Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Category names/Archive: Poll started August 4, 2005

< Wikipedia talk:Category names
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Category titles/Archive: Poll started August 4, 2005)
Latest comment: 19 years ago by Darwinek in topic Proposal one


Wikipedia has a large number of areas where the topics are categorized either by country or by nationality- e.g. Italian Composers, Philosophers of India, and Economy in Australia. These frequently appear on WP:CFD with a request to rename them for consistency. This is a centralized discussion about which naming standard (if any) we should adopt.

This applies to professions, (e.g. Zimbabwean Soccer Players) objects, (e.g. American comic books) and concepts, (e.g. Government of Belgium) and other categories when categorised by nation or nationality - arguably the same standard should apply to all.

Because this issue appears daily on CFD, the intent of this page is to hold one centralized discussion rather than dozens of fragmented ones. If a consensus emerges here, the intent is to allow for speedy renaming of categories according to this scheme (per CFD policy), thus obviating the need for bureaucracy.

This straw poll is now closed.

A summary has been presented on the talk page.

However, please feel free to make any points you have on the talk page, as discussion continues and other suggestions are welcome. If necessary, a runoff vote might be held among the most popular options.

Proposal one

Latest comment: 19 years ago32 comments28 people in discussion

If any subject is categorized by country or nation, there are at least two options for the title. The first is "<object> of <nation>", e.g. "Category:Philosophers of Greece" and "Category:Rivers of Canada"; the second is "<nationality> <object>", e.g. "Category:Greek philosophers" and "Category:Canadian rivers". Some people assert the latter is more natural; some people assert the former is easier since the proper adjective for some nations isn't well-known.

An exception must be made for battles. For example, there could be both "Battles in France" (e.g. those taking place in the country of France, regardless of who fought in them) and "Battles of France" (e.g. those in which France was one of the participants, regardless of where they took place).

Philosophers of Greece, Rivers of Canada, etc

  1. Radiant_>|< 09:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC) (note that "American football" is the proper name of a sport, thus we could have categories such as "American Football in <country>", just like "Soccer in <country>")
  2. This one clearly means the person is from the country. The other could be people who speak the language (e.g. French Films). I prefer this one, unless the category is dealing with language instead of nationality. I also recommend soft redirects. -- Samuel Wantman 09:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. I prefeer this form, least likely to cause confution IMHO. --Sherool 10:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Hmm... Rivers of the Dominican Republic and Rivers of Dominica, or Dominican Rivers and Dominican Rivers? Towns in Monaco, Kiribati, Shropshire, or Monegasque, Gilbertese, Salopian towns? Easy choice. Grutness...wha? 12:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Simpler uniformity. Circeus 12:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Noun usage easier. No confusion as to what the category would be. Aside from the obvious exceptions like battles..., American football, and American revolution. --Kbdank71 13:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Easier to work out the name of the category, and no need to make exceptions for "difficult" adjectival forms. -Splash 15:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support --Celestianpower talk 20:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. This is an already established guideline (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) for categories and articles. It's good. There's been lots of discussion already at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). -R. S. Shaw
  10. Support - two nouns instead of one adjective and one noun creates less confusion. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support for the sake of clarity and consistency with most article titles. -- Visviva 13:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Ornil 05:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support, in all cases in which it makes sense to say <objects> of <country>. Only if it can't be phrased in this manner clearly, then it should be labeled in whatever way it is most natural / that the majority agrees upon.
  14. Support There are plenty of place-adjectives that don't make much sense (Mancunian?); this will avoid possible confusion. siafu 15:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support: Fewer exceptions needed for this phrasing. (SEWilco 17:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  16. Support. I would prefer some fiddling with the details, but I would be happy with this as a general rule in order to stop the endless debating. It's simply and easy to apply across the board. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. We argue too much over adjectives (are people from South America "Americans?" Should it be USAian? United States Foo?), make too many mistakes (Pakistani but not Afghan; Argentine, not Argentinean), get confused (Nigerians are from Niger or Nigeria? "Irish" language, ethnicity, one or another country, or an island? Indians from India?), use unnatural formations (Northern Irish lakes, UAE sport, Trinidad_and_Tobago...Tobagan? Quebeq...ack). All Canadians are "from" or "of" Canada. -- Beland 02:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. no confusion. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 02:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. James F. (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Practicaly everything can follow this format. Trevor macinnis 04:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Just imagine confusion with adjective "Dominican" refering to countries of Dominica and Dominican Republic and with adjective "Congolese" refering to countries of The Republic of the Congo and The Democratic Republic of the Congo. -- Darwinek 14:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Greek philosophers, Canadian rivers, etc

  1. Hidingtalk 09:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Comment American football. American revolution. foo of nationality holding categories. American English. change vote to depends on situation. Reinstate: can we vote for two different suggestions? I'm making a pigs ear of this aren't I? Hiding talk 17:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. dab (ᛏ) 09:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. This is the standard usage in English. For non-people categories, I don't especially care. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:21, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  4. Maurreen (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support: Wikipedia searching tools allow finding things which begin with "Greek". (SEWilco 17:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  6. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Depends on the situation

  1. Of Canada when it is something clearly confined to the borders of Canada, e.g. Category:Buildings and structures of Canada. Canadian when it applies to vaguer items that includes content related to things Canadian, even outside of Canada, e.g. Category:Canadian literature. For instance Jim Carrey is a Canadian actor in that he is an actor with a Canadian citizenship, but he is quite clearly not an actor of Canada in that he does, and has never done, any of his acting in Canada. - SimonP 13:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I think the distinction might be physical features (rivers of, buildings of, mountains of) vs. more abstract concepts like citizenship (pertaining to people related categories). Note that the preposition isn't universally "of" (e.g. the "Cities in" subcats of Category:Cities by country). This is not to say we shouldn't write a rule that can be enforced, but that the rule will be more complex than "things of x" or "xian things". -- Rick Block (talk) 13:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I think this is a better solution. I believe where possible people should be categorised by nationality, whereas geography and history and the like is more sensical as of or in foo. Hiding talk 16:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Maurreen (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kaldari 18:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Can't argue with the Jim Carrey example, so it's got to depend on the situation. I'd say where possible use "things of x" rather than "xish things", though. --JimmyTheWig 15:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Agree with Rick Block. Separate people from objects. Renata3 17:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Rivers of Canada clearly makes sense, but Philosophers of Greece should not replace Greek Philosophers, since not all Greek philosophers were from Greece, as the later followers, who should rightly be called Greek philosophers, hailed from increasingly disparate places such as Africa and Rome. There should not be a rule on something that so clearly varies from topic to topic. James 20:06, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  9. I agree strongly with the first option (... of Fooland), with the only exceptions being that consideration need to be given to historical periods and historical nations. "Greek philosophers" is probably the most common term used to refer to philosophers from the period of Ancient Greece, and incorporates everyone, regardless of their citizenship in Athens, Crete, or Sparta. However, in this case I'd support a move to 'Ancient Greek philosophers' or maybe 'Philosophers of Ancient Greece', so as to not include modern Greek philosophers in the category. As for Battles, I stand by my assertion that these should follow the "Battles of Fooland" model. "Battles in.." is all but useless to my mind, and the "Battles of..." model allows us to make key separations like "Battles of the Holy Roman Empire", "Battles of Nazi Germany", and "Battles of the United Provinces of the Netherlands" instead of just "German battles" and "Dutch battles". Sub-categorization not by where the battle took place, but by the historical country or government (not nationality or modern-day country) that fought it. LordAmeth 11:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Generally agree with SimonP. However, I think there is also an argument for using "in" in some circumstances, particularly if things operate within a country but are not "of" it. For example, Law enforcement in Canada, since such is not wholly the responsibility of Canada itself, but of varying agencies and entities within it. -- Necrothesp 19:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Both sound wrong in some instances, and should be avoided where they do so. The adjective form is much more natural for people and makes lists of subcategories easier to read. Osomec 02:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Obviously, should be Greek philosophers and Rivers in Canada. Neutralitytalk 19:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Why were people and inanimate features/landmarks combined under one proposal? These are entirely separate issues because there are different usages and connotations. Fooian people and Rivers of/in Foo. A person has a nationality as a characteristic, hence an adjective; a river only has a location.
  14. Yes, it depends on the situation. But there should be one standard within one subject area. (For example, all rivers should be covered by one standard. We shouldn't have both Rivers of the United States and French rivers.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. I definitely think we should use Rivers of Fooland. Not so sure about people, I would prefer of Fooland as not requiring confusing adjective forms (see Wikipedia_talk:Category_titles#Arcane_adjectives_of_nationality), but there will obviously be exceptions. the wub "?/!" 11:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. By the way I have no objection against using "in" rather than "of" in some cases. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  17. People working on an article will know what's best.Dejvid 17:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. I see no need to set in stone any policy on this issue. 'Greek philosophers' and 'Philosophers of Greece' mean different things. Once again, over-zealous 'policyism' is trying to force a round peg through a square hole. 80.255 00:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't care

Proposal two

Latest comment: 19 years ago27 comments27 people in discussion

In the names of categories and articles, the United States of America should be referred to in a consistent way. The same applies to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and possibly other countries which have commonly abbreviated names. There are too many options here to make a majority vote practical. Instead, please sign your name and list two or three options that you find acceptable. Please do not specify which options you hate most, that isn't helpful.

Suggested options include,

  • (the) United States of America, and (the) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • (the) United States, and (the) United Kingdom
  • (the) United States, and Great Britain
  • (the) USA, and (the) UK
  • (the) U.S.A., and (the) U.K.
  • (the) US, and (the) UK
  • (the) U.S., and (the) U.K.
  • America and the United Kingdom (or American and British)


Depending on the outcome of the first vote, this may turn into "Economy of the USA" or "USA economy", etc.

This list is not exhaustive, but it may be preferable for the naming to be similar - e.g. using "U.S.A." with the dots and "UK" without the dots is not particularly consistent.

