Jump to content

Talk:Mosquito County, Florida

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There's no consensus to do so (non-admin closure) Hot Stop 08:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Mosquito County → Mosquito County, Florida – consistent with all other former counties. Greg Bard (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the essay, nor the recent changes, is relevant. WP:USPLACE is a wikipedia guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the essay, including the recent pages, is relevant. That's why I cited it here. That's how discussions work. You post your opinion, and I post mine (or, to save space, a link to an essay that expresses an opinion I agree with and which I believe applies here). The closer, not you or me, will decide how applicable and well grounded in policy/guidelines each argument is. --B2C 17:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:USPLACE: "Articles on counties and parishes are typically titled [[X County (or X Parish), State]]." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per WP:USPLACE and consistency with like articles. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as long as there is no other Mosquito County. Bandy boy (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per the WP:PRECISE policy, "Mosquito County" is already precise enough to identify the article unambiguously since there are no other articles with that name or even other potentially notable topics that could warrant an article with that precise name. Adding "Florida" is making it "more precise than that". Per the WP:CONCISE policy, "Mosquito County" is more concise than the one with "Florida". A person looking for this county's article will already recognize the shorter name. No need for "Florida". In addition, the definition of conciseness per the WP:AT policy is: The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. "Mosquito County" is not longer than necessary since there are no other subjects with that precise name. —seav (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Seav: Adding the state is done as part of USPLACE and applies to all Florida counties (both current and former), every one of which follows that pattern, except this one. Is there a reason you feel this one in particular should be exempted from that? ╠╣uw [talk] 01:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't consider my opposing this move request as making an exemption, but rather as staying in line with the WP:AT policy. I looked at the two other former counties and seeing as they share their names with no other county, I think they should also be moved to the title without "Florida" for the same reasons I have stated above. —seav (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AT, though, says that naming conventions should be considered along with general policies — and USPLACE is the governing convention in this case. It specifies that counties (both uniquely and non-uniquely named) append the state, for a variety of reasons notably including naturalness and consistency. Given that all other counties follow that convention, I guess I'm not seeing why this one should vary. ╠╣uw [talk] 21:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually only the consistency criterion that would favor moving "Mosquito County" → "Mosquito County, Florida". There's actually a valid case that for cities and towns, adding the state name is more natural for Americans. But for counties, it appears to not be the case. I looked at Google News and Google Books search results for "Washington County" and "Jefferson County" and results show that appending the state name is not usually done, unlike for towns and cities.
    As for following guidelines, I'd like to note that New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and other major cities were successfully renamed against USPLACE convention, before the USPLACE convention adopted the AP stylebook city list. This only proves that USPLACE is not gospel. —seav (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No convention is "gospel"; USPLACE is simply the accepted, longstanding convention Wikipedia uses for US places, of which this county is one.

    As for your other points, I disagree, though I understand what you're saying: similar arguments have been advanced before in discussions at WP:NCGN and elsewhere, but never successfully in terms of gaining consensus or changing the convention. (That said, if you have new points that haven't been previously discussed, you could raise them at the geographic names talk page for consideration by the broader community.) ╠╣uw [talk] 10:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:USPLACE and consistency with other former counties. Kennethaw88 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because WP:CONCISE is policy. Red Slash 01:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per USPLACE and for consistency. Omnedon (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post RM

[edit]

There's certainly no consensus above (good non-admin close).

In my opinion, guidelines etc. were being accurately quoted both to support and to oppose the move.

