Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll

undefinedOver the past 6 months, an issue has surfaced regarding the naming of communities in the United States. Whether the community is a district, or within a city, it seems that many communities of various natures have seen turmoil in regard to how they should be named. In the case of some of these communities, users actions have resulted in 3rr's and other warrings including personally attacking other users.1 Some of these pages have been protected for long periods of time as well due to the unsettling disturbances by the feuding parties, 2 and move warrings of various intensities. This page is set up to gain community consensus for one convention that will hopefully add a new rule so that all United States communities will follow one naming practice, and end the feuding.

A Community may refer to
 * A community within a city
 * ex. Anaheim Hills in Anaheim, California


 * A neighborhood within a city
 * ex. Ballard in Seattle, Washington


 * A master planned community within a city
 * ex. Sharpstown in Houston, Texas


 * A district within a city
 * ex. Silver Lake in Los Angeles, California


 * An area reference (eg. Downtown) within a city
 * ex. Downtown Atlanta in Atlanta, Georgia


 * A city subdivision or planning area
 * ex. Eagle River in Anchorage, Alaska


 * A community within a larger community
 * ex. Bayside in New York, New York


 * A borough within a city
 * ex. The Bronx in New York, New York

The problem of the situation is that a clearly defined rule for naming a community is missing in the Wikipedia Guidelines and Naming Conventions, which is what this collaboration is set up in an effort to solve. There is a major flaw in the rules regarding policy, which has created major conflict on these community pages.
 * 1)The Convention states that communities within cities should be named (community, city, state)
 * 2)The Wikipedia rules state that an article should be named in the simplest form, or the most recognizable by the primary readers, which would favor the (community) or (community, state) convention.

Since these rules contradict eachother, the community consensus that works well on Wikipedia is turning in to one large community brawl that will not end unless a solution, and a clearly defined naming rule is added.

In an effort to bring peace to the community articles, this straw poll has been set up to allow all readers and editors with an opinion on the matter to vote before the deadline, which would be in effort to end the community naming issue that has brought many community pages to a screeching halt in regards to positive contribution.

There are four voting choices listed as follows. Please choose one, and sign your name. It is asked that you not vote under multiple accounts, and that you sign your name using the tildes for easy identification. The straw poll will close Monday, September 18th, 2006 at 23:59 Wikipedia time. Please abide by this set time limit, for your vote will likely not count after the fact.

Strawpoll
Please add your comments or choices below. Since this is a strawpoll looking for the consensus of Wikipedia editors, please feel free to elaborate on your opinions and reasons for your choices. Do not add anything to the "Strawpoll" section, please place all comments after your vote, or on the talk page.