Vote here

  1. USA / UK. Radiant_>|< 09:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC) (and have no problem with "United States" / "United Kingdom"). Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. [[of] the] {USA|UK} dab (ᛏ) 09:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. British/American or (of the) UK/(of the) USA. My least preferred with regards the UK are United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Great Britain, the latter I feel really shouldn't be listed at all. I too have no great problem with U.S. and UK co-existing. I think United States is my least preferred for the USA. Hiding talk 09:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. United States /United Kingdom or USA / UK --Sherool 10:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. United States/United Kingdom Grutness...wha? 12:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. United States/United Kingdom first choice, (of the)US/UK second choice. --Kbdank71 13:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. United States/United Kigdom and 2nd choise is US/UK. Renata3 14:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. United States/United Kingdom as nouns, American/British as adjectives (consistent with WP:CG#General_naming_conventions: Avoid abbreviations). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  9. United States/United Kingdom, 2nd choice U.S./UK Christopher Parham (talk) 14:21, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  10. United States/United Kingdom, second choice of US/UK. Though I sort of like USA. -Splash 15:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Depends. Prefer being consie and natural, such as with "American foo" or "U.S. foo". If it's going to be "Foo of", prefer "Foo of the USA". " Least preferred are "United States of America" and "United States". Maurreen (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC) I also think it's OK to vary the periods between "U.S." and "UK". Maurreen (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. United States/United Kigdom and 2nd choise is US/UK. Kaldari 18:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. 1. USA / UK .:. 2. US / UK --Celestianpower talk 20:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  14. United States/United Kingdom and American/British, per Rick Block--BaronLarf 23:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  15. United States/United Kingdom as nouns, American/British for adjectives. We can't use United Kingdom for people categories. JW 11:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. US/UK as nouns. U.S./U.K. second choice. American/British as adjectives. --JimmyTheWig 15:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  17. "...of the United States" and "...of the United Kingdom" or, secondarily, ".. of the USA" and ".. of the UK". Whichever model we choose, my vote is for consistency. LordAmeth 11:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. (the) United Kingdom/(the) United States, with British/American used adjectivally. Abbreviations on their own look clumsy and unencyclopaedic, in my opinion, (in any context, not just in category and article titles) and there's absolutely no need to expand the names any further to the official titles. -- Necrothesp 19:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  19. United States/United Kingdom, with British/American for people. Osomec 02:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  20. Firest preference: United States. Second preference: U.S.. "American" should not be used where the meaning is "relating to the United States". DES (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  21. American/British should be used as the adjectival form of nationality (e.g., American music, British lawyers), with U.S./UK as the backup. United States/United Kingdom should be used simply to refer to the country (e.g., Rivers of the United States, Churches in the United Kingdom) and should not be used as an adjective. "U.S.A." should not be used at all unless one is chanting it at a tailgating party or while listening to that godawful Lee Greenwood song. Postdlf 05:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  22. United States/United Kingdom, though neither should be used as an adjective. siafu 15:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  23. United States/United Kingdom first choice, (of the)US/UK second choice. (SEWilco 17:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  24. United States/United Kingdom as the noun form only and American/British as the adjective. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  25. United States/United Kingdom. U.S. and UK when abbreviated (if absolutely necessary). I dislike adjectives, but if we have to, "American" and "British". U.S. over US, USA, etc. It's easier for search engines to find U.S., and USA is just kinda cheesy. -- Beland 02:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  26. (the) U.S., and (the) U.K.. is the most concise while keeping to punctuation laws. And the term "USA" has been ruined by the patriotic jargon it is often times used in. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 02:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Agree with Beland. the wub "?/!" 12:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  28. United States and United Kingdom, where the full name of the country is important, U.S. and U.K. where an abbreviation is appropriate. --AlexWCovington (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  29. American and British but really it should depend. I don't buy this need for consistency. Dejvid 17:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  30. United States/United Kingdom as nouns, American/British as adjectives per Rick Block. This is about category names and being formal is not a problem, Vegaswikian 18:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  31. Strongly oppose any abbreviation that lack full stops (e.g. USA, UK). Support "United States" and "Great Britain" , and "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" where applicable. Strongly oppose adjectival use of "U.S." and "U.K.". 80.255 01:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  32. United States/United Kingdom for nouns, American/British for adjectives Trevor macinnis 05:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't care

Proposal 3: Common usage

Latest comment: 19 years ago17 comments17 people in discussion

This proposal would favor common usage.

This would make for less standardization among categories, but possibly more between categories and articles.

One real or perceived flaw with this proposal is that the "common usage" is not always easily defined.

One real or perceived benefit is that it would be in line with current WP standards for article naming.

Vote

  1. I think I like this best of all the proposals so far. Maurreen (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support Kaldari 18:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support the strongest. This is by far my favourite position. Hiding talk 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I think who defines common usage is going to be a huge problem, and it sidesteps the standardization problem we were trying to solve in the first place. --Kbdank71 19:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Splash 19:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, but not in a case-by-case sense. I would prefer there to be some small number of general rules (probably more than one) that in most cases match common usage. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Where a clear common usage exists, it should always be used. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:45, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  8. Support. Common usage should always be more important than consistency. - SimonP 22:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. The alternative would lead to some odd category titles. --BaronLarf 00:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, this is a non-proposal as it basically forces us to reiterate all arguments over each individual instance, the way we do now. Radiant_>|< 08:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support - although I agree with Kdbank71 and Radiant that it will still leave a lot to be argued over. JW 11:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support - I am always in favor for common usage and standards, however not sure if it's possible. Renata3 17:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - Common usage is well and good in article texts where any possible confutions about the meaning of a term can be cleared up and things put in the right context. However for category titles I would prefeer a common standard with maximum accuracy wich common usage would not always provide. --Sherool 18:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support - But only in those situations where the 'common' usage is widely agreed upon and official, not just a colloquialism. I support 'U.S. Marines Corps' over 'Marines of the United States' or some other format that one would never see in real life. But we need to be very stringent and self-conscious about this. It's a slippery slope to go from US Marine Corps to US Senate and US Presidents to US government... "Presidents of the United States", "Government of the United States" and the like should follow the more general global format of "... of Fooland". LordAmeth 11:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Can't imagine there are that many cases where a "common usage" comes into play so there would still be a need to standardize. Flowerparty talk 13:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Although I would use US Marine Corps in speech, I would almost always write United States Marine Corps, as I think abbreviations are generally clumsy and unencyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp 19:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  17. Common usage is not sufficiently consistant or standardized, in many cases more than one usage is common, and determining which is more or most common cannot be reliably and objectively done. DES (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support I don't value uniformity very much and I don't think trying to achieve it is a very worthwhile project in this sort of environment. Osomec 02:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support, but only if there are standards like as proposed above by Rick Block. Otherwise Oppose. We are trying to make the decisions traditionally made by editors. This proposal, without stardards, in effect ducks the question. -- Samuel Wantman 08:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose: Common usage is not as important in Categories as is consistency. (SEWilco 17:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  21. Support, provided that common usage is defined across groups of categories. Consistency is important in categories. Actually, this is almost a non-proposal, since it is already the standard policy. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support as per LordAmeth the wub "?/!" 12:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Existing Policy

Latest comment: 19 years ago30 comments11 people in discussion

This proposal suggests adopting two existing guidlines, and settling one remaining issue.

Proposal 4a

This proposal favours using Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), which is an existing guidline to the effect that people should be categorised by nationality, whilst items of countries should be categorised of country.

One real or perceived flaw with this proposal is that standardisation should not preclude comon usage or flexibility.

One real or perceived benefit is that it is an existing guidline with established consensus.

Vote

  1. Support Hiding talk 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strongly oppose. The discussion consisted of 7 votes being cast and a pop-quiz. It refers to other debates that between them total about 4 paragraphs. We've done much better than that here. -Splash 23:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This policy looks like it is about to be superseded. I don't like "of" where it can be avoided. Osomec 02:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. It's a good policy, although I wish it had been discussed and voted on more thoroughly. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, though "Great Britain" should be "United Kingdom". The note about semantic disambiguation is important. For example, we currently have Category:French poets (Poets of/from France) and Category:French-language poets, and the first is an abomination. -- Beland 02:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, there is no indication that that naming convention is in fact consensual. We should not make present discussions solely on status quo, as that may include past mistakes. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  7. No vote, although the "pop-quiz" on that page's talk page is an excellent demonstration of the problems with adjectival naming. the wub "?/!" 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 4b

This proposal favours using Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) , which is an existing guidline to the effect that U.S. with periods but UK without periods should be used when abbreviating the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.

One real or perceived flaw with this proposal is that standardisation of abbreviation is not achieved.

One real or perceived benefit is that it is an existing guidline with established consensus.

Vote

  1. Support Hiding talk 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strongly oppose. The discussion consisted of 7 votes being cast and a pop-quiz. It refers to other debates that between them total about 4 paragraphs. We've done much better than that here. I do not see a reason for importing an inconsistent 'decision'. -Splash 23:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose, the document mentioned appears to have no status tag on it at all, and we should not import it here. Moreover, this version of settling the question is more restrictive than Proposal 2 above which serves the same end. -Splash 23:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, this is not consistent. Radiant_>|< 08:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose because not detailed enough, we could use more rigid guideline. Renata3 17:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Suppport We much not legislate for either US or British usage across the board. But I don't think we should have these abbreviations except where they are part of a proper name anyway. Osomec 02:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support This is acase where the common usage is fairly clear, and a good idea, IMO. DES (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose: Not consistent, and I prefer USA to US. (SEWilco 17:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  8. Oppose, not consistent. --Kbdank71 18:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. But the policy here is really rather vague. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support, but U.S./U.K. is fine, too. But not US, which would thwart search engines. -- Beland 02:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms), let's discuss problems with the current contents on that page's talk page. the wub "?/!" 12:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support not consistent but nonetheless sensible. Dejvid 18:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 4c

This proposal is to seek a preference on the term used to define nationality for the United States of America in the event of proposals 4a and 4b being accepted. The choice then becomes one of American versus U.S.

