Wikipedia

Talk:2001 Bangladeshi census

(Redirected from Talk:2001 Bangladesh census)
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Fuhghettaboutit in topic Requested move
Learn more about this page

Requested move

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago39 comments10 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. There was consensus that a unified titling scheme was a good idea but no clear consensus on the format that retitling should take. An attempt was made to refocus on that issue, but failed for reasons better learned by reading the discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

– There is currently a massive inconcistency amongst the names provided for census in countries. The proposed format provides a constent approach which is style the same as that of elections which follow the Election of Country, Date format providing a precedence. The format can be seen as Census of COUNTRY, DATE. I am aware that this proposed move does no provide for all census but it was beginging to become confusing and I am not sure the propsed multiple move template can take many more proposals. If the move(s) are passed I will of course apply for moves to the other pages. Shatter Resistance (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Survey

edit
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles. Larger comments, general discussion and alternative proposals should be expressed in the Discussion area below or in a new relevant subsection.
  • Strong Support - Nominator. Shatter Resistance (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Propose instead standardizing to the 2001 Bangladesh census naming convention as this sounds the most natural. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support – since standardization is a good thing. Exceptions can be made when there is a good case for an exception. Zerotalk 00:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support standardizing, as there are some very odd formats here ("Peru 2005 Census", for example). However, like CWenger I prefer "2001 Bangladesh census" (or perhaps "2001 Bangladeshi census", as proposed below). Ucucha 18:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Propose instead – I propose a cleaner title style without commas as they are not necessary and not mandated by Wikipedia style guidelines. There are very many "year" articles in Wikipedia with unpunctuated titles. The following dozen covering a variety of subject matters illustrate the point:

I propose either of these alternative styles — (1) Census of Country Year, so the result would look like Census of Bangladesh 2002, or, (2) Country Census Year, so the result would look like Bangladesh Census 2002. This is a clean look and meaning is immediately obvious and not ambiguous. Commas, like underscores, are often buried visually in underlined links, are semi-visible, and can be missed (cf. Census of Tanzania, 2002). I am a stickler for good grammar, spelling and punctuation, and insert many absent commas into Wikipedia articles, but census article titles do not require commas to be meaningful and understood at a glance. Nothing can be gained by inserting a comma that is not needed. When in doubt, toss it out. Elegant style in writing, as elsewhere, derives from economy. — O'Dea (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment. I support the idea of standardising these articles. However, my preferred choice would be either "Year Country census" (eg 2001 Bangladesh census) or "Year census of Country" (eg 2001 census of Bangladesh). Jenks24 (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I'll just add my support for standardizing these. No meaningful preference as to which format should be chosen.--Kotniski (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

edit

Questions should be addressed in this section please.