NOTE: valuable comments have been removed twice. Diff for the 2nd removal

Choice 1

 * 1) Choice 1, if I understand you correctly, but this is clear as mud. Nowhere do you give even one example of what would be considered a community. Do we mean neighborhoods and districts? Or something else? Assuming we mean neighborhoods and districts, names will often occur twice in the same state, especially because almost every U.S. city has a neighborhood called "Downtown". Also, why isn't (community, city) offered as an option? For example, no one ever referred to "Hawthorne District, Oregon", but plenty refer to "Hawthorne District, Portland". For that matter, how did this become a "vote" rather than a straw poll, and why has polling been opened with no time for anyone to comment on whether they think the question is well framed? - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) * Note that the explanation of what kinds of things may be communities was added after I cast my vote. - Jmabel | Talk 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Choice 1. I'm not aware that, "[m]any of these pages have been protected for long periods of time..." I'm only aware of one article that has been protected, the same article about whose title Ericsaindon2 has already held several strawpolls. Apparently he is unwilling to abide by those strawpolls, so is holding yet another one. In any case, the first choice is the simplest and most logical. -Will Beback 07:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That was on 1 page with a grand total of 5 votes. This is for a much larger scale of voters. Hollywood, La Jolla, and Anaheim Hills all have been protected at one point or another. Furthermore, I have only been involved in one community, however, dozens of other communities face this same turmoil without my involvement. Ericsaindon2 07:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) * Choice 1. - Change of vote. Note: Editors coming here cold would be well advised to first consult this article talk page, this RfArb, and this digest of the issue before voting on this latest attempt at gaming the system. But, to play along for the moment until this page is deleted... --Calton | Talk 07:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note 2: Don't screw with my words, [User:Ericsaindon2|Ericsaindon2]]. If you're going to pretend this is an actual vote with an actual point, you don't resort to the dishonesty of of deleting other user's comments. Capiche? --Calton | Talk 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, this is in regard to the currently 103 feuding community pages, not the 1 I am involved in. I am not trying to provide a vent for the minor defeat on the page, but to put a rule in place once and foreall. There is a much larger community than the 5 people that participated in the vote you are referring to. And this user should not be bashing others for he/she recieved a block just two weeks ago [] Ericsaindon2 07:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for becoming angry at a troll -- who was community banned three hours later.
 * ...not the 1 I am involved in. Pull the other one, pal. --Calton | Talk 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, dont get all angry at me. I was just saying you are not exactly the "examplatory Wikipedian" I would expect making those comments. And, "put in the other one pal" I am only involved in 1. You need to calm down ,and treat people with respect, and you will recieve that in return. Ericsaindon2 00:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Choice 1, and voting is evil, as is the appeal to number votes ourselves rather than use the handy-dandy # system. --Golbez 10:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Choice 1. Considering that the WIkipedia is an international English-language encyclopedia with readers and editors from across the globe, choice 1 is the most precise and least ambigous, as well as the least likely to lead to misunderstandings about the status of a particular community. It is also the clearest instruction on naming a community article so that hopefully it will lead to an end to the interminable debates on naming various community articles (for examples, look at talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California or talk:La Jolla, San Diego, California Blank Verse  11:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Choice 1. Millions of article titles need to be disambiguated somehow and this will work best as there are so many placenames the same. WAS 4.250 12:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Choice 1. While Dinkytown may be completely unambigious for people who live anywhere near Minneapolis, Minnesota, and while there may not be any more Dinkytowns on the planet, the article title doesn't really explain where Dinkytown is.  Someone in London, for example, would have to read the Dinkytown article to find out that it's located in Minneapolis on the north end of the University of Minnesota campus.  Also, there are plenty of Uptowns, and there's more than one Minneapolis, so Uptown, Minneapolis would probably be best disambiguated as Uptown, Minneapolis, Minnesota.  And whatever the result of this discussion is, please don't draw it out like the current highways fiasco.  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 13:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Choice 1. --Curtis Clark 14:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Choice 1 There are lots of issues with this straw poll.  In particular, I disagree with the assertion that Choice 1 violates the simplicity policy (and it betrays the leanings of the person who started the poll to frame the issue that way).  As pointed out by others above, people already familiar with an area might know where the community is located, but other people will have to read the article to figure it out.  There's nothing overly complicated about including the City and State name, so why sacrifice accuracy for so-called "simplicity?" JCO312 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) * Choice 1. Being a websurfing foreigner without the slightest idea where my correspondant/associate/client/travel destination/term paper's X community is, finding this article title in the community/city/state form would already be informative. I'm sure that one day, with Wiki's growth, it will end up this way anyway. the promenader  20:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See 'no vote'  the promenader  16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Choice 1, with occasional exceptions per WP:IAR.  Hollywood, California should be either Hollywood, California, or Hollywood, Los Angeles, California.  Similarly with La Jolla, in San Diego, California.  Anaheim Hills is not significant enough, nor are its boundaries recognized enough, for it to be par with a city.