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)[reply]

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

• Commissioners' Court
• Board of Supervisors
• Police Jury
• Fiscal Court
• County Court#United States
• Board of chosen freeholders

NB, A very similar discussion is taking place at Talk:County executive#Merge proposal. older ≠ wiser 12:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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. older ≠ wiser 12:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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. older ≠ wiser 17:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Both counties and cities can use commission form of government, just as both can use Council–manager government or Mayor–council government. These articles should cover this structure of having an elected body that has both legislative and executive powers, without distinguishing between cities and counties. Cities' and counties' powers vary significantly between states, so this should have a broad scope that doesn't make inappropriate generalizations while also not making unnecessary specifications. Reywas92^Talk 20:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where this would seem reasonable, as both articles certainly bear witness to how poor our current coverage of local government is. (Even in the United States! Systemic bias sure comes in a lot of different forms.) But I don't think a merge is appropriate. There is not a lot of overlap between authoritative sources that discuss county commissions and those that discuss city commissions. Absent a scholarly consensus to treat the two as equivalent, I think there would be significant OR and SYNTH problems. In addition, the historical context seems to be quite different -- city commissions are almost two centuries newer, replaced earlier systems, have sometimes been adopted (e.g.) as a way of suppressing the votes of racial and ethnic minorities (or, more charitably, of ward organizations), and have sometimes been argued to be unconstitutional on various grounds -- none of which, AFAIK, is the case for counties. As you note, most of the information we can and should provide is state-specific, so what we really need are proper articles on "local government in X" and "county government in X," which are mostly absent to date. If we had adequate coverage at that more concrete level, I think the need for separate treatment would be more clear. -- Visviva (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]