  • If adopted, I assume a bot will be commissioned to modify all the backlinks?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 24, 2011; 16:32 (UTC)
    A bot could be used to modify all the backlinks if it was deemed appropriate, however, I don't think redirects are really that troublesome, typically not many pages actually have links to the census pages at the moment. I think the focus should not be on that issue but instead on the fact that there is currently such variation between article names. Of course if there are calls for a bot to be used it should be done but I think that should really be a seperate discussion from this one on the merits of continuity of article names. Shatter Resistance (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Well, some have quite a few, and even though many of these are due to being linked via a template, there are still plenty left to be able to comfortably handle them manually.
    I'm also a bit worried about whether the uniform approach is going to fit all cases. Censuses in Russia, for example, aren't normally referred to as "Russian Census" (the current title), but "Census of Russia" is not much better. If we were to move those, "All-Russia population census" would have been a more appropriate choice (how to handle the year disambiguator wouldn't be that important, though). Same goes for the Soviet Union—it's "All-Union population census", not "Soviet Census" or "Census of the Soviet Union". Something like Russian Empire Census doesn't even need a year, since it was the only population census conducted in the Russian Empire. Other countries may have similar concerns.
    Overall, I'm leaning to supporting this, but not before the issues above are addressed and, when necessary, resolved.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 24, 2011; 17:04 (UTC)
Well in the case of the Russian Empire Census the date for that would be 1897 as stated in the article, this page would be nominated for a move seperatly I think if this standardisation does take place with two proposals on the table, either to call it Census of Russia, 1897 or Census of the Russian Empire, 1897, though if no date was wanted I guess that is reasonable, a common syntax still needs to be established. All-Russia population census is a cumbersome title I personnally feel. As for the fact it is not the name used in Russia that is to an extent irrelevant (though obviously not entirely) as a name needs to be chosen that could easily be found when searched for, an example of this would be articles about Cabinets of countries; in Portugal for example the Cabinet is commonly referred to as the Council of Ministers but the article is called Cabinet of Portugal as it is clearer and more obvious to search for and retains a consistency.
Response to alternative proposal - Firstly, can you please move your alternative proposal so that it isn't confusing if those participating in the survey are 'voting' on the original or alternative proposal (prefferablly into the comments section). Secondly, whilst I understand it has been proposed that multiple article be renamed your current proposal is actually to maintain the status quo, do you intend to change all articles to this format or leave all article as they are. Thirdly, the current situation is not the most adequate or 'natural' 2001 Bangladesh census is grammatically incorrect, it should at least be Bangladeshi rather than Bangladesh if you wish to keep it in the current syntax. Fourthly, I personnally feel that to have the date last, at the end of the name, sounds most natural (whether or not the propsal is to have Census of Countiry or County census). 17:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatter Resistance (talk • contribs)
Just thought people might want to see WP:NC-GAL and WP:NCNUM, these show a clear precedence for my propsed format to be used. I understand census are not explictly mentioned but it seems as those census fall under their general remit and at least serves some guidance. Shatter Resistance (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
In response to some of the above: Redirects will handle backlinks just fine and there is no need to worry about changing them. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Ucucha 18:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
As I have stated previously, to use 2001 Bangladesh census is grammatically incorrect and so it needs to be made at least 2001 Bangladeshi census. My resevation with this format - in both this case and in general terms - is that it becomes unclear about the nature of the census; a 'Bandladeshi' census could be considered to imply a census of those who are Bangladeshi (meaning only Bandladeshi's fill out the census and/or national boundries are not observed) to use Census of COUNTRY, DATE is perfectly clear and unambiguous as it makes it clear the census is taking place within a geo-political area and does not include citizens of the the nation performing the census who are abroad but does include foreign citizens within the country at the time. Shatter Resistance (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
If one was to go with 2001 Bangladeshi census, there will be the problems you mentioned. You can see the problems when you transfer the title to the UK census. 2011 British census would simply be unacceptable for a variety of reasons. And what you use for the United States? Since censuses always take place in a defined territory, as opposed to a defined population, the title should include that territory. --89.242.154.83 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Response to second alternative proposal - Seriously people, don't put alternative proposals in the survey section, I will move them if the proposers don't do so soon, its really confusing to know who is voting for what. It would seem the proposer hasn't actually read the discussion section before making these alternatives if they still think Country census Date is gramatically correct, the demonym has to be used in that format is used. As for the comma many of your examples one of those is a census article, which it has already been discovered are all a mess. The legislation examples again do not work as that is the name of the legislation it is not a bill/act that has taken place in 2011 its name includes 2011. Again with the Eurovision Song Contest and World Youth Day those are the names of the events - the World Youth Day 2008 for example is offically the XXIII World Youth Day 2008, however only one World Youth Day was held in 2008 (there is no XXII World Youth Day 2008). Shatter Resistance (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

You clearly have consensus for standardization. So why don't you close the voting above and open a new poll? Make a numbered list of the possible formats and let's vote for which one we want. Zerotalk 10:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The UK census is currently in this format: United Kingdom Census 1841, and the US census is currently in this format: 1880 United States Census (both with capital C), so at least one of those might also need renaming. I can't see any reason why Census might be capitalised, even in the US. --89.242.154.83 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree that these shouldn't be capitalised. Of course assuming my proposal goes through census will be the first name of the article and so will be capitalised but in any of formation census should not be done so. Once the consensus reached is official I will be proposing the moving of all other articles to have complete consistency. Shatter Resistance (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I came to see if I could close this but I don't think it's possible at this point. As noted, there is clear consensus for a unified move to a consistent format but what that format is to be is quite up in the air. So I will relist, and put together a proposed survey below on that still open issue, with the headlines listing all formats suggested thus far—it would be really good if everyone listed their first and second choices. Obviously, you can all decide to ignore this, but trying to determine consensus from the above muddle is just not going to happen without an arbitrary decision.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please do not use the small text 'name format survey' below, instead proceed to the tabelled survey lower down the page entitled Style suvey. Shatter Resistance

