Talk:2001 Bangladeshi census

Requested move

• 2001 Bangladesh census → Census of Bangladesh, 2001
• 1991 Bangladesh census → Census of Bangladesh, 1991
• Indonesia 2000 census → Census of Indonesia, 2000
• Costa Rica 2000 Census → Census of Costa Rica, 2000
• Costa Rica 2011 Census → Census of Costa Rica, 2001
• Peru 1993 Census → Census of Peru, 1993
• Peru 2005 Census → Census of Peru, 2005
• Peru 2007 Census → Census of Peru, 2007
• Soviet Census (1937) → Census of the Soviet Union, 1937
• Soviet Census (1989) → Census of the Soviet Union, 1989
• Moldovan Census (2004) → Census of Moldova, 2004
• Russian Census (2002) → Census of Russia, 2002
• Russian Census (2010) → Census of Russia, 2010
• Tanzanian census (2002) → Census of Tanzania, 2002
• Ukrainian Census (2001) → Census of Ukraine, 2001
• German census of 1895 → Census of Germany, 1895

– There is currently a massive inconcistency amongst the names provided for census in countries. The proposed format provides a constent approach which is style the same as that of elections which follow the Election of Country, Date format providing a precedence. The format can be seen as Census of COUNTRY, DATE. I am aware that this proposed move does no provide for all census but it was beginging to become confusing and I am not sure the propsed multiple move template can take many more proposals. If the move(s) are passed I will of course apply for moves to the other pages. Shatter Resistance (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Survey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please use the straw poll below

---

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles. Larger comments, general discussion and alternative proposals should be expressed in the Discussion area below or in a new relevant subsection.

• Strong Support - Nominator. Shatter Resistance (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Propose instead standardizing to the 2001 Bangladesh census naming convention as this sounds the most natural. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support – since standardization is a good thing. Exceptions can be made when there is a good case for an exception. Zero^talk 00:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support standardizing, as there are some very odd formats here ("Peru 2005 Census", for example). However, like CWenger I prefer "2001 Bangladesh census" (or perhaps "2001 Bangladeshi census", as proposed below). Ucucha 18:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Propose instead – I propose a cleaner title style without commas as they are not necessary and not mandated by Wikipedia style guidelines. There are very many "year" articles in Wikipedia with unpunctuated titles. The following dozen covering a variety of subject matters illustrate the point:

• APEC United States 2011
• Film Critics Circle of Australia Awards 2011
• FIS Snowboarding World Championships 2011
• Georgia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011
• Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011
• Miss Teen USA 2011
• Postal Services Act 2011
• Red Nose Day 2011
• Scotland Bill 2011
• United Kingdom Census 2011
• Victorian Premier League 2011
• World Youth Day 2011

I propose either of these alternative styles — (1) Census of Country Year, so the result would look like Census of Bangladesh 2002, or, (2) Country Census Year, so the result would look like Bangladesh Census 2002. This is a clean look and meaning is immediately obvious and not ambiguous. Commas, like underscores, are often buried visually in underlined links, are semi-visible, and can be missed (cf. Census of Tanzania, 2002). I am a stickler for good grammar, spelling and punctuation, and insert many absent commas into Wikipedia articles, but census article titles do not require commas to be meaningful and understood at a glance. Nothing can be gained by inserting a comma that is not needed. When in doubt, toss it out. Elegant style in writing, as elsewhere, derives from economy. — O'Dea (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I support the idea of standardising these articles. However, my preferred choice would be either "Year Country census" (eg 2001 Bangladesh census) or "Year census of Country" (eg 2001 census of Bangladesh). Jenks24 (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'll just add my support for standardizing these. No meaningful preference as to which format should be chosen.--Kotniski (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

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.

Discussion

Questions should be addressed in this section please.

• If adopted, I assume a bot will be commissioned to modify all the backlinks?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 24, 2011; 16:32 (UTC)

  A bot could be used to modify all the backlinks if it was deemed appropriate, however, I don't think redirects are really that troublesome, typically not many pages actually have links to the census pages at the moment. I think the focus should not be on that issue but instead on the fact that there is currently such variation between article names. Of course if there are calls for a bot to be used it should be done but I think that should really be a seperate discussion from this one on the merits of continuity of article names. Shatter Resistance (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well, some have quite a few, and even though many of these are due to being linked via a template, there are still plenty left to be able to comfortably handle them manually.

  I'm also a bit worried about whether the uniform approach is going to fit all cases. Censuses in Russia, for example, aren't normally referred to as "Russian Census" (the current title), but "Census of Russia" is not much better. If we were to move those, "All-Russia population census" would have been a more appropriate choice (how to handle the year disambiguator wouldn't be that important, though). Same goes for the Soviet Union—it's "All-Union population census", not "Soviet Census" or "Census of the Soviet Union". Something like Russian Empire Census doesn't even need a year, since it was the only population census conducted in the Russian Empire. Other countries may have similar concerns.