American is thought to be common usage, however, it is also thought by some to cause confusion between the continent and the country.

U.S. is thought to reduce confusion, however, it is also thought not to be the most commonly used phrase.

Vote

  1. This proposal is redundant with proposal two. Radiant_>|< 08:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC) As stated before, "American" should never refer to just the United States. Just because many Wikipedians are from the USA doesn't make that term any less factually wrong. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Radiant, could you just clarify why you believe it is wrong, when it is the term the USA uses, and is common usage. Do you mean confusing rather than wrong? I don't think anyone is proposing we use it because the majority of wikipedians are American, but because it is the term used to describe the nationality of a citizen of the USA. Also, are you intending to vote twice? Hiding talk 12:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No intention to vote twice; my earlier comment wasn't a vote. Anyway, this issue has been discussed lengthily on the talk page. I do believe the correct term to be "U.S. citizen" rather than American (even if the latter is the common colloquialism). This may, however, boil down to the difference between people and things. "American mountains", e.g., should refer to any of those on the continent (I hope most people agree on that one). "American artists", well, I don't like it for the above reasons, and would prefer "U.S. artists" or "Artists of the United States". Radiant_>|< 12:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I only asked since both comments had numbers, which gave the appearance of two votes. The U.S. government itself uses American in its legislation, [1] [2] [3] [4], so it is not a common colloquialism, but I agree that its use should be kept to people related categories.Hiding talk 07:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. American This is clearly a special case. Objections to use of "American" fly in the face of normal English usage. We shouldn't defer to any one who unreasonably chooses to be offended. Osomec 02:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. This is mostly redundant with #2, but I will repeat -- in no case should "American" be used with the meaning "of or related to the United States". United States Foo or Foo of the United States would be my prefered forms. U.S. Foo would be my secondary preference. DES (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. American: Common usage. However "... of United States" OK in Categories. (SEWilco 17:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  5. Same answer as proposal 2. --Kbdank71 18:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Either "American X" or "X of the United States" (the latter is fine as long as other nations are treated the same way). United States isn't an adjective. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. American or of the United States. In addition to the Latin Americans who feel excluded by this usage, there are Americans who are offended by not saying "American". Since it is impossible to remain neutral, I think the rule that the most common usage should prevail, so "American" it is. I hope we don't have to use adjectives. -- Beland 02:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. American. This term is the dominant common usage to refer to people from the United States. Even more so, this meaning is the most common usage of the term American. We can argue about what's "factually correct" -- and there's plenty of other places to discuss it, e.g. perhaps Democratic People's Republic of Korea should redirect to South Korea and not the North -- but Wikipedia isn't the place to campaign for changing the English language. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:44, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

No Preference

  1. Hiding talk 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. This is redundant with the discussion we've had here, and the other polls up top that seek to settle this in a broader manner than just for one country. -Splash 23:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Standardization of names

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

For "of Foo" by-country categories (if adopted) the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of of the article about that country, with a lowercase "the" if needed for grammatical purposes. Non-sovereign, disputed, supranational, and historical countries and geographic equivalents may be included if the articles to be categorized require it. For reference, see List of sovereign states, List of dependent territories, and the following list.

(Note: Links to articles are shown only for reference; links obviously cannot appear in the actual title of a category.)

Supranational:

Historical:

Straw-poll votes

  • Support. This is what got passed last time this issue came up. This is mostly intended as an aid to determining is specific categories need to be renamed, and if so, to what, exactly. -- Beland 03:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment First up, how does this relate to using British, as in British politicians, for example? And also, why is of Northern Ireland listed?, Why isn't of Great Britain listed in the historical section? How about of England and Wales, and of England? Does of England refer only to the historical state of 800s-1200s , or to the state from 800s to now? And the same question for Scotland, and Wales. Also, if of Russia refers to the modern day country, how do we refer to the historical country of Russia? And so on and so forth. Hiding talk 21:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The list is far from complete, both Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England should no doubth have theyr seperate categories when apropriate, as subcategories under United Kindgon/British or whatever. Good question about pre-revolution Russia though. Guess "Tsardom of Russia" or some such could be used if there is an explicit need to distinguish it from the modern Russian federation. --Sherool 02:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wish we'd known about this. Yes, sounds very reasonable. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though this poll is starting to make my brain hurt :( the wub "?/!" 13:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unnecessary complexity and a policy of policies' sake; articles the names of which are unclear should be changed on a case-by-case basis. 80.255 01:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments and improvements

Proposal 6: Dual-list overlaps

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

When historical and political complexities (such as mergers and splits) create articles that belong to two countries, do not create a "Foo of X and Y". Instead, list articles in both "Foo of X" and "Foo of Y". For example, "Foo of Russia" and "Foo of the Soviet Union", not "Foo of Russia and the Soviet Union".

Straw-poll votes

Comments, improvements, alternatives

Least preferred

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments10 people in discussion

Please list your least preferred options here. Some people believe this can help lead to consensus. Others do not.

  1. "of the United States of America" and "of the United States" -- Maurreen (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. (the) United States of America, and (the) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and (the) U.S.A., and (the) U.K. Renata3 17:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. United States for people categories. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - but no-one is seriously advocating that are they? Osomec 02:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. In no case should "American" be used with the meaning "of or related to the United States". DES (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Worst option would be "United States foo specialists" or "United Kingdom foo specialists". "American foo specialists" or "British foo specialists" while not as preferable as "Foo specialists of the United States" etc. is still better than treating "United States" and "United Kingdom" as adjectives. siafu 17:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. American, British, or any adjective form of a country. --Kbdank71 18:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. "United States" or "U.S." (or "US", for that matter) used as an adjective. "USA", period. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Avoidable adjectives. -- Beland 02:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. "America" or "American" when referring to the United States, per WP:CSB. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Adjectival forms (especially obscure ones such as Gilbertese or I-Kiribati for Kiribati), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, this discussion getting any more complicated :) the wub "?/!" 13:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. "of (country)" for any people categories. This is not natural usage. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:40, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
  12. Adjectival forms. Too much need for exceptions for so-called "difficult" cases. -Splash 16:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This poll should not be considered binding

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  1. The threshold for consensus isn't even mentioned. Specifying it after the fact would be bad.
  2. The issue of speedy renaming is unclear at best.
  3. I'm not sure this poll represent the range of opinions and options. Maurreen (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As per the intro above: This is a straw poll to find preferences. It is not an official policy proposal. I don't think there's any worry just yet. --Kbdank71 18:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Also, the issue of 'speedy renaming' has been part of CFD policy for several months now, please read up on it. Radiant_>|< 08:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a dictatorship either. Maurreen (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly. That's why this poll is an attempt to find consensus. In response to #3, note that the issue has been discussed for two weeks. That's quite long in WikiTime. Radiant_>|< 08:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a large number of areas where the topics are categorized either by country or by nationality- e.g. Italian Composers, Philosophers of India, and Economy in Australia. These frequently appear on WP:CFD with a request to rename them for consistency. This is a centralized discussion about which naming standard (if any) we should adopt.

This applies to professions, (e.g. Zimbabwean Soccer Players) objects, (e.g. American comic books) and concepts, (e.g. Government of Belgium) and other categories when categorised by nation or nationality - arguably the same standard should apply to all.

Because this issue appears daily on CFD, the intent of this page is to hold one centralized discussion rather than dozens of fragmented ones. If a consensus emerges here, the intent is to allow for speedy renaming of categories according to this scheme (per CFD policy), thus obviating the need for bureaucracy.

This straw poll is now closed.

A summary has been presented on the talk page.

However, please feel free to make any points you have on the talk page, as discussion continues and other suggestions are welcome. If necessary, a runoff vote might be held among the most popular options.

Proposal one

Latest comment: 19 years ago32 comments28 people in discussion

If any subject is categorized by country or nation, there are at least two options for the title. The first is "<object> of <nation>", e.g. "Category:Philosophers of Greece" and "Category:Rivers of Canada"; the second is "<nationality> <object>", e.g. "Category:Greek philosophers" and "Category:Canadian rivers". Some people assert the latter is more natural; some people assert the former is easier since the proper adjective for some nations isn't well-known.

An exception must be made for battles. For example, there could be both "Battles in France" (e.g. those taking place in the country of France, regardless of who fought in them) and "Battles of France" (e.g. those in which France was one of the participants, regardless of where they took place).

Philosophers of Greece, Rivers of Canada, etc

  1. Radiant_>|< 09:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC) (note that "American football" is the proper name of a sport, thus we could have categories such as "American Football in <country>", just like "Soccer in <country>")
  2. This one clearly means the person is from the country. The other could be people who speak the language (e.g. French Films). I prefer this one, unless the category is dealing with language instead of nationality. I also recommend soft redirects. -- Samuel Wantman 09:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. I prefeer this form, least likely to cause confution IMHO. --Sherool 10:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Hmm... Rivers of the Dominican Republic and Rivers of Dominica, or Dominican Rivers and Dominican Rivers? Towns in Monaco, Kiribati, Shropshire, or Monegasque, Gilbertese, Salopian towns? Easy choice. Grutness...wha? 12:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Simpler uniformity. Circeus 12:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Noun usage easier. No confusion as to what the category would be. Aside from the obvious exceptions like battles..., American football, and American revolution. --Kbdank71 13:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Easier to work out the name of the category, and no need to make exceptions for "difficult" adjectival forms. -Splash 15:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support --Celestianpower talk 20:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. This is an already established guideline (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) for categories and articles. It's good. There's been lots of discussion already at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). -R. S. Shaw
  10. Support - two nouns instead of one adjective and one noun creates less confusion. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support for the sake of clarity and consistency with most article titles. -- Visviva 13:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Ornil 05:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support, in all cases in which it makes sense to say <objects> of <country>. Only if it can't be phrased in this manner clearly, then it should be labeled in whatever way it is most natural / that the majority agrees upon.
  14. Support There are plenty of place-adjectives that don't make much sense (Mancunian?); this will avoid possible confusion. siafu 15:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support: Fewer exceptions needed for this phrasing. (SEWilco 17:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  16. Support. I would prefer some fiddling with the details, but I would be happy with this as a general rule in order to stop the endless debating. It's simply and easy to apply across the board. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. We argue too much over adjectives (are people from South America "Americans?" Should it be USAian? United States Foo?), make too many mistakes (Pakistani but not Afghan; Argentine, not Argentinean), get confused (Nigerians are from Niger or Nigeria? "Irish" language, ethnicity, one or another country, or an island? Indians from India?), use unnatural formations (Northern Irish lakes, UAE sport, Trinidad_and_Tobago...Tobagan? Quebeq...ack). All Canadians are "from" or "of" Canada. -- Beland 02:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. no confusion. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 02:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. James F. (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Practicaly everything can follow this format. Trevor macinnis 04:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Just imagine confusion with adjective "Dominican" refering to countries of Dominica and Dominican Republic and with adjective "Congolese" refering to countries of The Republic of the Congo and The Democratic Republic of the Congo. -- Darwinek 14:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Greek philosophers, Canadian rivers, etc

