Talk:County commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Counties (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. counties.
 

Board of Commissioners (Slovak executive body)[edit]

I don't think the link to the Slovak executive body belongs in this article. It has no connection to county governing bodies in the United Stats save for the fact that, when translated into English, its title happens to be similar. Johnsonkurtis (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

merge proposal[edit]

I have proposed to merge all of the various county legislative bodies into this one article. Several of them are stubs, and there is plenty of room for the longer ones. This will be a good way to make the variances clear. Greg Bard (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, the following pages have been proposed to be merged into this article:

NB, A very similar discussion is taking place at Talk:County executive#Merge proposal. olderwiser 12:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose The county commission article is a bare stub, while many of the merge candidates are substantial articles that references state-specific details that would be inappropriate in a common article. By all means, expand this article or create / expand some article about county government in the U.S., but eliminating the individual articles accomplishes nothing and makes Wikipedia worse for the effort. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It accomplishes one article with all the variations made clear and available for someone to compare in one place. There is no reason for all these articles on the essentially same subject.Greg Bard (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Create a high level parent article about county government in the U.S. and reference all of the sub-articles. Throwing details of all 50 states into one article is pointless. Alansohn (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, it isn't pointless, but a bunch on articles about the same subject is pointless. People have to make links to these things. Comprehensive articles are preferred to scattered information.Greg Bard (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to oppose merging the more specific topics. And I don't think this article is the best title to use for an article that provides a broad overview. I suggest titling such an article along the lines of County government in the United States. At least initially, I'd suggest that such a overview article retain links to these more specific articles. Once such a parent framework article is fleshed out, it may turn out that we want to change some of these specific articles to become section redirects to the topic covered in the overview. But I don't think that can be determined at this time in the abstract. olderwiser 12:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Folks, I would recommend that you read Wikipedia:Integrate for an accepted method of creating comprehensive articles in Wikipedia. This proposal is consistent with that guideline. One comprehensive article which is capable of eventually achieving GA status, is preferable to five scattered articles which never will. Greg Bard (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Integrate is an essay, not an editing guideline. It is incumbent on those favoring merging to clearly articulate the advantages of merging and convince other editors of the benefits. Merging and integration is not a simple matter and given the previous rather bull-headed approach you've taken to related matters, I remain skeptical. olderwiser 17:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for all the reasons stated so eloquently by Alansohn. Contrary to Gregbard's assertions, well-sourced and thoughtful articles about county government in a single state are far more likely to qualify at FA or GA than an omnibus article that attempts to describe a diverse variety of structures in various different states. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for all the reasons stated above. Gregbard appears to be unfamiliar with the extensive literature on comparative law at the U.S. local government level, starting with Osborne Reynolds' treatise on Local Government Law, to which I have added citations in various parts of WP.--Coolcaesar (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because in Texas and other states, the Commissioners' Court is a unique institution combining legislative and judicial powers; whether that is good or bad is another question, but it is more than merely a simple difference of name from the county commission found in other parts of the U.S. Of course the two articles can and should be clearly cross-linked for ease of reference. Textorus (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the above, but most of all because no one in their right mind can figure out what in any omnibus article actually pertains to whatever state they happen to be standing in should they be in the US. Murkifying stuff by combining is NOT what this project should be straining to achieve. More the more information, the better. // FrankB 17:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)