![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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.
This gives:
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.
United Stationeer of America!!
Proposal 6
- Splash 01:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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.
This gives:
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.
United Stationeer of America!!
Proposal 6
- Splash 01:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)