  1. Hidingtalk 09:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Comment American football. American revolution. foo of nationality holding categories. American English. change vote to depends on situation. Reinstate: can we vote for two different suggestions? I'm making a pigs ear of this aren't I? Hiding talk 17:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. dab (ᛏ) 09:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. This is the standard usage in English. For non-people categories, I don't especially care. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:21, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  4. Maurreen (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support: Wikipedia searching tools allow finding things which begin with "Greek". (SEWilco 17:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  6. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Depends on the situation

  1. Of Canada when it is something clearly confined to the borders of Canada, e.g. Category:Buildings and structures of Canada. Canadian when it applies to vaguer items that includes content related to things Canadian, even outside of Canada, e.g. Category:Canadian literature. For instance Jim Carrey is a Canadian actor in that he is an actor with a Canadian citizenship, but he is quite clearly not an actor of Canada in that he does, and has never done, any of his acting in Canada. - SimonP 13:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I think the distinction might be physical features (rivers of, buildings of, mountains of) vs. more abstract concepts like citizenship (pertaining to people related categories). Note that the preposition isn't universally "of" (e.g. the "Cities in" subcats of Category:Cities by country). This is not to say we shouldn't write a rule that can be enforced, but that the rule will be more complex than "things of x" or "xian things". -- Rick Block (talk) 13:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I think this is a better solution. I believe where possible people should be categorised by nationality, whereas geography and history and the like is more sensical as of or in foo. Hiding talk 16:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Maurreen (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kaldari 18:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Can't argue with the Jim Carrey example, so it's got to depend on the situation. I'd say where possible use "things of x" rather than "xish things", though. --JimmyTheWig 15:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Agree with Rick Block. Separate people from objects. Renata3 17:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Rivers of Canada clearly makes sense, but Philosophers of Greece should not replace Greek Philosophers, since not all Greek philosophers were from Greece, as the later followers, who should rightly be called Greek philosophers, hailed from increasingly disparate places such as Africa and Rome. There should not be a rule on something that so clearly varies from topic to topic. James 20:06, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  9. I agree strongly with the first option (... of Fooland), with the only exceptions being that consideration need to be given to historical periods and historical nations. "Greek philosophers" is probably the most common term used to refer to philosophers from the period of Ancient Greece, and incorporates everyone, regardless of their citizenship in Athens, Crete, or Sparta. However, in this case I'd support a move to 'Ancient Greek philosophers' or maybe 'Philosophers of Ancient Greece', so as to not include modern Greek philosophers in the category. As for Battles, I stand by my assertion that these should follow the "Battles of Fooland" model. "Battles in.." is all but useless to my mind, and the "Battles of..." model allows us to make key separations like "Battles of the Holy Roman Empire", "Battles of Nazi Germany", and "Battles of the United Provinces of the Netherlands" instead of just "German battles" and "Dutch battles". Sub-categorization not by where the battle took place, but by the historical country or government (not nationality or modern-day country) that fought it. LordAmeth 11:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Generally agree with SimonP. However, I think there is also an argument for using "in" in some circumstances, particularly if things operate within a country but are not "of" it. For example, Law enforcement in Canada, since such is not wholly the responsibility of Canada itself, but of varying agencies and entities within it. -- Necrothesp 19:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Both sound wrong in some instances, and should be avoided where they do so. The adjective form is much more natural for people and makes lists of subcategories easier to read. Osomec 02:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Obviously, should be Greek philosophers and Rivers in Canada. Neutralitytalk 19:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Why were people and inanimate features/landmarks combined under one proposal? These are entirely separate issues because there are different usages and connotations. Fooian people and Rivers of/in Foo. A person has a nationality as a characteristic, hence an adjective; a river only has a location.
  14. Yes, it depends on the situation. But there should be one standard within one subject area. (For example, all rivers should be covered by one standard. We shouldn't have both Rivers of the United States and French rivers.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. I definitely think we should use Rivers of Fooland. Not so sure about people, I would prefer of Fooland as not requiring confusing adjective forms (see Wikipedia_talk:Category_titles#Arcane_adjectives_of_nationality), but there will obviously be exceptions. the wub "?/!" 11:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. By the way I have no objection against using "in" rather than "of" in some cases. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  17. People working on an article will know what's best.Dejvid 17:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. I see no need to set in stone any policy on this issue. 'Greek philosophers' and 'Philosophers of Greece' mean different things. Once again, over-zealous 'policyism' is trying to force a round peg through a square hole. 80.255 00:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't care

Proposal two

Latest comment: 19 years ago27 comments27 people in discussion

In the names of categories and articles, the United States of America should be referred to in a consistent way. The same applies to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and possibly other countries which have commonly abbreviated names. There are too many options here to make a majority vote practical. Instead, please sign your name and list two or three options that you find acceptable. Please do not specify which options you hate most, that isn't helpful.

Suggested options include,

  • (the) United States of America, and (the) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • (the) United States, and (the) United Kingdom
  • (the) United States, and Great Britain
  • (the) USA, and (the) UK
  • (the) U.S.A., and (the) U.K.
  • (the) US, and (the) UK
  • (the) U.S., and (the) U.K.
  • America and the United Kingdom (or American and British)


Depending on the outcome of the first vote, this may turn into "Economy of the USA" or "USA economy", etc.

This list is not exhaustive, but it may be preferable for the naming to be similar - e.g. using "U.S.A." with the dots and "UK" without the dots is not particularly consistent.

Vote here

  1. USA / UK. Radiant_>|< 09:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC) (and have no problem with "United States" / "United Kingdom"). Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. [[of] the] {USA|UK} dab (ᛏ) 09:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. British/American or (of the) UK/(of the) USA. My least preferred with regards the UK are United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Great Britain, the latter I feel really shouldn't be listed at all. I too have no great problem with U.S. and UK co-existing. I think United States is my least preferred for the USA. Hiding talk 09:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. United States /United Kingdom or USA / UK --Sherool 10:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. United States/United Kingdom Grutness...wha? 12:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. United States/United Kingdom first choice, (of the)US/UK second choice. --Kbdank71 13:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. United States/United Kigdom and 2nd choise is US/UK. Renata3 14:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. United States/United Kingdom as nouns, American/British as adjectives (consistent with WP:CG#General_naming_conventions: Avoid abbreviations). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  9. United States/United Kingdom, 2nd choice U.S./UK Christopher Parham (talk) 14:21, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  10. United States/United Kingdom, second choice of US/UK. Though I sort of like USA. -Splash 15:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Depends. Prefer being consie and natural, such as with "American foo" or "U.S. foo". If it's going to be "Foo of", prefer "Foo of the USA". " Least preferred are "United States of America" and "United States". Maurreen (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC) I also think it's OK to vary the periods between "U.S." and "UK". Maurreen (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. United States/United Kigdom and 2nd choise is US/UK. Kaldari 18:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. 1. USA / UK .:. 2. US / UK --Celestianpower talk 20:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  14. United States/United Kingdom and American/British, per Rick Block--BaronLarf 23:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  15. United States/United Kingdom as nouns, American/British for adjectives. We can't use United Kingdom for people categories. JW 11:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. US/UK as nouns. U.S./U.K. second choice. American/British as adjectives. --JimmyTheWig 15:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  17. "...of the United States" and "...of the United Kingdom" or, secondarily, ".. of the USA" and ".. of the UK". Whichever model we choose, my vote is for consistency. LordAmeth 11:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. (the) United Kingdom/(the) United States, with British/American used adjectivally. Abbreviations on their own look clumsy and unencyclopaedic, in my opinion, (in any context, not just in category and article titles) and there's absolutely no need to expand the names any further to the official titles. -- Necrothesp 19:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  19. United States/United Kingdom, with British/American for people. Osomec 02:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  20. Firest preference: United States. Second preference: U.S.. "American" should not be used where the meaning is "relating to the United States". DES (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  21. American/British should be used as the adjectival form of nationality (e.g., American music, British lawyers), with U.S./UK as the backup. United States/United Kingdom should be used simply to refer to the country (e.g., Rivers of the United States, Churches in the United Kingdom) and should not be used as an adjective. "U.S.A." should not be used at all unless one is chanting it at a tailgating party or while listening to that godawful Lee Greenwood song. Postdlf 05:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  22. United States/United Kingdom, though neither should be used as an adjective. siafu 15:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  23. United States/United Kingdom first choice, (of the)US/UK second choice. (SEWilco 17:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  24. United States/United Kingdom as the noun form only and American/British as the adjective. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  25. United States/United Kingdom. U.S. and UK when abbreviated (if absolutely necessary). I dislike adjectives, but if we have to, "American" and "British". U.S. over US, USA, etc. It's easier for search engines to find U.S., and USA is just kinda cheesy. -- Beland 02:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  26. (the) U.S., and (the) U.K.. is the most concise while keeping to punctuation laws. And the term "USA" has been ruined by the patriotic jargon it is often times used in. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 02:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Agree with Beland. the wub "?/!" 12:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  28. United States and United Kingdom, where the full name of the country is important, U.S. and U.K. where an abbreviation is appropriate. --AlexWCovington (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  29. American and British but really it should depend. I don't buy this need for consistency. Dejvid 17:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  30. United States/United Kingdom as nouns, American/British as adjectives per Rick Block. This is about category names and being formal is not a problem, Vegaswikian 18:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  31. Strongly oppose any abbreviation that lack full stops (e.g. USA, UK). Support "United States" and "Great Britain" , and "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" where applicable. Strongly oppose adjectival use of "U.S." and "U.K.". 80.255 01:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  32. United States/United Kingdom for nouns, American/British for adjectives Trevor macinnis 05:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't care

Proposal 3: Common usage

Latest comment: 19 years ago17 comments17 people in discussion

This proposal would favor common usage.