This to me suggests that the guidelines (etc) need tweaking, so that taken as a whole they give a clear and consistent direction for topics such as this. Andrewa (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USPLACE already provides clear and consistent direction for topics such as this: append the state.
Well, yes, taken in isolation it does. And other equally authoritative pages, taken in isolation, lead to the opposite conclusion. There's no point in simply repeating here what you've already said in the above RM. Hopefully, people who contribute here will have read that first. Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed it, none of opposing minority above advanced any reason for why this one particular county should be exempted from the convention when all others follow it. Instead, they mostly just said things like "concise is policy", which ignores the fact that all naming criteria (including conciseness) have already been discussed and weighed in a number of discussions at USPLACE by the broader community... and there's been no consensus to change the convention. (I noted that above, and it's also noted at the WP:NCGN FAQ and elsewhere.)
Disappointingly, this seems not to be recognized in the closure, which gives no rationale and does not seem to grant consideration to the relevant consensus of the broader community. Even more disappointingly, the non-admin closer is not uninvolved: he has participated in various USPLACE-related discussions before (e.g., 2012, 2013), always strongly opposing the convention (and in particular opposing the convention's requirement to append the state to certain titles), which makes the appropriateness and objectivity of this non-admin closure extremely questionable. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following up with the closer on this matter. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied there, but I still see no reason for reversing or even reviewing the closure as it is. I did consider reversing it myself, but on carefully reviewing the relevant policies etc. it seemed entirely valid and constructive. I have learned something.
The broader consensus to which you refer is unclear to me. That's the whole point of this section. And at the risk of flogging a dead horse, maybe it's time for another discussion on the issues validly raised by the above RM. Andrewa (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those links. They are both very relevant to this discussion (but not to the proposal to reverse the closure IMO, see my reply to you on the relevant user talk page).
Any others? This is a well worn path, and it would be good to minimise reinventing the wheel here. Andrewa (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with Huw on this -- the editor that closed this discussion has a strong view on the subject, and therefore could have contributed to the discussion but should not have closed it. The closure was essentially a supervote on the part of an involved party. Omnedon (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this view that Hot Stop could have contributed to the discussion but should not have closed it supported by any guideline or policy?
I note that both you and Huw voted to support the move, while both Hot Stop and I were uninvolved in this particular discussion up until the closure. Andrewa (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question above, yes: "In closing a discussion, it is important to avoid conflicts of interest, because such circumstances cast doubt on the fairness of the closure, and often make the closure unstable. Even the appearance of conflict of interest is worth avoiding, for the same reason. Remember that there is no harm in erring on the side of caution... Conflicts of interest may arise, or appear to arise, in many ways, and it is good to be alert to these possible circumstances."

That the closer is a participant in USPLACE debates and opposes USPLACE seems to raise a legitimate question of whether he's the best choice to impartially close a USPLACE request. Again, that's not a slight at all against Hot Stop — I, for instance, wouldn't be a suitable choice either, since like him I am involved in debates on one side of the issue and have a preset opinion on it. Anyway, while I do disagree with the way it ended, I'm fine with a closure either way so long as it's clear and done by someone uninvolved in this issue. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would not be a suitable choice because you are involved in this particular discussion, and so it would be a blatant violation of WP:RMCI which starts out This page in a nutshell: 1. Don't close requested moves where you have participated in the move survey... (my emphasis, sort of, but it is point #1). So this instance is hardly appropriate. Have you a better one?
Because this choice of instance just confirms my concern that you are interpreting the conflict of interest section in a way that is too sweeping by far. Do you seriously think that the clear prohibition against your closing this discussion is comparable to the relatively vague provisions you are quoting and applying to Hot Spot?
And I'm similarly concerned that you seek to apply the same provisions to me. Andrewa (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I may have been unclear — I should have said, even if I had not participated in this particular RM (in common with Hot Stop), I still wouldn't be a suitable choice to close it because (again in common with Hot Stop) I'm clearly not an uninvolved party on the matter of USPLACE.

To put it simply, someone who's publicly claimed a strong preset position for or against something cannot then act as an impartial closer in related matters without risking the appearance of conflict of interest. And WP:RMCI clearly tells us to avoid that. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huw, I agree. That's the heart of this issue. Omnedon (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the issues

[edit]

There seems no interest in following up on the above RM, apart from those who wish to reverse the closure.