Name format survey Census of Country, year ("Census of Bangladesh, 2001")

Census of Country year ("Census of Bangladesh 2001")

Country census of year ("Bangladesh census of 2001")

  • placeholder
  • placeholder

Country census year ("Bangladesh census 2001")

  • placeholder
  • placeholder

Year Country census ("2001 Bangladesh census")

  • placeholder
  • placeholder

Year census of Country ("2001 census of Bangladesh")

Year census Country ("2001 census Bangladesh")

  • placeholder
  • placeholder

Okay so I have removed the subheading status of the attempted name format survey above. Instructions would have been nice because I for one do not understand how on earth it is meant to work. As I have stated a number of times before to use the date at the front of the article name would be entirely out of keeping with any and all of the style guides Wikipedia uses (though I will concede that it does sound natural), personnally I am taking my cue from the style guide used for elections which is why I favour the comma but that is a matter of opinion. However, I hope that explains why I am not placing the date first as an option in the survey below, it just isn't in keeping. Shatter Resistance (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

What could possibly be hard to understand about adding a first and a second preference under the titles you prefer? This appears self-explanatory to me and the recent change adding the above and reformatting the former is and will be incredibly confusing, especially given that there are now two forms of the same survey (the first now compromised) in the same place.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Quite a number of things actually, it takes up alot of space and is trying to split the discussion up into sections, this way people vote and it is done with. Furthermore, the other survey seems to have been designed to work under the Supplementary Vote which is a confusing system and begs many technical questions about whether second preferences should be taken into account in comparison to first preferences, e.g. if there is a clear first preference support for one style but technically the first and second preference votes on another style are actually numerically greater despite this support being mainly second preference. To make the previous attempt - which clearly was not a popular method due to the extremely low turnout - out of the way I will make it into small text and apply a notice to make sure people are directly to the correct location. Shatter Resistance (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
You've shifted goalposts. You said "I for one do not understand how on earth it is meant to work" and are saying something different now. Taking up space is relevant how? You think we can only determine by headcount? Having a first and second preference gives a greater amount of information to be analyzed however a closer might wish. As for lack of response being an indicator of it being a popular method or not, it was added 46 hours before your change and had two responses—the discussion before relisting was open for seven days and had about eight participants other than yourself total. Most importantly, your taken a survey that listed all of the options others had expressed a preference for, and reduced it to four. You've also taken out the example form from each, which makes it much easier to understand each option than does something like "DEMONYM census, DATE". What a mess.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
No I haven't, I still don't actually understand how your proposed method was going to work, I merely stated that the only method I can think of that you might be trying to use is the supplementary vote, but I don't know if that is the case or note, it could be something really wacky and out there. Space is relevant because when people see huge sections of big bold text written in lists they start to ignore it and don't absorb it all in, which is important if you are going to make an informed decision. As for my titles being confusing I hardly think that is fair, this is a debate which will effect all census pages like this not just this one, the general design and style should be set out, its not like it is anymore confusing than the so far undetermined voting system you were suggesting use for above. As for the removal of certain options from the list the style of COUNTRY census (with date at the front or back, with or without a comma) was grammatically incorrect as I have explained numerous times - if Wikipedia is going to be a serious encyclopedia than it should at least be able to title pages in a correct manner - as for removing the options for having date at the front of the options that does not conform to any style guide Wikipedia has and while may sound natural when spoken just isn't how Wikipedia articles are named, to have the date at the front would open up the possibilty of having all articles with dates in use them at the front which would be a nightmare for the search box and would also effect how category lists work as they would be ordered chronologically rather than alphabetically meaning information about a series of censuses in a country would be scattered. Anyway, for saying I cut out some of the options, so did the other survey, if it was going to allow any old suggestion in then feasibly it should have used every possible combination which it didn't. The table below sets out the styles which would follow current style guides and removes options which are incorrect in terms of grammar or syntax. My suggestion to you Fuhghettaboutit is to accept the situation and either vote or contribute in