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hate to break it to you, but Anaheim Hills is larger than La Jolla, land wise and population wise. If La Jolla were to recieve special treatment, than Anaheim Hills should be able to as well. --Ericsaindon2 22:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * La Jolla is known outside California, to some extent, and has definite boundaries. Anaheim Hills fails on both counts.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also the USPS and United States Census Bureau recognize La Jolla and Hollywood but not Anaheim Hills. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Plus the City of Anaheim itself doesn't recognize Anaheim Hills, as Ericsaindon2 himself conceded in our earlier discussion at the talk page for Anaheim Hills.  Anaheim only recognizes four districts: North,   --Coolcaesar 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Census does not recognize La Jolla or Hollywood. In fact, they do not recognize any communities within cities as noted by them. Also, Anaheim Hills is not recognized by the city, but is so by the State of California, County of Orange, Southern California Association of Governments, Orange County Supervisor Department, and many more. And, La Jolla is not necessarily "nationally" known. I have lived in La Jolla, and when I used to tell people where I lived outside of the state, they did not know what I was talking about, and had to say San Diego. Even though it is well known in the state, people outside of CA dont seem to recognize it. Now, in Anaheim Hills, it is much easier to tell people where I live outside of CA because they recognize it much more than they ever did La Jolla. Ericsaindon2 09:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hollywood is a perfect example of why Choice 1 is best to follow without exception. If you look at the "What links here" for the Hollywood redirect, a large percentage of those links are NOT for the community of Hollywood within the City of Los Angeles, but are, instead, using Hollywood as a substitute for the Los Angeles-area film and television industry or for Cinema of the United States (look at the very first paragraph of the 2nd article, for example). Blank Verse 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Choice 1 with no exceptions; however, I strongly believe that the proposed standard should be limited to neighborhoods or districts, rather than communities, which is too vague. Otherwise, I concur with the excellent analysis given by Elkman.  --Coolcaesar 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support of Choice 1. But with a strong dose of Don't vote on everything – Gurch 14:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Choice 1 I have no original thought on this; others have stated the reasons well enough. Rkevins82 15:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Choice 1 I do support some rare exceptions, in the case of extremely notable communities (world famous ones) which also don't need to be disambiguated, such as Harlem (not Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, which gets confused, per previous comment).  Sxeptomaniac 17:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Cancel that.  This definitely needs more discussion. Sxeptomaniac 21:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Choice 1 After reading through the debates, I have nothing new to add - Choice 1 is the best option and should be adopted universally across Wikipedia. Spaaarkz
 * 6) Choice 1 is the option that best meets Wikipedia's goals of representing a worldwide view and countering systemic bias. And I respectfully disagree with the poll’s author that it breaks the principle of creating simplicity.  While the article titles themselves might be somewhat shorter under other options, those options create additional work on the part of those readers who are completely unfamiliar with the geographic area.  I believe that enabling a reader to make an accurate choice from a disambig page, and thus arrive faster at his or her intended article, actually achieves the goal of making Wikipedia function more efficiently and simply. --Satori Son 13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Choice 1 per Satori Son. Fits well in City name convention. Could also be converted into "Community (City, State)" or the state can be ommitted in the future, if it is clear that only a small percentage of "Community (City)" "Community, City" is ambigous. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like Community (City, State). That would be the best option for all communities in theory. Ericsaindon2 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Choice 1. The need for completeness and proper identification of a region as small as a community means that the simplest good choice in this case is in fact choice 1. Under choice 3, it seems like, for example, Chicago's Chinatown neighborhood, would simply be named "Chinatown".  Unacceptable. --Danaman5 03:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Choice 1 If only communities could only be elaborated on...but this is the best, most accurate, and most concise choice. Other choices don't meet all of these criteria (except for "no choice," of course). --physicq210 05:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Choice 1 Seems like the best option - • The Giant Puffin •  18:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Choice 1 May be the best in most cases, but consider places like Chicago, where I live, which has statutorily defined community areas, but which also often has smaller, historically or culturally significant, neighborhoods within the Community Areas. ChicagoSlim 18:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Choice 1, with the exception of communities whose names contain within them the name of their respective city. For example, it seems clear enough that downtown Atlanta is in Atlanta, so it could be called "Downtown Atlanta, Georgia" without loss of meaning, clarity, or simplicity, whereas "Downtown Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia" is redundant and even a little confusing. I suspect that this applies to a lot of area-reference communities, as well as Anaheim Hills, etc. -- Kevin S. | 00:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Choice 1 Seems like the best option to me.Argos&#39;Dad 15:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Choice 1 I have to go with choice 1. A community or area is a subset of another location, in this case a city, which is a subset of a state.  In this case, the city defines community and the name should signify this --Chris Kreider - HFF 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Choice 1 I'm going with choice one for uniformity, and because #2 and #4 are ridiculous, as many communities are part of cities (eg. neighborhoods), so the city level can't be skipped. -newkai t-c 10:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Choice 3