This would make for less standardization among categories, but possibly more between categories and articles.

One real or perceived flaw with this proposal is that the "common usage" is not always easily defined.

One real or perceived benefit is that it would be in line with current WP standards for article naming.

Vote

  1. I think I like this best of all the proposals so far. Maurreen (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support Kaldari 18:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support the strongest. This is by far my favourite position. Hiding talk 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I think who defines common usage is going to be a huge problem, and it sidesteps the standardization problem we were trying to solve in the first place. --Kbdank71 19:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Splash 19:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, but not in a case-by-case sense. I would prefer there to be some small number of general rules (probably more than one) that in most cases match common usage. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Where a clear common usage exists, it should always be used. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:45, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  8. Support. Common usage should always be more important than consistency. - SimonP 22:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. The alternative would lead to some odd category titles. --BaronLarf 00:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, this is a non-proposal as it basically forces us to reiterate all arguments over each individual instance, the way we do now. Radiant_>|< 08:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support - although I agree with Kdbank71 and Radiant that it will still leave a lot to be argued over. JW 11:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support - I am always in favor for common usage and standards, however not sure if it's possible. Renata3 17:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - Common usage is well and good in article texts where any possible confutions about the meaning of a term can be cleared up and things put in the right context. However for category titles I would prefeer a common standard with maximum accuracy wich common usage would not always provide. --Sherool 18:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support - But only in those situations where the 'common' usage is widely agreed upon and official, not just a colloquialism. I support 'U.S. Marines Corps' over 'Marines of the United States' or some other format that one would never see in real life. But we need to be very stringent and self-conscious about this. It's a slippery slope to go from US Marine Corps to US Senate and US Presidents to US government... "Presidents of the United States", "Government of the United States" and the like should follow the more general global format of "... of Fooland". LordAmeth 11:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Can't imagine there are that many cases where a "common usage" comes into play so there would still be a need to standardize. Flowerparty talk 13:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Although I would use US Marine Corps in speech, I would almost always write United States Marine Corps, as I think abbreviations are generally clumsy and unencyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp 19:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  17. Common usage is not sufficiently consistant or standardized, in many cases more than one usage is common, and determining which is more or most common cannot be reliably and objectively done. DES (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support I don't value uniformity very much and I don't think trying to achieve it is a very worthwhile project in this sort of environment. Osomec 02:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support, but only if there are standards like as proposed above by Rick Block. Otherwise Oppose. We are trying to make the decisions traditionally made by editors. This proposal, without stardards, in effect ducks the question. -- Samuel Wantman 08:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose: Common usage is not as important in Categories as is consistency. (SEWilco 17:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  21. Support, provided that common usage is defined across groups of categories. Consistency is important in categories. Actually, this is almost a non-proposal, since it is already the standard policy. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support as per LordAmeth the wub "?/!" 12:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Existing Policy

Latest comment: 19 years ago30 comments11 people in discussion

This proposal suggests adopting two existing guidlines, and settling one remaining issue.

Proposal 4a

This proposal favours using Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), which is an existing guidline to the effect that people should be categorised by nationality, whilst items of countries should be categorised of country.

One real or perceived flaw with this proposal is that standardisation should not preclude comon usage or flexibility.

One real or perceived benefit is that it is an existing guidline with established consensus.

Vote

  1. Support Hiding talk 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strongly oppose. The discussion consisted of 7 votes being cast and a pop-quiz. It refers to other debates that between them total about 4 paragraphs. We've done much better than that here. -Splash 23:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This policy looks like it is about to be superseded. I don't like "of" where it can be avoided. Osomec 02:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. It's a good policy, although I wish it had been discussed and voted on more thoroughly. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, though "Great Britain" should be "United Kingdom". The note about semantic disambiguation is important. For example, we currently have Category:French poets (Poets of/from France) and Category:French-language poets, and the first is an abomination. -- Beland 02:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, there is no indication that that naming convention is in fact consensual. We should not make present discussions solely on status quo, as that may include past mistakes. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  7. No vote, although the "pop-quiz" on that page's talk page is an excellent demonstration of the problems with adjectival naming. the wub "?/!" 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 4b

This proposal favours using Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) , which is an existing guidline to the effect that U.S. with periods but UK without periods should be used when abbreviating the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.

One real or perceived flaw with this proposal is that standardisation of abbreviation is not achieved.

One real or perceived benefit is that it is an existing guidline with established consensus.

Vote

  1. Support Hiding talk 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strongly oppose. The discussion consisted of 7 votes being cast and a pop-quiz. It refers to other debates that between them total about 4 paragraphs. We've done much better than that here. I do not see a reason for importing an inconsistent 'decision'. -Splash 23:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose, the document mentioned appears to have no status tag on it at all, and we should not import it here. Moreover, this version of settling the question is more restrictive than Proposal 2 above which serves the same end. -Splash 23:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, this is not consistent. Radiant_>|< 08:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose because not detailed enough, we could use more rigid guideline. Renata3 17:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Suppport We much not legislate for either US or British usage across the board. But I don't think we should have these abbreviations except where they are part of a proper name anyway. Osomec 02:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support This is acase where the common usage is fairly clear, and a good idea, IMO. DES (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose: Not consistent, and I prefer USA to US. (SEWilco 17:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  8. Oppose, not consistent. --Kbdank71 18:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. But the policy here is really rather vague. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support, but U.S./U.K. is fine, too. But not US, which would thwart search engines. -- Beland 02:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms), let's discuss problems with the current contents on that page's talk page. the wub "?/!" 12:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support not consistent but nonetheless sensible. Dejvid 18:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 4c

This proposal is to seek a preference on the term used to define nationality for the United States of America in the event of proposals 4a and 4b being accepted. The choice then becomes one of American versus U.S.

American is thought to be common usage, however, it is also thought by some to cause confusion between the continent and the country.

U.S. is thought to reduce confusion, however, it is also thought not to be the most commonly used phrase.

Vote

  1. This proposal is redundant with proposal two. Radiant_>|< 08:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC) As stated before, "American" should never refer to just the United States. Just because many Wikipedians are from the USA doesn't make that term any less factually wrong. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Radiant, could you just clarify why you believe it is wrong, when it is the term the USA uses, and is common usage. Do you mean confusing rather than wrong? I don't think anyone is proposing we use it because the majority of wikipedians are American, but because it is the term used to describe the nationality of a citizen of the USA. Also, are you intending to vote twice? Hiding talk 12:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No intention to vote twice; my earlier comment wasn't a vote. Anyway, this issue has been discussed lengthily on the talk page. I do believe the correct term to be "U.S. citizen" rather than American (even if the latter is the common colloquialism). This may, however, boil down to the difference between people and things. "American mountains", e.g., should refer to any of those on the continent (I hope most people agree on that one). "American artists", well, I don't like it for the above reasons, and would prefer "U.S. artists" or "Artists of the United States". Radiant_>|< 12:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I only asked since both comments had numbers, which gave the appearance of two votes. The U.S. government itself uses American in its legislation, [5] [6] [7] [8], so it is not a common colloquialism, but I agree that its use should be kept to people related categories.Hiding talk 07:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. American This is clearly a special case. Objections to use of "American" fly in the face of normal English usage. We shouldn't defer to any one who unreasonably chooses to be offended. Osomec 02:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. This is mostly redundant with #2, but I will repeat -- in no case should "American" be used with the meaning "of or related to the United States". United States Foo or Foo of the United States would be my prefered forms. U.S. Foo would be my secondary preference. DES (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. American: Common usage. However "... of United States" OK in Categories. (SEWilco 17:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  5. Same answer as proposal 2. --Kbdank71 18:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Either "American X" or "X of the United States" (the latter is fine as long as other nations are treated the same way). United States isn't an adjective. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. American or of the United States. In addition to the Latin Americans who feel excluded by this usage, there are Americans who are offended by not saying "American". Since it is impossible to remain neutral, I think the rule that the most common usage should prevail, so "American" it is. I hope we don't have to use adjectives. -- Beland 02:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. American. This term is the dominant common usage to refer to people from the United States. Even more so, this meaning is the most common usage of the term American. We can argue about what's "factually correct" -- and there's plenty of other places to discuss it, e.g. perhaps Democratic People's Republic of Korea should redirect to South Korea and not the North -- but Wikipedia isn't the place to campaign for changing the English language. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:44, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

No Preference

  1. Hiding talk 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. This is redundant with the discussion we've had here, and the other polls up top that seek to settle this in a broader manner than just for one country. -Splash 23:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Standardization of names

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

For "of Foo" by-country categories (if adopted) the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of of the article about that country, with a lowercase "the" if needed for grammatical purposes. Non-sovereign, disputed, supranational, and historical countries and geographic equivalents may be included if the articles to be categorized require it. For reference, see List of sovereign states, List of dependent territories, and the following list.

(Note: Links to articles are shown only for reference; links obviously cannot appear in the actual title of a category.)

