31:
402:: 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".
124:
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
502:
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
265:
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
154:
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
448:(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.
351:
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
184:
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.
106:
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.
382:
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
84:
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.
531:
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
396:: 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.
201:
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
420:: 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.
165:
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.
408:: 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.
536:" 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: -->
266:
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.
480:
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.
256:
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.
336:
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
483:
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.
71:
555:
130:
558:
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.
133:
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.
269:
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.
473:
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.
64:
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.
565:
434:
173:
159:
149:
140:
114:
537:". However, if we can agree that people should be categorised "fooian people", we can then discuss further the finer details at something akin to
414:: 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.
538:
362:
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.
126:
507:
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.
155:
significantly more voters outright supporting the "...of Foo" format and several "depends" that express no preference either way.-
528:
I agree that there is consensus to use "United States/United
Kingdom", and do not object to that as a speedy-renaming criterion.
477:" in any cases where the adjective is unknown or confusing (e.g. "Monegasque" is unknown to many, unlike for instance "German").
47:
17:
275:
Of those liking contractions, there is near-unanimity on using "US" and "UK", with the question of periods to one side.
209:
proposal between "...of Foo" and "Fooian ...", some interpretation of the votes is needed. I would assign as follows:
440:
One detail... 73% is not toward the low end of anything. It is, in fact, sufficient consensus to establish policy to
103:
Proposal 6: 6 votes expressing distaste for adjectives, which may well counter the 14 promoting them on proposal 2.
38:
305:
policy for article titles, but this voting pattern is insufficient for a consensus on a policy/guideline issue.
78:
is dead in the water, which leaves what is pretty much a tie between depending on case and all by country.
352:
reasonable interest in reconsideration of the status-quo. (Note reconsideration not outright discarding.)
145:
I'll write a proper response soon, but note that
Proposals 5 and 6 have only been up for a day or two. -
504:
272:
Of those not liking contractions, there is unanimity on using "United States" and "United
Kingdom".
544:
I'm not sure how we open this poll out more than we already have, or what your point is regarding
511:
489:
452:
170:
548:. Any poll result or consensus is subject to the suggestions of those participating, surely?
70:
I'd say one person might actually be voting for depending on the case, given the support for
562:
137:
111:
465:
As Hiding stated above, there is obvious consensus for "things of/in/from <foo: -->
508:
486:
476:
For people-related categories, I would like to propose to use "people of <foo: -->
449:
194:
With no votes for "don't care", we know we are at least discussing a useful question!
167:
470:
for people-related categories. We may want to make this a speedy-renaming criterion.
551:"United States Foo" vs "American Foo", yes, a poll to this effect would be useful.
559:
431:
372:
Only received 3 votes and was only made close to the end of the week of polling.
156:
146:
134:
108:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
514:
492:
455:
308:
I do not think this vote binds us to following the "common usage" rule
198:
206:
426:: People do not uniformly dislike one option more than the others.
546:
whether "German artists" is preferable to "Artists of
Germany"
25:
340:
or because the opposers would prefer not to use nationality
539:
Knowledge:Categories for deletion/Category:By nationality
127:
Knowledge:Categories for deletion/Category:By nationality
72:
Knowledge:Naming conventions (country-specific topics)
556:
Knowledge:Categories for deletion/Category:By country
344:. I suspect the latter is more likely to be the case.
131:
Knowledge:Categories for deletion/Category:By country
314:
we reach agreement on some other scheme or schemes.
327:Proposal 4a is a 50%–50 support–oppose split.
8:
330:Proposal 4b is 58%–42% support–oppose split.
333:Proposal 4c has 63% preferring "American".
301:This is interesting, since this is already
125:nationalitys from the CIA factbook to
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
223:: 1, 8(partially), 10, 11, 12, 13.
24:
296:: 36% (presuming 17 is an oppose)
100:Proposal 5: 3 votes all support.
29:
318:United Stationeer of America!!
1:
535:Using "people of <foo: -->
18:Knowledge talk:Category names
521:08:19, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
499:08:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
462:08:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
444:. Since we're talking about
233:No need to assign: 3, 4, 16.
