples I imagine were intended to be wholly noncontroversial place name descriptions at the beginning of the poll. New York, New York always refers to the County of New York, better known as [the borough of] Manhattan. To anyone familiar with New York, saying "Bayside in New York, New York" would simply not grok. Someone from New York (as I am) would cock their head at you in puzzlement and say "Bayside is in Queens, not Manhattan." The next example would result in even further puzzlement. "Bronx in New York, New York"—a true non sequitur. The Bronx is a borough and, New York, New York is a borough and they abut each other; it's exactly the same as saying "the Bronx in Manhattan"—huh? Other than a glance at Anaheim, I am completely unfamiliar with the disputes that have been going on on these issues but doesn't the foregoing illustrate a need to have an escape clause where the interplay between strong local convention and a strict naming rule would result in an absurdity?--Fuhghettaboutit 01:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In no scenario has it ever been discussed to make a convention (Community, County, State), it is (Community, City, State). In the example you provided, the community is in the city of New York. So, New York should appropriately reflect in the name based on the (Community, City, State) convention. Plus, as shown in past straw polls, it really does not seem to matter how the locals would react. As in La Jolla and Anaheim Hills, the residents would not want San Diego or Anaheim put in their names. But, technically, that is how it is, and that is how Bayside should be. Ericsaindon2 04:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do find this proposal rather bewildering. If you consider "no exceptions," the titles of New York (city and state) area articles would be a disaster. Here are my questions:

Why is Bayside (or implicitly, any other New York City neighborhood) listed as "A community within a larger community" instead of "A neighborhood within a larger community"? Is there another example of "A community within a larger community" outside of New York City?
In the History of New York City, neighborhoods are much more closely aligned to and identified with the boroughs rather than the city as a whole. Following Fuhghettaboutit's and Alansohn's arguments above, local media outlets (e.g. The New York Times, Eyewitness News, NewsChannel 4) usually identify neighborhoods within New York City as part of their borough, not the city itself. Also, the naming convention can confuse people when it relates to postal addresses. "New York, New York" is the city/state convention for all addresses in Manhattan. With Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Staten Island, "Brooklyn, New York", "Bronx, New York", and "Staten Island, New York", respectively, are acceptable, not "New York, New York". In Queens, there are several acceptable city/state pairs, none of which is "Queens, New York" (since Queens itself was never a city) or "New York, New York": for example, Ridgewood, Glendale and Flushing can all use the zip code 11385 to form "Ridgewood, New York", "Glendale, New York", and "Flushing, New York". respectively. (Ridgewood and Glendale were historically part of the Town of Flushing; they even once had a zip code that was shared with Bushwick, Brooklyn.)
There is at least one instance where there would be a need for further disambiguation: Murray Hill in Manhattan and Queens.
There are some communities in Queens (at least) that straddle the border with Nassau County. To replace Floral Park, Queens, would you propose Floral Park, New York, New York while there is Floral Park, New York?
You may not have considered the debate on Wikipedia:Political subdivisions of New York. For example, you would actually propose the hamlet of Huntington within the Town of Huntington to be Huntington, Huntington, New York, while Stony Brook, New York would become Stony Brook, Brookhaven, New York and Lynbrook, New York would become Lynbrook, Hempstead, New York? These titles sound very ridiculous and unnatural to me.

If the first choice ends up being chosen, for NYC articles, I would prefer Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn to be Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, New York, not Bedford-Stuyvesant, New York, New York in convention. But if you extend the scheme out of NYC, (e.g. Tarrytown, Greenburgh, New York for Tarrytown, New York), I think that's going too far.