  Overall, I'm leaning to supporting this, but not before the issues above are addressed and, when necessary, resolved.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 24, 2011; 17:04 (UTC)

Well in the case of the Russian Empire Census the date for that would be 1897 as stated in the article, this page would be nominated for a move seperatly I think if this standardisation does take place with two proposals on the table, either to call it Census of Russia, 1897 or Census of the Russian Empire, 1897, though if no date was wanted I guess that is reasonable, a common syntax still needs to be established. All-Russia population census is a cumbersome title I personnally feel. As for the fact it is not the name used in Russia that is to an extent irrelevant (though obviously not entirely) as a name needs to be chosen that could easily be found when searched for, an example of this would be articles about Cabinets of countries; in Portugal for example the Cabinet is commonly referred to as the Council of Ministers but the article is called Cabinet of Portugal as it is clearer and more obvious to search for and retains a consistency.

Response to alternative proposal - Firstly, can you please move your alternative proposal so that it isn't confusing if those participating in the survey are 'voting' on the original or alternative proposal (prefferablly into the comments section). Secondly, whilst I understand it has been proposed that multiple article be renamed your current proposal is actually to maintain the status quo, do you intend to change all articles to this format or leave all article as they are. Thirdly, the current situation is not the most adequate or 'natural' 2001 Bangladesh census is grammatically incorrect, it should at least be Bangladeshi rather than Bangladesh if you wish to keep it in the current syntax. Fourthly, I personnally feel that to have the date last, at the end of the name, sounds most natural (whether or not the propsal is to have Census of Countiry or County census). 17:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatter Resistance (talk • contribs)

Just thought people might want to see WP:NC-GAL and WP:NCNUM, these show a clear precedence for my propsed format to be used. I understand census are not explictly mentioned but it seems as those census fall under their general remit and at least serves some guidance. Shatter Resistance (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In response to some of the above: Redirects will handle backlinks just fine and there is no need to worry about changing them. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Ucucha 18:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, to use 2001 Bangladesh census is grammatically incorrect and so it needs to be made at least 2001 Bangladeshi census. My resevation with this format - in both this case and in general terms - is that it becomes unclear about the nature of the census; a 'Bandladeshi' census could be considered to imply a census of those who are Bangladeshi (meaning only Bandladeshi's fill out the census and/or national boundries are not observed) to use Census of COUNTRY, DATE is perfectly clear and unambiguous as it makes it clear the census is taking place within a geo-political area and does not include citizens of the the nation performing the census who are abroad but does include foreign citizens within the country at the time. Shatter Resistance (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If one was to go with 2001 Bangladeshi census, there will be the problems you mentioned. You can see the problems when you transfer the title to the UK census. 2011 British census would simply be unacceptable for a variety of reasons. And what you use for the United States? Since censuses always take place in a defined territory, as opposed to a defined population, the title should include that territory. --89.242.154.83 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to second alternative proposal - Seriously people, don't put alternative proposals in the survey section, I will move them if the proposers don't do so soon, its really confusing to know who is voting for what. It would seem the proposer hasn't actually read the discussion section before making these alternatives if they still think Country census Date is gramatically correct, the demonym has to be used in that format is used. As for the comma many of your examples one of those is a census article, which it has already been discovered are all a mess. The legislation examples again do not work as that is the name of the legislation it is not a bill/act that has taken place in 2011 its name includes 2011. Again with the Eurovision Song Contest and World Youth Day those are the names of the events - the World Youth Day 2008 for example is offically the XXIII World Youth Day 2008, however only one World Youth Day was held in 2008 (there is no XXII World Youth Day 2008). Shatter Resistance (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You clearly have consensus for standardization. So why don't you close the voting above and open a new poll? Make a numbered list of the possible formats and let's vote for which one we want. Zero^talk 10:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The UK census is currently in this format: United Kingdom Census 1841, and the US census is currently in this format: 1880 United States Census (both with capital C), so at least one of those might also need renaming. I can't see any reason why Census might be capitalised, even in the US. --89.242.154.83 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

There is consensus above for standardisation of these titles, apart from any anomalies that might become apparent, but perhaps a straw poll might help decide which new format is preferred. Please express your preference(s) below, along with any brief arguments you might have.

Bangladesh census 2001, United States census 2000, United Kingdom census 2011

Bangladesh Census 2001, United States Census 2000, United Kingdom Census 2011

2001 Bangladesh census, 2000 United States census, 2011 United Kingdom census

2001 Bangladesh Census, 2000 United States Census, 2011 United Kingdom Census

2001 census of Bangladesh, 2000 census of the United States, 2011 census of the United Kingdom

2001 Census of Bangladesh, 2000 Census of the United States, 2011 Census of the United Kingdom

Census of Bangladesh, 2001, Census of the United States, 2000, Census of the United Kingdom, 2011

• I am not too bothered about the comma though. --89.242.154.83 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Census of Bangladesh 2001, Census of the United States 2000, Census of the United Kingdom 2011