Supranational:

Historical:

Straw-poll votes

  • Support. This is what got passed last time this issue came up. This is mostly intended as an aid to determining is specific categories need to be renamed, and if so, to what, exactly. -- Beland 03:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment First up, how does this relate to using British, as in British politicians, for example? And also, why is of Northern Ireland listed?, Why isn't of Great Britain listed in the historical section? How about of England and Wales, and of England? Does of England refer only to the historical state of 800s-1200s , or to the state from 800s to now? And the same question for Scotland, and Wales. Also, if of Russia refers to the modern day country, how do we refer to the historical country of Russia? And so on and so forth. Hiding talk 21:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The list is far from complete, both Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England should no doubth have theyr seperate categories when apropriate, as subcategories under United Kindgon/British or whatever. Good question about pre-revolution Russia though. Guess "Tsardom of Russia" or some such could be used if there is an explicit need to distinguish it from the modern Russian federation. --Sherool 02:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wish we'd known about this. Yes, sounds very reasonable. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though this poll is starting to make my brain hurt :( the wub "?/!" 13:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unnecessary complexity and a policy of policies' sake; articles the names of which are unclear should be changed on a case-by-case basis. 80.255 01:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments and improvements

Proposal 6: Dual-list overlaps

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

When historical and political complexities (such as mergers and splits) create articles that belong to two countries, do not create a "Foo of X and Y". Instead, list articles in both "Foo of X" and "Foo of Y". For example, "Foo of Russia" and "Foo of the Soviet Union", not "Foo of Russia and the Soviet Union".

Straw-poll votes

Comments, improvements, alternatives

Least preferred

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments10 people in discussion

Please list your least preferred options here. Some people believe this can help lead to consensus. Others do not.

  1. "of the United States of America" and "of the United States" -- Maurreen (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. (the) United States of America, and (the) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and (the) U.S.A., and (the) U.K. Renata3 17:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. United States for people categories. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - but no-one is seriously advocating that are they? Osomec 02:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. In no case should "American" be used with the meaning "of or related to the United States". DES (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Worst option would be "United States foo specialists" or "United Kingdom foo specialists". "American foo specialists" or "British foo specialists" while not as preferable as "Foo specialists of the United States" etc. is still better than treating "United States" and "United Kingdom" as adjectives. siafu 17:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. American, British, or any adjective form of a country. --Kbdank71 18:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. "United States" or "U.S." (or "US", for that matter) used as an adjective. "USA", period. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Avoidable adjectives. -- Beland 02:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. "America" or "American" when referring to the United States, per WP:CSB. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Adjectival forms (especially obscure ones such as Gilbertese or I-Kiribati for Kiribati), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, this discussion getting any more complicated :) the wub "?/!" 13:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. "of (country)" for any people categories. This is not natural usage. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:40, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
  12. Adjectival forms. Too much need for exceptions for so-called "difficult" cases. -Splash 16:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This poll should not be considered binding

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  1. The threshold for consensus isn't even mentioned. Specifying it after the fact would be bad.
  2. The issue of speedy renaming is unclear at best.
  3. I'm not sure this poll represent the range of opinions and options. Maurreen (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As per the intro above: This is a straw poll to find preferences. It is not an official policy proposal. I don't think there's any worry just yet. --Kbdank71 18:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Also, the issue of 'speedy renaming' has been part of CFD policy for several months now, please read up on it. Radiant_>|< 08:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a dictatorship either. Maurreen (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly. That's why this poll is an attempt to find consensus. In response to #3, note that the issue has been discussed for two weeks. That's quite long in WikiTime. Radiant_>|< 08:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss on the talk page.


Wikipedia has a large number of areas where the topics are categorized either by country or by nationality- e.g. Italian Composers, Philosophers of India, and Economy in Australia. These frequently appear on WP:CFD with a request to rename them for consistency. This is a centralized discussion about which naming standard (if any) we should adopt.

This applies to professions, (e.g. Zimbabwean Soccer Players) objects, (e.g. American comic books) and concepts, (e.g. Government of Belgium) and other categories when categorised by nation or nationality - arguably the same standard should apply to all.

Because this issue appears daily on CFD, the intent of this page is to hold one centralized discussion rather than dozens of fragmented ones. If a consensus emerges here, the intent is to allow for speedy renaming of categories according to this scheme (per CFD policy), thus obviating the need for bureaucracy.

This straw poll is now closed.

A summary has been presented on the talk page.

However, please feel free to make any points you have on the talk page, as discussion continues and other suggestions are welcome. If necessary, a runoff vote might be held among the most popular options.

Proposal one

Latest comment: 19 years ago32 comments28 people in discussion

If any subject is categorized by country or nation, there are at least two options for the title. The first is "<object> of <nation>", e.g. "Category:Philosophers of Greece" and "Category:Rivers of Canada"; the second is "<nationality> <object>", e.g. "Category:Greek philosophers" and "Category:Canadian rivers". Some people assert the latter is more natural; some people assert the former is easier since the proper adjective for some nations isn't well-known.

An exception must be made for battles. For example, there could be both "Battles in France" (e.g. those taking place in the country of France, regardless of who fought in them) and "Battles of France" (e.g. those in which France was one of the participants, regardless of where they took place).

Philosophers of Greece, Rivers of Canada, etc

  1. Radiant_>|< 09:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC) (note that "American football" is the proper name of a sport, thus we could have categories such as "American Football in <country>", just like "Soccer in <country>")
  2. This one clearly means the person is from the country. The other could be people who speak the language (e.g. French Films). I prefer this one, unless the category is dealing with language instead of nationality. I also recommend soft redirects. -- Samuel Wantman 09:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. I prefeer this form, least likely to cause confution IMHO. --Sherool 10:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Hmm... Rivers of the Dominican Republic and Rivers of Dominica, or Dominican Rivers and Dominican Rivers? Towns in Monaco, Kiribati, Shropshire, or Monegasque, Gilbertese, Salopian towns? Easy choice. Grutness...wha? 12:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Simpler uniformity. Circeus 12:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Noun usage easier. No confusion as to what the category would be. Aside from the obvious exceptions like battles..., American football, and American revolution. --Kbdank71 13:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Easier to work out the name of the category, and no need to make exceptions for "difficult" adjectival forms. -Splash 15:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support --Celestianpower talk 20:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. This is an already established guideline (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) for categories and articles. It's good. There's been lots of discussion already at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). -R. S. Shaw
  10. Support - two nouns instead of one adjective and one noun creates less confusion. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support for the sake of clarity and consistency with most article titles. -- Visviva 13:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Ornil 05:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support, in all cases in which it makes sense to say <objects> of <country>. Only if it can't be phrased in this manner clearly, then it should be labeled in whatever way it is most natural / that the majority agrees upon.
  14. Support There are plenty of place-adjectives that don't make much sense (Mancunian?); this will avoid possible confusion. siafu 15:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support: Fewer exceptions needed for this phrasing. (SEWilco 17:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  16. Support. I would prefer some fiddling with the details, but I would be happy with this as a general rule in order to stop the endless debating. It's simply and easy to apply across the board. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. We argue too much over adjectives (are people from South America "Americans?" Should it be USAian? United States Foo?), make too many mistakes (Pakistani but not Afghan; Argentine, not Argentinean), get confused (Nigerians are from Niger or Nigeria? "Irish" language, ethnicity, one or another country, or an island? Indians from India?), use unnatural formations (Northern Irish lakes, UAE sport, Trinidad_and_Tobago...Tobagan? Quebeq...ack). All Canadians are "from" or "of" Canada. -- Beland 02:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. no confusion. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 02:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. James F. (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Practicaly everything can follow this format. Trevor macinnis 04:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Just imagine confusion with adjective "Dominican" refering to countries of Dominica and Dominican Republic and with adjective "Congolese" refering to countries of The Republic of the Congo and The Democratic Republic of the Congo. -- Darwinek 14:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Greek philosophers, Canadian rivers, etc

  1. Hidingtalk 09:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Comment American football. American revolution. foo of nationality holding categories. American English. change vote to depends on situation. Reinstate: can we vote for two different suggestions? I'm making a pigs ear of this aren't I? Hiding talk 17:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. dab (ᛏ) 09:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. This is the standard usage in English. For non-people categories, I don't especially care. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:21, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  4. Maurreen (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support: Wikipedia searching tools allow finding things which begin with "Greek". (SEWilco 17:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  6. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Depends on the situation

