Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:43, 25 August 2006

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

San Francisco has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Template:FAOL Template:0.5 nom

Archives

• July 2003 – August 2006

Requested Move: San Francisco, California -> San Francisco_San_Francisco-2006-08-24T18:04:00.000Z">

San Francisco, California → San Francisco – WP:NC(CN); World famous city. --Serge 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)_San_Francisco"> _San_Francisco">

List of reasons to move_San_Francisco">

1. San Francisco, like Paris, London, Montreal, and U.S. cities like Chicago, New York City, is well known... no need to specify the state.
2. World famous cities in the U.S. should be treated no differently from world famous cities outside of the U.S. (Paris, London, Montreal, etc.): use the city name for the article title, period.
3. All articles in Misplaced Pages should follow the Misplaced Pages naming conventions for common names, which dictate that San Francisco (alone) be the title of this article; there is no reason that cities, and San Francisco in particular, should be an exception to these rules.
4. Professional encyclopedias, both published and online, typically do not "pre-disambiguate"... neither should we.
5. Chance for confusion with anything else named San Francisco is minimal.
6. The name of San Francisco alone redirects directly to here, therefore there are no known significant disambiguation issues, and no reason to disambiguate.
7. Lesser known San Francisco articles are already handled on San Francisco (disambiguation).
8. Waiting to change the city, state convention does not make sense, since it is a chicken-egg situation. The only way to start to change the convention is one article at a time, like Chicago and this one. Edit: If you have a poll of "the editors", the gang members argue there is a convention (city, name) and it should be followed consistently. If you try to change city names one at a time, they argue you should have a poll to change the convention first (see Survey below for gang members trying to do this).
9. San Francisco, California is part of a mailing address, not the name of the city. The name of the city is San Francisco; that should be the name of the article.
10. The one piece of information that the title is supposed to clearly specify is the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article. The current title is unclear on this point... is the most common name San Francisco or San Francisco, California? Titles that use the city, state "comma naming convention" make it impossible for the reader to know. It is our job as editors to make this clear, not ambiguous.
11. Following a convention that pollutes the article title for readers (by making the common name unclear) in order to supposedly make life easier for editors, violates the overall principle of Misplaced Pages's naming conventions:

Names of Misplaced Pages articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

Survey_San_Francisco-2006-08-24T18:04:00.000Z">

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation (and/or reference numbers from the above reason list), then sign your opinion with --~~~~.