To summarise:

  • There seems to be consensus that WP:USPLACE supports the move.
  • There seems to also be consensus that WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE both support the status quo.
  • There has been some discussion of this in the past with no resolution.

Is anyone interested in having another go at resolving this? Andrewa (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my observation, USPLACE discussions tend to go a long, long, time once started. I'm not sure if anyone wants to start another discussion given that there has been a recently closed discussion over at WT:NCGN with no consensus to change the status quo. Besides, I'm not sure that this talk page is the appropriate place to start such a discussion.
I haven't followed the USPLACE-related activity all that much over the past decade, but this county move request is the only WP:RM I know to be closed (with protest, noted) not in favor of the USPLACE convention apart from the high-profile moves like Chicago, Illinois → Chicago and Los Angeles, California → Los Angeles that eventually resulted into the AP stylebook exception list. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong.)
This county move request only seems to prove that regarding USPLACE, any move request would fail because there is no consensus to change the status quo because of strong arguments on both sides. I commented above that I would support any move to remove "Florida" from the titles of the articles of 2 other former Florida counties like Mosquito County, but I think such a move would fail due to reaching no consensus also. —seav (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is not to be taken lightly!
See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) FAQ which says in part This is an issue where different rules of Wikipedia:Article titles conflict with each other, thus consensus determines which ones to follow.
But that obviously doesn't answer the case in which there is no consensus. This page being one of many possible cases in point. Andrewa (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of your summary, but I don't think there was consensus that PRECISE supports the status quo. It makes an explicit exception for geographic names exactly like this. Kennethaw88 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right... that makes it even more complicated.
Would you like to have a go at rephrasing it? I just tried and it got really messy, so much so that there was no point in even saving it. Andrewa (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, there is no consensus whatsoever to maintain USPLACE. There's not really a consensus to ditch it, either. But there surely is no consensus for it as in the hullabaloo when I proposed changing it. Again, USPLACE is not supported by any current consensus. WP:CONCISE is very well supported. The closer was right to close and not move, but should've closed it explicitly "No consensus". Red Slash 23:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Slash: RfCs on the convention over many years have been always been very consistent in their result: continuation. I do agree there's no consensus to change it, so while it remains the accepted convention it seems reasonable to apply it. That said, if there are any new points regarding USPLACE that have not already been considered, they might be best raised with the broader community at USPLACE. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here seems to be deciding what is current consensus. Whenever we qualify consensus we seem to lose it! Notably the discussions over local versus community consensus, which never seem to get resolved... see User:Andrewa/Types of consensus for some of my thoughts which haven't yet produced anything useful... Andrewa (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is now a one year moratorium on changing USPLACE, unless the proposal offers some new rationale that hasn't been previously considered. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. So if there is an inconsistency or even a need for clarification, we'd be best looking at changes to the other pages first.
However, if the result of that discussion were to be a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, which is the relevant talk page for WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE, that these policies were inconsistent with WP:USPLACE, that would be a valid reason for reviewing the moratorium, as I see it. The alternative would be to tweak the article title policy so that USPLACE has clear priority. So maybe either way Wikipedia talk:Article titles is the next port of call. Andrewa (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 December 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Mosquito County, Florida per consensus. (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 04:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mosquito County, Florida (former county) → Mosquito County, Florida – Despite the rather lengthy discussion above, this page has been moved twice without seeking consensus. First from Mosquito County to Mosquito County Florida (Special:diff/607871670) (two months after the discussion), and then from Mosquito County, Florida to Mosquito County, Florida (former county) (Special:diff/929389297). The current name is a terrible choice, because the disambiguation is completely unnecessary. My preferred title is still Mosquito County, Florida, mainly to be WP:CONSISTENT with other US county names. Further, I believe WP:USPLACE applies, although it could be reasonably argued that it doesn't strictly apply to former names. Although not my preferred choice, Mosquito County is preferable to the current title. kennethaw88 • talk 03:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mosquito_County,_Florida&oldid=1200062249"