 * 1) Choice 3: This is the wikipedia-wide default naming method of using the simplest name and disambiguating only if necessary. --Polaron | Talk 14:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The usual Wikipedia disambiguation style would be Community (State), or Community (County, State) when their are multiple versions of the same community name in the same state (see Springfield, Springfield Township, Fairview, and Oak Grove for examples) which should probably be added as Choice 5. Blank Verse  14:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Choice 3, but it is poorly worded. It should say:
 * The purpose of the encyclopedia title for any article is to specify the most common name used to reference the subject of the article, period. Articles about communities should be consistent with this primary concept.  So, for communities, use the most common name (usually Community alone) when there are no disambiguity issues.  When there are disambiguity issues, use standard disambiguity rules: disambiguate the most common name (again, usually Community alone) with a standard parenthetic remark, the contents of which depend on whatever the particular disambiguity issue is.
 * By the way, all the wonks participate in this type of poll, and, as such, is pretty useless. --Serge 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So in other words, a poll is only useful when the voters agree with you (e.g. the second vote on moving Chicago, Illinois to Chicago. Blank Verse 12:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not here to "dazzle" any particular choice, for my goal is to present them all as neutral as possible. If it is not neutral, then it could be considered invalid. By the looks of it, I see favor in Choice 1. If you want to get community consensus, then I suggest you gather some momentum, and get people here to cast a vote in your favor. Without this effort on your part, I do not see any hope of Choice 3 being the consensus of the community. Remember, you have 27 days to get choice 1 people to change their votes, so leave convincing comments on the talk page. I am sure that they are reasonable people who will listen to you. Ericsaindon2 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or, you could have spent a little more time getting input from others in framing the context of the survey and drafting the questions and the options before jumping into voting. older ≠ wiser 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) this is the only one that seems to make sense and follow whats allready been established i think its fine the way it is, people can find neighborhoods within templates if they want to look by country, state, county, city, district
 * 2) Using the common name is already the established method for titling all articles. I see no reason to change this. I also agree this poll seems to be started before the dissccussion had matured, but it still may be a good jumping off point for larger disscussion.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  19:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) This choice seems best to me. Consider the case of Deep Ellum. There are not many of those around and it would seem silly to shackle the title of the article with Deep Ellum, Dallas, Texas. (That would be like saying Millard Fillmore, President of the United States, Whig Party). For more common community names, such  as Woodlawn, Chicago, the longer title seems appropriate, and I can see the need to state a preference for one formulation over several (such as the existing Woodlawn (Birmingham, Alabama)). --Dystopos 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI: term (disambiguation), such as for Woodlawn (Birmingham, Alabama), is the default naming convention for disambiguation of articles using the same term. In this poll, that method of naming community articles is not even a choice. Blank Verse  12:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Choice 3 seems to be the best for me. It's simple, and it's clear.  It's possible though there might be a few "community, city" duplicates, and in those rare cases, it should be "community, city, state".  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 04:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Choice 3 is clear and it adheres to naming policy. Even if a community is relatively unknown, its specifics (like the fact that Dinkytown is in Minneapolis) will surely be elucidated in the first paragraph of the article. The article for Hollywood should be "Hollywood" and other references to Hollywood (as metonymy for American film industry) can be handled in a separate disambiguation page, if necessary. Soltras 05:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Choice 3 I decided to change my vote. Seems the best in the most likely category of the ones that people are choosing. The name is simple, however, I think that it is a little too simple for these purposes, but is definately better than choice 1. Ericsaindon2 08:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Choice 3. Where some articles can't follow the naming conventions (e.g. if there are lots of communities with the same name) then we make an exception in the case of those particular articles, but the rest should follow standard WP naming conventions (ie simplicity). For example, we don't have an article called Stornoway, Western Isles, Scotland, United Kingdom, because such a title would be ridiculous when Stornoway is the actual name of the subject and is perfectly adequate as an article title. (yes, I know I've picked a town in Scotland rather than a community in the USA, but it'll do as an example) Cynical 17:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Choice 3 For the sake of simplicity, why writ out the full name? -BassoProfundo 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Choice 3. SImplicity is good. Remember the average user, not the super-editor. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"