a constructive manner by making some comments on the avaliable options in the discussion section I have provided below. Shatter Resistance (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Do you see that Jenks24 and Scolaire both added their names to the survey listing their first and second preferences (and apparently had no problem in understanding how to do so). Can you not follow that? I mean if you really need me to go further I will but this is axiomatic stuff. The heart of any survey is not stifling voices. I took all of the preferences actually already suggested (not every feasible possibility) and gave each option. Shortening the list to those you personally think are the only proper options is patently improper, a classic method to skew results. I am not here to comment on the substance because I came here as a closing admin but could not close given the lack of consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Correct. I added my name to the survey. And nobody has the right to invalidate my vote by mucking up the format and putting "Please do not use the small text 'name format survey' below, instead proceed to the tabelled survey lower down the page entitled Style suvey" above it. I demand that the survey be restored to the status quo ante. I will not take part in the messed-up thing below. Scolaire (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
You are totally right to say that my changes will shew the results however I am afraid that there are actually certain rules in form of grammar. To declare that you would like to see incorrect options (and I am sorry but to use Country census would be incorrect, imagine for example using France census or Spain census - that doesn't make any sense) certain options need to be ruled out because to use them would stop making Wikipedis and Encyclopedia but instead whatever it is that people wanted it to be. As for not wanting to take part, that is up to you and your right to participate or not is fine. Shatter Resistance (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fuhghettaboutit, I think you should probably close this RM with extreme prejudice. As you can see SR has declared his determination to limit the discussion unfairly, where there is no support for him doing so. Thus it is impossible to move beyond where we were on 29 June, so I think closing is the only realistic alternative. Scolaire (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
And in case it's taken the wrong way, I'm not suggesting you should be prejudiced when closing. Scolaire (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Or we could have a proper discussion taking into account the facts, and what is and is not suitable in an encyclopedia. Shatter Resistance (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, That would be lovely. Unfortunately, your actions have tainted matters and derailed the ability to have a discussion to such an extent, with this rancorous, off topic squabble, with the focus no longer on the underlying issue, that I think it needs to begin anew. Do you understand the concept of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety? When you have a discussion and some number of candidates are put forth and you are involved, you let reason dictate the result. If you had, what you deem the ungrammatical and improper candidates would have fallen by the wayside without any need to impose your preferred candidates as the only candidates. Instead, you unilaterally attempted to forestall their inclusion and thereby created a poisoned well. It's time to close this as Scolaire suggests, and I will but not quite yet, because I don't want to post this and then close immediately, thus acting in a way that gives the impression I am acting to get the last word in and then stop you from responding. The impression one gives with their actions is very important in order that there is not a chilling effect on debate. Do you get that?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Style survey

edit

Instructions: Please place your name at the bottom of the list in the preffered column of the options avaliable at the table below, with names in the same column separated by <br/> to retain the list style, do not comment on reasoning for a particular vote in the table instead make comments in the assigned 'Style survey discussion' area below this table:

DEMONYM census, DATE DEMONYM census DATE Census of COUNTRY, DATE Census of COUNTRY DATE
Shatter Resistance (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Zerotalk 11:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Style survey discussion

edit

Please allow any comments/debate/discussion about options take place in the area below. Shatter Resistance (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Okay so I just thought I would make a few points about the above options here. To use Census of COUNTRY, DATE is my personal favourite merely because it replicates the style used on cabinet articles e.g. Cabinet of Spain and personnaly I feel a seperator should be used between the date and the rest of the name just beacuse it looks neater. Of course the use of DEMONYM census, DATE is well established in election articles such as Spanish general election, 2004 and so either of these formats would be correct. There has been some suggestion to use COUNTRY census, DATE yet this is clearly grammatically incorrect as seen by what would happen if you used Spain census, 2004 as opposed to the use of demonym which would making it Spanish census, 2004. So that is some of my reasoning. Shatter Resistance (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2001_Bangladeshi_census&oldid=1196356560"