--Tinlinkin 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, yes, there are communities within communities. Peralta Hills and Mountain Park are both within the community of Anaheim Hills because of how large Anaheim Hills is, there are a few instances like this where a community is within a community.-69.230.43.114 05:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I had been hoping for other examples. Ericsaindon2 made it clear that this strawpoll was a response to the Anaheim Hills debate. But I'm looking for examples from other parts of the country, including other California places (and not La Jolla and Hollywood). Tinlinkin 07:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have gotten ahead of myself with my last question without asking other questions first. I was caught up with the "community within a community" thing without realizing I was talking about communities within towns, which are not cities. (This is a result of poor wording of the proposal. I still suggest you clarify "neighborhood within a community" and "community within a community".) Ericsaindon2, when you say "community," you are talking about communities within cities (not towns) only, right?

Another question I have: whatever happened to Primary topic disambiguation? The articles of the five boroughs of NYC were named because of this rule. Tinlinkin 07:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the post by Ericsaindon2 immediately before the preceding, reading the poll introduction it is clear that the purpose of this is to avoid disputes. I do not wish to debate what exactly neighborhoods in NYC boroughs should be named, though I disagree with the analysis, but it's beside the point. Treating NYC as a test case, would applying the standard as you've stated avoid disputes? I predict that that can be answered with a resounding no. Bronx, New York, New York sounds impossibly stupid to me as a resident, bordering on nonsense given that New York, New York, means Manhattan to me as I imagine it would to the 9 million or so residents of NYC and probably to the many millions more who are familiar with the region. Given this, don't you think lots of grief would be in the offing even if we could say "but it's policy"? NYC is just an example; choosing a single naming convention rule will have this malapropos affect somewhere, since geographic naming conventions in the real world are not uniform. I don't see how this can ever serve the purpose to which it offered as a solution as presently presented. Like I said before, I have little previous exposure to these disputes, but this screams for something allowing flexibility where enforcing the convention results in article titles that don't reflect real world usage.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. I live in Anaheim Hills, and it makes me irritated that the city of Anaheim has to be in the title like (Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California), because none of the residents here like to associate themselves with Anaheim. But, like Bayside, it is a community of New York City, and since Queens is not a city, it would be a neighborhood within the community of Queens. It could be argued outside of NYC against this. I really do understnad your concern, as for I feel the exact same way about my community, but if it has to be enforced with one community, it should be with another. Ericsaindon2 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Anaheim Hills, California, if the government of the City of Anaheim controls the area, then there's no question that Anaheim Hills is politically a part of Anaheim. There would need to be a proposal of secession, disagreement within the Anaheim City Council, or at the very least, petitions, if residents really felt adversely towards their government and wanted change. Plus, all evidence would need to be reliably sourced in Wikipedia.

I have never said that Bayside (or any other NYC neighborhood) does not associate with New York City; but it is much more important in the context of Queens than in the City. I know this reasoning with my others above is not the best one (I'm sure that I have some flawed or irrelevant logic and I welcome any discussion about it), but I can't express how much better it is for the NYC neighborhoods to remain as they are now than if they were changed to "Neighborhood, New York, New York". I am proud to live in my neighborhood in Brooklyn, and I support the city 100 percent. Tinlinkin 08:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. I do not like that Anaheim has to be included in the title, because I am a proud Anaheim Hills resident, and dont consider myself to live in Anaheim, because frankly we are the oddballs of the city. I know you are a proud Brooklyn resident, and I respect that. However, at this point Brooklyn is just a community of New York City, as Anaheim Hills is a community of Anaheim. I know, I do not like the rule either, but for now, and the purposes of this poll, that is what is being proposed. I would back you 100% if you tried to drop the physical "city" from the article, but to just do that to NYC articles is not really fair, because we here in Anaheim Hills feel just as strongly as you in Brooklyn. Ericsaindon2 05:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, a reminder that this proposal would become a naming conventions guideline, which means they are "not rules written in stone" and "are free to be amended". The New York City situation may well come up again, so actually any talk of exceptions may be moot for now. Tinlinkin 09:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of another proposition

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)[reply]

Large City Strawpoll Construction

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your lack of objection is immaterial. See WP:OWN. --Calton | Talk 02:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]