• Support per all reasons listed above. --Serge 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Too early for a poll. This same user has instigated a review of the U.S. city name convention at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (settlements). We should wait until that is complete before changing city names one-by-one. -Will Beback 18:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "This same user" has most certainly not instigated any such pointless and meaningless general survey among the "wonks". Also, see reason (8) above. --Serge 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support good reasoning to change the name. I also don't think that a naming convention that is not followed for any of the other countries is a good reason not to do so. And finally the too early to vote comment belongs in the discussion section not here. --Edgelord 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- Being a global city, San Francisco is well-known internationally. Plus San Francisco already redirects here so there is no confusion as to what is being talked about when mentioning "San Francisco". --Polaron | Talk 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support, per discussions at the guideline's talk page. Kafziel 18:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. No brainer.--DaveOinSF 19:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - uncluttering the title? Nice! --Yath 19:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• No city-by-city name changing. This should be determined by a single well-advertised survey of editor's opinions. 21:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reasons 8 and 11 in the list above already address the problem with waiting to change the convention. Polling those wonkish editors who are biased against reader interests to make editing tasks easier is not helpful to improving Misplaced Pages. --Serge 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Vehemently oppose This has already been discussed ad nauseum, and the naming convention explicitly states that this is the correct format. --physicq210 22:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reason 8 in itself does not make sense. Changing articles one by one is exactly the reason why the U.S. state highways got into such a mess; see this and this. --physicq210 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, changing the article about the city of San Francisco to San Francisco is creating a big mess. Give me a break. --Serge 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps actually reading the examples I give you will be more constructive instead of mocking my comments without giving a detailed rebuttal. --physicq210 22:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The state route naming issue is actually similar to the city naming issue. One group is advocating premeptive disambiguation while the other is advocating using common names and disambiguating if needed. --Polaron | Talk 23:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
          • What I was referring to is reason 8, and reason 8 specifically. The rationale behind this poll is the exact same one that lead to the highways mess that we see today. --physicq210 04:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: No city-by-city name changing Before rushing to embrace namespace anarchy, editors should read and consider some of the points at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (settlements). --Paul 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That unconventional naming "convention", which is inconsistent with basic Misplaced Pages naming conventions, is what got is into this mess in the first place. Ignoring the root cause of all city naming problems and following the more fundamental WP:NC(CN) is the whole point here. --Serge 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Violates US city naming standard. If you want this to change, then change the standard so that requests can be judged on some basis other then a few editors who happen to follow the article involved or this article. Vegaswikian 22:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no standard. There are convention and guidelines. This is the way you change the convention, bottom up, not top down. Besides, all guidelines allow for exceptions. This is one. --Serge 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ...other then a few editors who happen to follow the article - the editors who follow the article will be the best informed as to whether it deserves top billing. The current guideline is a poor substitute for good judgement. --Yath 23:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • So are you saying that everyone who follows the current guideline have "bad judgement"? --physicq210 23:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 1) This proposed change violates existing conventions. The current naming convention in general is appropriate and does not need changing. 2) This proposed change will only make life more difficult for readers and editors. 3) What's the point? Why not work on improving the article, add sub-articles, etc. Won't that be more productive? 4) Like it or not, San Fran really is in California. WVhybrid 22:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 3) What's the point? Why not work on improving the article Absolutely. The article is in need of a lot of work (see Misplaced Pages:Peer review/San Francisco, California. Those of us that are working through the many open issues in the article would welcome even a fraction of the attention being expended on this naming rebellion.--Paul 23:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Usgnus 22:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. New York City and Chicago already violate the supposed conventions (and the former has violated it for years now). There is no need for disambiguation in this instance, as "San Francisco" in English pretty clearly refers to the US city. john k 23:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So just because two cities violate convention we should change everything? --physicq210 00:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I think the convention is unnecessary. In most cases, US cities should be at City, State, but there's a good number where this is unnecessary, and having them at City is perfectly fine. San Francisco is such an instance. john k 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support strongly. San Francisco is a well-known world city, and the state name is unneccesary. Dralwik|
• Oppose Mike Dillon 01:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's a famous, well-known city and the naming convention is pants for cities like this. Robovski 01:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care - Get back to real work. Say, categorizing the 500 or so pages that we know need a category... JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Why do this? San Francisco is a major city. Would you suggest similarly changing Paris, Texas or London, CT or Rome, Ohio? Gimme a break. Griot 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a major city so it is already well-known without specifying the state it is in. Moving minor cities that have ambiguity issues with major cities is not what is being advocated here. Those other cities do need to be disambiguated. --Polaron | Talk 04:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What does Paris, Texas have to do with this move? You even stated yourself that San Francisco is a major city. Are you confusing this with a move from San Francisco to San Francisco, California? --Yath 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do not want to start another ripple affect , where other cities start wanting to compromise convention. THis is exactly how the whole issue with communities began, and, for the sake of peace, it should be determined in a larger straw poll, not in a case by case scenario like this. Ericsaindon2 05:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion_San_Francisco-2006-08-25T02:15:00.000Z">

Vote Stacking?

Is it just me, or is it that all but two editors that voted to "support" this name change (and none by those that oppose) have been notified by Serge to vote? I'm just remarking on an interesting observation. --physicq210 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your eyes do not deceive you. 8 out of 10 'support' votes have been solicited by Serge & none of them have made any edits to the San Francisco, California page. I wonder if we can hire Seven Samuri to save us? --Paul 02:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the following entry:

Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion and informing them of an upcoming vote, such as via a userbox or other user categorization. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters. Emphasis added.

Quoted from Misplaced Pages:Spam#Votestacking. Dispute freely, but votestacking is what I am seeing in this so-called "survey." --physicq210 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback already brought this policy to my attention. But thanks... --Serge 03:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps this poll has been tainted to such a point where it is rendered null and void? --physicq210 03:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Relax. The survey is barely a few hours old and I stopped notifying anyone (as soon as Will told me about the policy). Anyway, what exactly is a "mass talk message"? I made multiple single messages on a few individual users' talk pages... but I did not use a "mass talk message", so far as I know. But, again, I'm not even sure what that is. --Serge 04:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Mass talk messages" means sending the same message to multiple people. --physicq210 04:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a "mass talk message", it was a "friendly notice", per Misplaced Pages:Spam#Friendly_notice:

If there are a small handful of editors who share your taste and/or philosophy, it is sometimes acceptable to contact them with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, and absolutely unacceptable if they have asked you to stop.

