Wikipedia talk:Category names/Archive: Summary of poll started August 4, 2005

Summary

I've closed the poll as per the deadline, but I've never done a summary before so forgive me if this is wrong. I'll give my reading of the poll and offer it for discussion.

Proposal 1:

I'd say one person might actually be voting for depending on the case, given the support for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), which has caveats. The nationality in all cases is dead in the water, which leaves what is pretty much a tie between depending on case and all by country.

Proposal 2:

I'd say United States/United Kingdom came out on top there, I count 22 out of 30 votes, 73%. However, 14 people explicitly mention American/British for adjectival usage, and I'd argue the poll was worded badly to discover an adjectival form, if one was desired.

Proposal 3: 63% support.

Proposal 4a: 50-50

Proposal 4b: 58% support.

Proposal 4c: 62% support.

Proposal 5: 3 votes all support.

Proposal 6: 6 votes expressing distaste for adjectives, which may well counter the 14 promoting them on proposal 2.

I guess my summary would be that this proposal is finely split, and if we desire a standard, both sides have to move. What are the other thoughts. I propose a period of further discussion of ten days before another poll is proposed, unless consensus is reached in the mean time. Hiding talk 19:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of summary

The compromise that the result suggests to me seems to be using nationality for people and people related categories, (artists, etc.), and "of country" or "in country" depending on context for all else. That means finding an agreed upon standard of nationality for every country, so we could add nationalitys from the CIA factbook to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:By nationality, and adopt Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:By country for country decisions. An alternative to using the CIA factbook is to contact each countries embassy and ask them their preferred term for nationality in the English language. Hiding talk 19:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll write a proper response soon, but note that Proposals 5 and 6 have only been up for a day or two. -Splash 22:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have studiously tried to remain neutral in my more detailed summary below, but I do not agree that there is a clear case for using nationality for people-related things. This leaves us more-or-less where we started I fear. Although of the "depends" voters, more prefer nationality, there are significantly more voters outright supporting the "...of Foo" format and several "depends" that express no preference either way.-Splash 01:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

In my view, the overall result is that there is no overall consensus. I'm not sure another poll in the near future is the best move. But if one is held, I think more discussion about poll particulars should be held first. Maurreen (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Summary (detailed)

A more detailed summary of each proposal's voting. Whilst I have a clear enough view on these things, I have tried to simply present the facts. The conclusions drawn are necessarily interpretation, but I think I have been reasonable and I have certainly not wilfully misinterpreted.

Proposal 1

• With no votes for "don't care", we know we are at least discussing a useful question!
• Viewed as a ternary question, Proposal 1 is split fairly evenly between "...of Foo" and "depends". The percentages are hard to calculate as there are 3 double-votes (3, 4, 16) which are perfectly reasonable. As an "always" proposal, "Fooian ..." is significantly outnumbered.
• Viewed as a binary proposal between "...of Foo" and "Fooian ...", some interpretation of the votes is needed. I would assign as follows:
  • To ...of Foo: 6, 9, 15.
  • To Fooian...: 1, 8(partially), 10, 11, 12, 13.
  • To neither: 2, 5, 7, 14, 17.
  • No need to assign: 3, 4, 16.

This gives:

• ...of Foo 22 votes (65%); and
• Fooian... 12 votes (35%).

For a guideline/policy that is short of a consensus. However, it is important to note that, of the 17 who "depend", more prefer "Fooian..." than "...of Foo" but nearly as many lean neither way.

Proposal 2

• This was not worded to extract preference for adjectival forms, but they are not really an issue for discussion; they would be nationalities almost exclusively and the question is settled by that means. Of those that spoke to adjectives specifically, "American" was the choice for United States citizens. Since this discussion does not deal with ethnicity the questions of being e.g. Irish-American or Welsh do not arise since there are no passports carrying those designations, no seats at the UN etc.
• There is a clear majority (73%) against using any contraction of the country names (counting vote no. 1 as allowing non-contraction). It was a popular second choice, however.
  • Of those not liking contractions, there is unanimity on using "United States" and "United Kingdom".
  • Of those liking contractions, there is near-unanimity on using "US" and "UK", with the question of periods to one side.

Proposal 3

• Support: 64%
• Oppose: 36% (presuming 17 is an oppose)

• This is interesting, since this is already de facto policy for article titles, but this voting pattern is insufficient for a consensus on a policy/guideline issue.
• I do not think this vote binds us to following the "common usage" rule if we reach agreement on some other scheme or schemes.

United Stationeer of America!!

Proposal 4

• Proposal 4a is a 50%–50 support–oppose split.
• Proposal 4b is 58%–42% support–oppose split.
• Proposal 4c has 63% preferring "American".
  • One rather supposes that the voting here was led by the responses to Proposal 1 (and to a lesser extent Proposal 2). Thus it is not clear whether the opposition to "American" is because it is wrong or because the opposers would prefer not to use nationality at all. I suspect the latter is more likely to be the case.