566:10:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
435:01:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
174:03:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
160:01:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
150:22:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
141:19:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
115:19:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
584:
97:Proposal 4c: 62% support.
94:Proposal 4b: 58% support.
74:, which has caveats. The
88:Proposal 3: 63% support.
76:nationality in all cases
120:Discussion of summary
42:of past discussions.
505:Knowledge:Standards
446:renaming categories
246:22 votes (65%); and
91:Proposal 4a: 50-50
230:: 2, 5, 7, 14, 17.
180:Summary (detailed)
418:Proposals 5 and 6
54:
53:
48:current talk page
575:
519:
497:
460:
33:
32:
26:
583:
582:
578:
577:
576:
574:
573:
572:
516:
494:
457:
442:delete articles
424:Least preferred
390:
379:
377:Least preferred
359:
324:
284:
262:
252:12 votes (35%).
191:
182:
122:
62:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
581:
579:
571:
570:
569:
568:
552:
549:
542:
533:
529:
523:
522:
500:
484:
481:
478:
474:
471:
463:
428:
427:
421:
415:
409:
403:
397:
389:
386:
385:
384:
378:
375:
374:
373:
364:
363:
358:
355:
354:
353:
348:
347:
346:
345:
331:
328:
323:
320:
316:
315:
306:
298:
297:
291:
283:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
273:
267:
261:
258:
254:
253:
247:
237:
236:
235:
234:
231:
224:
217:
203:
195:
190:
187:
181:
178:
177:
176:
121:
118:
61:
58:
56:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
580:
567:
564:
561:
557:
554:I agree that
553:
550:
547:
543:
540:
534:
530:
527:
526:
525:
524:
520:
513:
510:
506:
501:
498:
491:
488:
485:
482:
479:
475:
472:
469:
464:
461:
454:
451:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
436:
433:
425:
422:
419:
416:
413:
410:
407:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
391:
387:
381:
380:
376:
371:
370:
369:
368:
361:
360:
356:
350:
349:
343:
339:
335:
334:
332:
329:
326:
325:
321:
319:
313:
312:
307:
304:
300:
299:
295:
292:
289:
286:
285:
281:
274:
271:
270:
268:
264:
263:
259:
257:
251:
248:
245:
242:
241:
240:
232:
229:
225:
222:
218:
215:
211:
210:
208:
204:
200:
196:
193:
192:
188:
186:
179:
175:
172:
169:
164:
163:
162:
161:
158:
152:
151:
148:
143:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:, and adopt
128:
119:
117:
116:
113:
110:
104:
101:
98:
95:
92:
89:
86:
82:
79:
77:
73:
68:
65:
59:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
545:
467:
445:
441:
429:
423:
417:
411:
405:
399:
393:
366:
365:
341:
337:
317:
310:
309:
302:
293:
287:
255:
249:
243:
239:This gives:
238:
227:
220:
213:
205:Viewed as a
202:outnumbered.
197:Viewed as a
183:
153:
144:
123:
105:
102:
99:
96:
93:
90:
87:
83:
81:Proposal 2:
80:
75:
69:
67:Proposal 1:
66:
63:
55:
43:
37:
388:Conclusions
216:: 6, 9, 15.
36:This is an
412:Proposal 4
406:Proposal 3
400:Proposal 2
394:Proposal 1
367:Proposal 6
357:Proposal 5
322:Proposal 4
282:Proposal 3
260:Proposal 2
189:Proposal 1
383:possible.
250:Fooian...
244:...of Foo
221:Fooian...
214:...of Foo
303:de facto
168:Maurreen
288:Support
228:neither
199:ternary
60:Summary
39:archive
560:Hiding
512:adiant
490:adiant
468:except
453:adiant
432:Splash
342:at all
294:Oppose
207:binary
171:(talk)
157:Splash
147:Splash
135:Hiding
109:Hiding
532:time.
518:|<
517:: -->
496:|<
495:: -->
459:|<
458:: -->
338:wrong
290:: 64%
16:<
563:talk
138:talk
112:talk
226:To
219:To
212:To
466:"
311:if
541:.
515:_
509:R
493:_
487:R
456:_
450:R
430:-
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.