Also, Misplaced Pages:Spam#If_you_canvass:

...

If you canvass
The following guidelines for cross-posting have wide acceptance among Wikipedians:

• Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete.
• Be open. Don't make cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages.
• Be polite. Wikiquette issues are extra-important when a message is likely to be read by many people.
• Avoid redundancy. Rather than copying the same five page essay to twenty talk pages, write it once, in the place where it is most relevant, and then link to it.
• Don't use a bot. If you're not willing to spend the time personally sending the messages, don't force us to spend the time reading it (or throwing it away).
• Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view.

For each point...

• I don't think I've created a mess, but am willing to "clean up".
• I think my short FYI messages were pretty open.
• Certainly polite. I even said thank you.
• My "essay" was on this page, and all I cross-posted was a short message and a link.
• Didn't use a bot. Was willing to spend the time to personally leave messages on each person's Talk page.
• Well, I didn't attempt to "sway consensus" as much as I simply wanted to inform those that voted on Chicago about the vote on San Francisco.

Anyway, the point is regardless of whether "canvassing" is acceptable or not, I've stopped, and there is nothing that says poll results "tainted" by canvassing are null and void. --Serge 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We do thank you for realizing the potential consequences of such behavior. We do thank you for stopping. Above all, we thank you for being polite. However, these are not considered "friendly notices" because they were selective notices. All of the editors who received such notices voted in support, and all of them have not made even one edit on this article. Especially sticky is that you seemed top have notified everyone who supported the move in the Chicago article, and did not notify anyone who opposed the move. Apparently, these actions do not qualify as not attempting to sway consensus. The integrity of this vote has already been compromised in its early stages, and therefore cannot be viewed as "consensus." --physicq210 04:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So, yes, it is a "mass talk message." --physicq210 04:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're sure that none of the people notified would have voted for the entire duration that this poll would be open if they hadn't been notified? And you're probably right that reverting vandalism every now and then and fixing statistics doesn't count as editing. It's very early in the poll and it's not like it was stacked to overturn an emerging choice. --Polaron | Talk 04:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Phyiscq210, there were 17 votes in support of moving to Chicago, and 3 opposed. I notified 8 or 9 of the supporters and one of the opposed (User:Will Beback) before I stopped. I only had two more of those opposed to reach, and both of them (User:Vegaswikian and User:Blankverse) voted here without getting notification from me. --Serge 05:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I stand corrected. I apologize for my mistake. --physicq210 05:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Anyway, I learned an important lesson today. Also, one very cool thing about Misplaced Pages is the relatively high ratio of reasonable to unreasonable people (thanks to folks like you and Will and Yours Truly, if I may), this naming convention issue notwithstanding! --Serge 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable and unreasonable...hm. Which side am I on? Your statement is ambiguous. --physicq210 05:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not ambiguous. I said thanks to folks like you the reasonable to unreasonable ratio is high, which implies you're in the numerator... (otherwise, it would be no thanks to you the ratio is high...). --Serge 05:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, chill. No need for such hostility. But now I get what you mean. --physicq210 05:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This vote might as well be nullified! I would consider this straw poll void in the case of "vote stacking". I strongly support disregarding this poll, for stacking the votes, by only informing people in favor of your view of its occurence, might as well qualify as it not reflecting the views of the community, but the views of select people who sypathise with one party. Ericsaindon2 05:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read this entire section and edit your comment accordingly. At this point 100% (3 out of 3) of those who were opposed to moving Chicago, Illinois to Chicago are aware of this poll and have voted here, while only about half (9 out of 17) of those who supported the move have been notified. --Serge 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Serge here, despite my differences with him. I was merely pointing out my observations, not jumping to conclusions. --physicq210 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, canvassing was involved in the Chicago poll as well. -Will Beback 05:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Peer review requests not specifying archive
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)