  1. Of Canada when it is something clearly confined to the borders of Canada, e.g. Category:Buildings and structures of Canada. Canadian when it applies to vaguer items that includes content related to things Canadian, even outside of Canada, e.g. Category:Canadian literature. For instance Jim Carrey is a Canadian actor in that he is an actor with a Canadian citizenship, but he is quite clearly not an actor of Canada in that he does, and has never done, any of his acting in Canada. - SimonP 13:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I think the distinction might be physical features (rivers of, buildings of, mountains of) vs. more abstract concepts like citizenship (pertaining to people related categories). Note that the preposition isn't universally "of" (e.g. the "Cities in" subcats of Category:Cities by country). This is not to say we shouldn't write a rule that can be enforced, but that the rule will be more complex than "things of x" or "xian things". -- Rick Block (talk) 13:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I think this is a better solution. I believe where possible people should be categorised by nationality, whereas geography and history and the like is more sensical as of or in foo. Hiding talk 16:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Maurreen (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kaldari 18:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Can't argue with the Jim Carrey example, so it's got to depend on the situation. I'd say where possible use "things of x" rather than "xish things", though. --JimmyTheWig 15:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Agree with Rick Block. Separate people from objects. Renata3 17:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Rivers of Canada clearly makes sense, but Philosophers of Greece should not replace Greek Philosophers, since not all Greek philosophers were from Greece, as the later followers, who should rightly be called Greek philosophers, hailed from increasingly disparate places such as Africa and Rome. There should not be a rule on something that so clearly varies from topic to topic. James 20:06, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  9. I agree strongly with the first option (... of Fooland), with the only exceptions being that consideration need to be given to historical periods and historical nations. "Greek philosophers" is probably the most common term used to refer to philosophers from the period of Ancient Greece, and incorporates everyone, regardless of their citizenship in Athens, Crete, or Sparta. However, in this case I'd support a move to 'Ancient Greek philosophers' or maybe 'Philosophers of Ancient Greece', so as to not include modern Greek philosophers in the category. As for Battles, I stand by my assertion that these should follow the "Battles of Fooland" model. "Battles in.." is all but useless to my mind, and the "Battles of..." model allows us to make key separations like "Battles of the Holy Roman Empire", "Battles of Nazi Germany", and "Battles of the United Provinces of the Netherlands" instead of just "German battles" and "Dutch battles". Sub-categorization not by where the battle took place, but by the historical country or government (not nationality or modern-day country) that fought it. LordAmeth 11:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Generally agree with SimonP. However, I think there is also an argument for using "in" in some circumstances, particularly if things operate within a country but are not "of" it. For example, Law enforcement in Canada, since such is not wholly the responsibility of Canada itself, but of varying agencies and entities within it. -- Necrothesp 19:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Both sound wrong in some instances, and should be avoided where they do so. The adjective form is much more natural for people and makes lists of subcategories easier to read. Osomec 02:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Obviously, should be Greek philosophers and Rivers in Canada. Neutralitytalk 19:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Why were people and inanimate features/landmarks combined under one proposal? These are entirely separate issues because there are different usages and connotations. Fooian people and Rivers of/in Foo. A person has a nationality as a characteristic, hence an adjective; a river only has a location.
  14. Yes, it depends on the situation. But there should be one standard within one subject area. (For example, all rivers should be covered by one standard. We shouldn't have both Rivers of the United States and French rivers.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. I definitely think we should use Rivers of Fooland. Not so sure about people, I would prefer of Fooland as not requiring confusing adjective forms (see Wikipedia_talk:Category_titles#Arcane_adjectives_of_nationality), but there will obviously be exceptions. the wub "?/!" 11:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. By the way I have no objection against using "in" rather than "of" in some cases. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  17. People working on an article will know what's best.Dejvid 17:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. I see no need to set in stone any policy on this issue. 'Greek philosophers' and 'Philosophers of Greece' mean different things. Once again, over-zealous 'policyism' is trying to force a round peg through a square hole. 80.255 00:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't care

Proposal two

Latest comment: 19 years ago27 comments27 people in discussion

In the names of categories and articles, the United States of America should be referred to in a consistent way. The same applies to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and possibly other countries which have commonly abbreviated names. There are too many options here to make a majority vote practical. Instead, please sign your name and list two or three options that you find acceptable. Please do not specify which options you hate most, that isn't helpful.

Suggested options include,

  • (the) United States of America, and (the) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • (the) United States, and (the) United Kingdom
  • (the) United States, and Great Britain
  • (the) USA, and (the) UK
  • (the) U.S.A., and (the) U.K.
  • (the) US, and (the) UK
  • (the) U.S., and (the) U.K.
  • America and the United Kingdom (or American and British)


Depending on the outcome of the first vote, this may turn into "Economy of the USA" or "USA economy", etc.

This list is not exhaustive, but it may be preferable for the naming to be similar - e.g. using "U.S.A." with the dots and "UK" without the dots is not particularly consistent.

Vote here

  1. USA / UK. Radiant_>|< 09:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC) (and have no problem with "United States" / "United Kingdom"). Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. [[of] the] {USA|UK} dab (ᛏ) 09:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. British/American or (of the) UK/(of the) USA. My least preferred with regards the UK are United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Great Britain, the latter I feel really shouldn't be listed at all. I too have no great problem with U.S. and UK co-existing. I think United States is my least preferred for the USA. Hiding talk 09:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. United States /United Kingdom or USA / UK --Sherool 10:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. United States/United Kingdom Grutness...wha? 12:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. United States/United Kingdom first choice, (of the)US/UK second choice. --Kbdank71 13:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. United States/United Kigdom and 2nd choise is US/UK. Renata3 14:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. United States/United Kingdom as nouns, American/British as adjectives (consistent with WP:CG#General_naming_conventions: Avoid abbreviations). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  9. United States/United Kingdom, 2nd choice U.S./UK Christopher Parham (talk) 14:21, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  10. United States/United Kingdom, second choice of US/UK. Though I sort of like USA. -Splash 15:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Depends. Prefer being consie and natural, such as with "American foo" or "U.S. foo". If it's going to be "Foo of", prefer "Foo of the USA". " Least preferred are "United States of America" and "United States". Maurreen (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC) I also think it's OK to vary the periods between "U.S." and "UK". Maurreen (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. United States/United Kigdom and 2nd choise is US/UK. Kaldari 18:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. 1. USA / UK .:. 2. US / UK --Celestianpower talk 20:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  14. United States/United Kingdom and American/British, per Rick Block--BaronLarf 23:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  15. United States/United Kingdom as nouns, American/British for adjectives. We can't use United Kingdom for people categories. JW 11:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. US/UK as nouns. U.S./U.K. second choice. American/British as adjectives. --JimmyTheWig 15:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  17. "...of the United States" and "...of the United Kingdom" or, secondarily, ".. of the USA" and ".. of the UK". Whichever model we choose, my vote is for consistency. LordAmeth 11:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. (the) United Kingdom/(the) United States, with British/American used adjectivally. Abbreviations on their own look clumsy and unencyclopaedic, in my opinion, (in any context, not just in category and article titles) and there's absolutely no need to expand the names any further to the official titles. -- Necrothesp 19:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  19. United States/United Kingdom, with British/American for people. Osomec 02:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  20. Firest preference: United States. Second preference: U.S.. "American" should not be used where the meaning is "relating to the United States". DES (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  21. American/British should be used as the adjectival form of nationality (e.g., American music, British lawyers), with U.S./UK as the backup. United States/United Kingdom should be used simply to refer to the country (e.g., Rivers of the United States, Churches in the United Kingdom) and should not be used as an adjective. "U.S.A." should not be used at all unless one is chanting it at a tailgating party or while listening to that godawful Lee Greenwood song. Postdlf 05:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  22. United States/United Kingdom, though neither should be used as an adjective. siafu 15:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  23. United States/United Kingdom first choice, (of the)US/UK second choice. (SEWilco 17:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  24. United States/United Kingdom as the noun form only and American/British as the adjective. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  25. United States/United Kingdom. U.S. and UK when abbreviated (if absolutely necessary). I dislike adjectives, but if we have to, "American" and "British". U.S. over US, USA, etc. It's easier for search engines to find U.S., and USA is just kinda cheesy. -- Beland 02:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  26. (the) U.S., and (the) U.K.. is the most concise while keeping to punctuation laws. And the term "USA" has been ruined by the patriotic jargon it is often times used in. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 02:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Agree with Beland. the wub "?/!" 12:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  28. United States and United Kingdom, where the full name of the country is important, U.S. and U.K. where an abbreviation is appropriate. --AlexWCovington (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  29. American and British but really it should depend. I don't buy this need for consistency. Dejvid 17:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  30. United States/United Kingdom as nouns, American/British as adjectives per Rick Block. This is about category names and being formal is not a problem, Vegaswikian 18:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  31. Strongly oppose any abbreviation that lack full stops (e.g. USA, UK). Support "United States" and "Great Britain" , and "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" where applicable. Strongly oppose adjectival use of "U.S." and "U.K.". 80.255 01:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  32. United States/United Kingdom for nouns, American/British for adjectives Trevor macinnis 05:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't care

Proposal 3: Common usage

Latest comment: 19 years ago17 comments17 people in discussion

This proposal would favor common usage.

This would make for less standardization among categories, but possibly more between categories and articles.

One real or perceived flaw with this proposal is that the "common usage" is not always easily defined.

One real or perceived benefit is that it would be in line with current WP standards for article naming.

Vote

  1. I think I like this best of all the proposals so far. Maurreen (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support Kaldari 18:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support the strongest. This is by far my favourite position. Hiding talk 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I think who defines common usage is going to be a huge problem, and it sidesteps the standardization problem we were trying to solve in the first place. --Kbdank71 19:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Splash 19:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, but not in a case-by-case sense. I would prefer there to be some small number of general rules (probably more than one) that in most cases match common usage. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Where a clear common usage exists, it should always be used. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:45, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  8. Support. Common usage should always be more important than consistency. - SimonP 22:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. The alternative would lead to some odd category titles. --BaronLarf 00:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, this is a non-proposal as it basically forces us to reiterate all arguments over each individual instance, the way we do now. Radiant_>|< 08:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support - although I agree with Kdbank71 and Radiant that it will still leave a lot to be argued over. JW 11:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support - I am always in favor for common usage and standards, however not sure if it's possible. Renata3 17:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - Common usage is well and good in article texts where any possible confutions about the meaning of a term can be cleared up and things put in the right context. However for category titles I would prefeer a common standard with maximum accuracy wich common usage would not always provide. --Sherool 18:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support - But only in those situations where the 'common' usage is widely agreed upon and official, not just a colloquialism. I support 'U.S. Marines Corps' over 'Marines of the United States' or some other format that one would never see in real life. But we need to be very stringent and self-conscious about this. It's a slippery slope to go from US Marine Corps to US Senate and US Presidents to US government... "Presidents of the United States", "Government of the United States" and the like should follow the more general global format of "... of Fooland". LordAmeth 11:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Can't imagine there are that many cases where a "common usage" comes into play so there would still be a need to standardize. Flowerparty talk 13:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Although I would use US Marine Corps in speech, I would almost always write United States Marine Corps, as I think abbreviations are generally clumsy and unencyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp 19:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  17. Common usage is not sufficiently consistant or standardized, in many cases more than one usage is common, and determining which is more or most common cannot be reliably and objectively done. DES (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support I don't value uniformity very much and I don't think trying to achieve it is a very worthwhile project in this sort of environment. Osomec 02:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support, but only if there are standards like as proposed above by Rick Block. Otherwise Oppose. We are trying to make the decisions traditionally made by editors. This proposal, without stardards, in effect ducks the question. -- Samuel Wantman 08:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose: Common usage is not as important in Categories as is consistency. (SEWilco 17:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  21. Support, provided that common usage is defined across groups of categories. Consistency is important in categories. Actually, this is almost a non-proposal, since it is already the standard policy. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support as per LordAmeth the wub "?/!" 12:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Existing Policy

Latest comment: 19 years ago30 comments11 people in discussion

This proposal suggests adopting two existing guidlines, and settling one remaining issue.