• There is no more than bare majority support for adopting the existing guidelines (4a and 4b) outright. Whilst I am straying into a personal opinion here, I do think that, considering the number of votes cast here and the scope of discussion both during and before the polls that we can claim reasonable interest in reconsideration of the status-quo. (Note reconsideration not outright discarding.)

Proposal 5

• Only received 3 votes and was only made close to the end of the week of polling. Would seem largely to duplicate the "...of Foo" in Proposal 1.

Proposal 6

• Only received 3 votes and was only made close to the end of the week of polling.

Least preferred

• This is entirely unclear. As with Proposal 4c, the comments here seem often to duplicate the Proposal 1 preference of the voter. Evidently there is no uniformly "least-preferred" option. This should at least encourage the possibility that consensus on a compromise is possible.

Conclusions

• Proposal 1: We are probably most likely to reach an agreement if we follow the "it depends" route. That way, most people will be pleased with at least some of the decisions, and those that voted "depends" (especially the pure "depend") will be happy overall.
• Proposal 2: We should use "United States/United Kingdom", and a similar pattern for similarly named countries. I recognise that 73% is toward the low end of a policy consensus but there was also disagreement over what to use instead. That is, the dissenting 27% are divided among themselves. Thus I am inclined to think the consensual proposal is "United States/United Kingdom".
• Proposal 3: We have latitude to (or do not have consensus not to) vary the "most common" guideline if we can reach agreement. If we cannot, the 64% vote here should probably guide us toward instead agreeing common usages instead.
• Proposal 4: We should not immediately adopt the documents cited in 4a and 4b. "American" should be used as the nationality for the United States of America.
• Proposals 5 and 6: Do not have enough votes or commentary to reach conclusions on. However Proposal 5 would seem to duplicate "...of Foo" in Proposal 1 and could well be useful in deciding how to name any categories that finish up using this form.
• Least preferred: People do not uniformly dislike one option more than the others.

-Splash 01:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• One detail... 73% is not toward the low end of anything. It is, in fact, sufficient consensus to establish policy to delete articles. Since we're talking about renaming categories (which is far less controversial on both counts, and doesn't involve potential loss of information) we can do with significantly less than that. If it were about renaming a single article, 51% would be sufficient. Of course we shouldn't be doing this by strict percentages in the first place. Radiant_>|< 08:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• As Hiding stated above, there is obvious consensus for "things of/in/from <foo>" except for people-related categories. We may want to make this a speedy-renaming criterion.
• Also, there is obvious consensus for renaming any category using "UK" or "US" or "USA" to its non-abbreviated form. We may also want to make this a speedy-renaming criterion.
• For people-related categories, I would like to propose to use "people of <foo>" in any cases where the adjective is unknown or confusing (e.g. "Monegasque" is unknown to many, unlike for instance "German").
• Whether "German artists" is preferable to "Artists of Germany" is a rather complex case subject to the suggestions of people who participated in the poll. This should be open to more discussion.
• It would be useful (though not necessarily immediately) to hold a poll whether people prefer "United States Foo" to "American Foo" - a simple two-way poll to see which has the majority.
• Radiant_>|< 08:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Oh yes - and from the participation here it seems obvious that many people favor some kind of standard for parts of the category system that are currently messy. So it would be useful to hold similar discussions on other topics in the future. Once more I would like to ask people to take a look at Wikipedia:Standards which is a rough draft of how that might be streamlined, to settle matters of process and allow us to focus on the issues at hand. Radiant_>|< 08:19, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that there is consensus to use "United States/United Kingdom", and do not object to that as a speedy-renaming criterion.
• I didn't actually state there was an obvious consensus, rather that it was the compromise position the poll suggested to me, and one we should seek to sell and gain consensus for. I reject using it as a speedy-renaming criterion at this moment in time.
• Using "people of <foo>" in any cases where the adjective is unknown or confusing I am in two minds on. Part of me agrees, however part of me notes that it would be educational and of benefit to our readers to use "<fooian>". However, if we can agree that people should be categorised "fooian people", we can then discuss further the finer details at something akin to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:By nationality.
• I'm not sure how we open this poll out more than we already have, or what your point is regarding whether "German artists" is preferable to "Artists of Germany". Any poll result or consensus is subject to the suggestions of those participating, surely?
• "United States Foo" vs "American Foo", yes, a poll to this effect would be useful.
• I agree that Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:By country is a useful list for determining usage in terms of "of foo" and "by foo" and "in foo" and we should adopt that into our proposals and move discussion on individual cases there. Hiding talk 10:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)