No Choice

 * 1) No vote, it seems a little early for this to be at a Vote. —  xaosflux  Talk  01:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) No vote per Xaosflux. A vote seems a bit premature. Where is the community-wide discussion? Kaldari 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) No vote It is too early to vote on this - no discussion? I have some suggestions for the existing naming convention, namely making an international one, so wherever this discussion will take place you can count on my participation.  the promenader  08:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) No vote, where is the discussion? —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) No vote, per my comments above and on the talk page. older ≠ wiser 20:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) No vote - see my comments that were moved to talk. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) No vote Although I voted above, I'd be perfectly glad to see this ill-framed strawpoll simply tossed out. - Jmabel | Talk 03:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) No vote It occurs to me that by casting a vote I'm helping enable this nonsense. No. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) *Although this straw poll was not well thought out, and there should have been more discussion and debate on the options before the poll was set in stone, I agree that it is time that a consensus is reached on naming US community articles on the Wikipedia to avoid the incredible amount of time wasted on interminable debates that continue ad nauseam, just because a very few individuals are not happy with the current most common way of naming US community articles on the Wikipedia (and which follows logical from the standard for naming of US city articles at Naming conventions (city names)). Blank <sup style="color:#F88017;">Verse 11:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) **I totally agree with you BlankVerse. I would be 100% satisfied whatever the vote comes out, because this is a real community consensus. I do not think that there should be any exceptions to the rules, because exceptions are what starts this type of thing all over again. If one community should have to follow one standard, than another community should have the same enforcement. La Jolla, Anaheim Hills, nor Hollywood should be exceptions to the rules that are set and determined, just because of how notorious or how large they are. I just think exceptions can get messy, for often, it is undetermined what an exception is classified as. The reason I pushed so hard for Anaheim Hills was that there was no naming consensus, but I feel that this one has enough voters to make it matter. A real large scale straw poll of this magnitude (25+ total votes) is much more of a community agreement then the 6 or so on the Anaheim Hills page. I am against exceptions in any way shape or form, for they will always' create controversy. Plus, I do not think this is premature. This has gone on way too long for the people involved, and could not come soon enough for some of us. If we had sat there, and framed it all together, we would have been here for weeks, and I do not know how much more time anyone was willing to argue the naming convention one way or another. I think these no votes are from people who have not been directly involved in this, but it can be very time consuming once you get into a naming debate, and for me, this is, if anything, too late rather than premature. Ericsaindon2 02:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) No vote - naming conventions are unnecessary. Make redirects for all of the above as needed. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) No vote - I already voted above, but just want to also note that I agree it is too early to vote. --Serge 23:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) None of the above - this is a confusing poll. Internationally-known places such as Hollywood and Manhattan do not belong in the same category as Willow Glen, San Jose, California. - Davodd 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) No vote While I think Choice 1 is a logical choice, if there are to be no exceptions, that choice (and the others) will have an adverse effect on the naming conventions in Political subdivisions of New York, and perhaps other areas. See my talk comments. Tinlinkin 12:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) No Vote - this seems like herky jerky motion to me. I don't deny that there might be some guidelines (intentional plural), but I see no compelling reason why any convention need be adopted at this time. BusterD 14:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) No Vote - I agree with the preceding 5 comments.--Atemperman 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) No Vote - premature (wider discussion missing) --Lysytalk 21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Other

 * 1) Based on naming of larger community A community within an incorporated (or other legal equivalent) city or town should only be a separate article if 1) the city or town has an article and 2) the content on the community is large enough to be spun out as a proper sub-article from that city or town article.  In which case the sub-article should 3) be named as "Community, title of article on city or town".  The title of the article on city or town may follow one of many naming forms, depending on what country it is in and how prominent that city/town is.  The following examples are based on the page London (disambiguation): A) a community in London, England would be "Community, London", B) one in London, Ontario would be "Community, London, Ontario", C) one in London, Richland County, Ohio (smaller than and distinct from London, Ohio) would be "Community, London, Richland County, Ohio", but would not be appropriate yet as that city/town doesn't have an article.  (And if a popularly named area crosses city/town lines, as the Porter Square area in Cambridge and Somerville, Massachusetts does, then this doesn't apply.)  GRBerry 13:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This approach would address the issue of neighborhoods in the five boroughs of New York City. Each borough – Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island &mdash; exists as a standalone article without any qualification. The several hundred existing articles for New York City neighborhoods, that currently exist in the format of Neighborhood, Borough can exist as is, under this approach. Alansohn 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment
While there was no strong consensus for any one proposal here, there does seem to be a strong consensus against options 2 and 4. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)