Proposal 4a

This proposal favours using Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), which is an existing guidline to the effect that people should be categorised by nationality, whilst items of countries should be categorised of country.

One real or perceived flaw with this proposal is that standardisation should not preclude comon usage or flexibility.

One real or perceived benefit is that it is an existing guidline with established consensus.

Vote

  1. Support Hiding talk 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strongly oppose. The discussion consisted of 7 votes being cast and a pop-quiz. It refers to other debates that between them total about 4 paragraphs. We've done much better than that here. -Splash 23:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This policy looks like it is about to be superseded. I don't like "of" where it can be avoided. Osomec 02:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. It's a good policy, although I wish it had been discussed and voted on more thoroughly. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, though "Great Britain" should be "United Kingdom". The note about semantic disambiguation is important. For example, we currently have Category:French poets (Poets of/from France) and Category:French-language poets, and the first is an abomination. -- Beland 02:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, there is no indication that that naming convention is in fact consensual. We should not make present discussions solely on status quo, as that may include past mistakes. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  7. No vote, although the "pop-quiz" on that page's talk page is an excellent demonstration of the problems with adjectival naming. the wub "?/!" 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 4b

This proposal favours using Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) , which is an existing guidline to the effect that U.S. with periods but UK without periods should be used when abbreviating the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.

One real or perceived flaw with this proposal is that standardisation of abbreviation is not achieved.

One real or perceived benefit is that it is an existing guidline with established consensus.

Vote

  1. Support Hiding talk 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strongly oppose. The discussion consisted of 7 votes being cast and a pop-quiz. It refers to other debates that between them total about 4 paragraphs. We've done much better than that here. I do not see a reason for importing an inconsistent 'decision'. -Splash 23:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose, the document mentioned appears to have no status tag on it at all, and we should not import it here. Moreover, this version of settling the question is more restrictive than Proposal 2 above which serves the same end. -Splash 23:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, this is not consistent. Radiant_>|< 08:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose because not detailed enough, we could use more rigid guideline. Renata3 17:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Suppport We much not legislate for either US or British usage across the board. But I don't think we should have these abbreviations except where they are part of a proper name anyway. Osomec 02:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support This is acase where the common usage is fairly clear, and a good idea, IMO. DES (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose: Not consistent, and I prefer USA to US. (SEWilco 17:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  8. Oppose, not consistent. --Kbdank71 18:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. But the policy here is really rather vague. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support, but U.S./U.K. is fine, too. But not US, which would thwart search engines. -- Beland 02:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms), let's discuss problems with the current contents on that page's talk page. the wub "?/!" 12:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support not consistent but nonetheless sensible. Dejvid 18:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 4c

This proposal is to seek a preference on the term used to define nationality for the United States of America in the event of proposals 4a and 4b being accepted. The choice then becomes one of American versus U.S.

American is thought to be common usage, however, it is also thought by some to cause confusion between the continent and the country.

U.S. is thought to reduce confusion, however, it is also thought not to be the most commonly used phrase.

Vote

  1. This proposal is redundant with proposal two. Radiant_>|< 08:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC) As stated before, "American" should never refer to just the United States. Just because many Wikipedians are from the USA doesn't make that term any less factually wrong. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Radiant, could you just clarify why you believe it is wrong, when it is the term the USA uses, and is common usage. Do you mean confusing rather than wrong? I don't think anyone is proposing we use it because the majority of wikipedians are American, but because it is the term used to describe the nationality of a citizen of the USA. Also, are you intending to vote twice? Hiding talk 12:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No intention to vote twice; my earlier comment wasn't a vote. Anyway, this issue has been discussed lengthily on the talk page. I do believe the correct term to be "U.S. citizen" rather than American (even if the latter is the common colloquialism). This may, however, boil down to the difference between people and things. "American mountains", e.g., should refer to any of those on the continent (I hope most people agree on that one). "American artists", well, I don't like it for the above reasons, and would prefer "U.S. artists" or "Artists of the United States". Radiant_>|< 12:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I only asked since both comments had numbers, which gave the appearance of two votes. The U.S. government itself uses American in its legislation, [9] [10] [11] [12], so it is not a common colloquialism, but I agree that its use should be kept to people related categories.Hiding talk 07:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. American This is clearly a special case. Objections to use of "American" fly in the face of normal English usage. We shouldn't defer to any one who unreasonably chooses to be offended. Osomec 02:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. This is mostly redundant with #2, but I will repeat -- in no case should "American" be used with the meaning "of or related to the United States". United States Foo or Foo of the United States would be my prefered forms. U.S. Foo would be my secondary preference. DES (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. American: Common usage. However "... of United States" OK in Categories. (SEWilco 17:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
  5. Same answer as proposal 2. --Kbdank71 18:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Either "American X" or "X of the United States" (the latter is fine as long as other nations are treated the same way). United States isn't an adjective. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. American or of the United States. In addition to the Latin Americans who feel excluded by this usage, there are Americans who are offended by not saying "American". Since it is impossible to remain neutral, I think the rule that the most common usage should prevail, so "American" it is. I hope we don't have to use adjectives. -- Beland 02:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. American. This term is the dominant common usage to refer to people from the United States. Even more so, this meaning is the most common usage of the term American. We can argue about what's "factually correct" -- and there's plenty of other places to discuss it, e.g. perhaps Democratic People's Republic of Korea should redirect to South Korea and not the North -- but Wikipedia isn't the place to campaign for changing the English language. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:44, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

No Preference

  1. Hiding talk 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. This is redundant with the discussion we've had here, and the other polls up top that seek to settle this in a broader manner than just for one country. -Splash 23:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Standardization of names

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

For "of Foo" by-country categories (if adopted) the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of of the article about that country, with a lowercase "the" if needed for grammatical purposes. Non-sovereign, disputed, supranational, and historical countries and geographic equivalents may be included if the articles to be categorized require it. For reference, see List of sovereign states, List of dependent territories, and the following list.

(Note: Links to articles are shown only for reference; links obviously cannot appear in the actual title of a category.)

Supranational:

Historical:

Straw-poll votes

  • Support. This is what got passed last time this issue came up. This is mostly intended as an aid to determining is specific categories need to be renamed, and if so, to what, exactly. -- Beland 03:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment First up, how does this relate to using British, as in British politicians, for example? And also, why is of Northern Ireland listed?, Why isn't of Great Britain listed in the historical section? How about of England and Wales, and of England? Does of England refer only to the historical state of 800s-1200s , or to the state from 800s to now? And the same question for Scotland, and Wales. Also, if of Russia refers to the modern day country, how do we refer to the historical country of Russia? And so on and so forth. Hiding talk 21:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The list is far from complete, both Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England should no doubth have theyr seperate categories when apropriate, as subcategories under United Kindgon/British or whatever. Good question about pre-revolution Russia though. Guess "Tsardom of Russia" or some such could be used if there is an explicit need to distinguish it from the modern Russian federation. --Sherool 02:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wish we'd known about this. Yes, sounds very reasonable. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though this poll is starting to make my brain hurt :( the wub "?/!" 13:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unnecessary complexity and a policy of policies' sake; articles the names of which are unclear should be changed on a case-by-case basis. 80.255 01:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments and improvements

Proposal 6: Dual-list overlaps

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

When historical and political complexities (such as mergers and splits) create articles that belong to two countries, do not create a "Foo of X and Y". Instead, list articles in both "Foo of X" and "Foo of Y". For example, "Foo of Russia" and "Foo of the Soviet Union", not "Foo of Russia and the Soviet Union".

Straw-poll votes

Comments, improvements, alternatives

Least preferred

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments10 people in discussion

Please list your least preferred options here. Some people believe this can help lead to consensus. Others do not.

  1. "of the United States of America" and "of the United States" -- Maurreen (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. (the) United States of America, and (the) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and (the) U.S.A., and (the) U.K. Renata3 17:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. United States for people categories. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - but no-one is seriously advocating that are they? Osomec 02:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. In no case should "American" be used with the meaning "of or related to the United States". DES (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Worst option would be "United States foo specialists" or "United Kingdom foo specialists". "American foo specialists" or "British foo specialists" while not as preferable as "Foo specialists of the United States" etc. is still better than treating "United States" and "United Kingdom" as adjectives. siafu 17:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. American, British, or any adjective form of a country. --Kbdank71 18:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. "United States" or "U.S." (or "US", for that matter) used as an adjective. "USA", period. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Avoidable adjectives. -- Beland 02:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. "America" or "American" when referring to the United States, per WP:CSB. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Adjectival forms (especially obscure ones such as Gilbertese or I-Kiribati for Kiribati), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, this discussion getting any more complicated :) the wub "?/!" 13:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. "of (country)" for any people categories. This is not natural usage. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:40, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
  12. Adjectival forms. Too much need for exceptions for so-called "difficult" cases. -Splash 16:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This poll should not be considered binding

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  1. The threshold for consensus isn't even mentioned. Specifying it after the fact would be bad.
  2. The issue of speedy renaming is unclear at best.
  3. I'm not sure this poll represent the range of opinions and options. Maurreen (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As per the intro above: This is a straw poll to find preferences. It is not an official policy proposal. I don't think there's any worry just yet. --Kbdank71 18:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Also, the issue of 'speedy renaming' has been part of CFD policy for several months now, please read up on it. Radiant_>|< 08:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a dictatorship either. Maurreen (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly. That's why this poll is an attempt to find consensus. In response to #3, note that the issue has been discussed for two weeks. That's quite long in WikiTime. Radiant_>|< 08:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss on the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Category_names/Archive:_Poll_started_August_4,_2005&oldid=1116281731"