234:. This of course isn't the determining factor, but it's important: virtually everyone knows what a ghost town is, but we'd be hard pressed to say exactly what a former settlement is ā is it former in the sense that nothing exists, or no population exists, etc.? "Ghost town" works well for the purposes of sorting communities on county templates, and as long as we have no major issues with using that term, it should suffice for the simple purposes of these templates.
31:
135:
253:"former settlements" or even "ghost towns and former settlements". So can we not make that simply change first, now, and do the more arduous work of ferreting the Stockyardses later? And I disagree that if forget about the Stockyardses then "we're left with spots that either have the buildings left (e.g.
265:
for us pull a place name out of GNIS and declare it a "ghost town" when there are no sources calling it that. This is especially true for GNIS entries that it calls "historical", as according the GNIS FAQ, "A feature with '(historical)' following the name no longer exists and is no longer visible on
360:
Some of the listed counties were simply renamed or transferred between jurisdictions, so the the listings really are former pairs of names. Every listing is marked up with some internal link, so the former names are represented by a mix of redlinks (because three are no articles on counties under
217:
A major confusing factor here is articles such as
Stockyards, which are now part of municipalities (in Stockyards' case, it's Berkeley) and thus fall under the category of pages that generally get merged to their municipalities and never are included in county templates. Let's leave those out of
397:
Today I began to study the "Remarks" provided in decennial US Census tables of aggregate population by county. Most of the remarks explain establishment of new counties, intercounty transfers of territory, and interstate transfers of counties. Only about 19 mere name changes are remarked in the
252:
These are good points. I agree entirely that places like
Stockyards don't belong in these templates at all. They probably all need a thorough going through, and places such as Stockyards to be removed. But that's a lot of work. Certainly much more labor intensive than changing "ghost towns" to
172:
made the chances. This was, however, quickly reverted by another editor who, when pressed for an explanation, commented "Nationwide, we use "Ghost towns", but there's nowhere (outside of some
California templates) that uses "Former settlements". It's not simply a matter of California internal
271:
261:, whose "precise location is unknown" according to our article, so it's safe to say that is has neither abandoned buildings nor "ruins of still being populated places", and is thus not a ghost town. Seems like blatant
222:) or have ruins of still being populated places. There's nothing of original research or inaccuracy here to argue that abandoned communities (if they're stated as being communities, for which purpose our
361:
their former names) and redirects to the current name. Under
Alabama, the first subheading in the list, five out of eight "former counties" are merely former names, according to their one-line entries.
92:
Apologizes in advance if this has already been discussed or if this is the wrong forum. There's a lot of inconsistency with how formerly inhabited places in
California are dealt with by the
270:. Valid features... become historical if they no longer exist." I agree that "virtually everyone knows what a ghost town is", and I think that virtually everyone would agree that
218:
this discussion, since they shouldn't be on these templates at all. When we forget about places like
Stockyards, we're left with spots that either have the buildings left (e.g.
149:
72:
67:
59:
325:
The list of former counties does expressly include name changes and state changes for persistent counties. So the former counties really are former pairs of names. --
131:
354:
305:
93:
138:. Clearly this is not a ghost town, by any stretch of the imagination, and it is not described as such anywhere other than wikipedia, as far as I can tell.
118:
descriptor, most of the places listed as such do not appear to be true ghost towns, by which I mean they don't match description of ghost town given in our
257:) or have ruins of still being populated places." If that were the case, then I'd agree that "ghost towns" is fine. But we're also left with places like
313:
189:
156:
is preferable because it doesn't imply anything about the current state of the location: it may be currently inhabited under a different name, like
114:. Other templates use combinations of the two. So there is this consistency issue. But a bigger problem, IMHO, is that for those navboxes using the
47:
17:
407:
372:
364:
350:
301:
127:
317:
107:
97:
188:
What does this project think? I'll note that this was previously discussed, but with too few participants and no really consensus at
287:
203:
38:
391:
334:
295:
243:
211:
403:
357:. Neither one is claimed by this project or any other. Are they unknown here? Is the practice deprecated?
165:
157:
123:
367:
is emphatically incomplete in the lead sentence and a few lines later with a plea for help. I have added
376:
279:
227:
275:
413:
I wonder whether mere name changes should be listed as "former counties" together with all the rest.
254:
239:
219:
168:. Only one other editor commented on my proposal, and s/he didn't object, so I went ahead and
266:
the landscape. Examples: a dried up lake, a destroyed building, a hill leveled by mining...
258:
161:
283:
199:
308:. At the moment, the category begins with a headnote (one link blue and one red, today).
177:
is more important than consistency. But I also think that we should probably also change
169:
173:
consistency, but of nationwide consistency." I would argue that accuracy and avoiding
387:
330:
382:
Let me solicit comments. I anticipate finding more of these soon, probably today. --
262:
235:
194:
174:
102:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
190:
Template talk:Humboldt County, California#Ghost towns (and former settlements)?
231:
119:
268:
A ghost town, for example, is not a historical feature if it is still visible
226:
sources will serve well) are ghost towns. Moreover, we have no article on
383:
326:
406:
for a brief list of those nineteen, only seven of which are in the
282:, even without an article on the topic, seems much more accurate.
223:
25:
371:, a former name, by editing both the Kentucky grouping at
141:
I proposed standardizing these templates using the term
318:Category:Former settlements in the United States
355:Category:Former counties of the United States
306:Category:Former counties of the United States
8:
314:Category:Ghost towns in the United States
185:on the nav-boxes for other states, too.
160:; there may be nothing there at all like
134:listed in the GNIS database geolocate to
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject U.S. counties
164:; or it may be a true ghost town, like
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
410:that expressly includes name changes.
408:List of former United States counties
373:List of former United States counties
365:List of former United States counties
351:List of former United States counties
302:List of former United States counties
7:
128:Template:Alameda County, California
126:is designated as a "ghost town" on
379:, with references at the latter.
108:Template:Merced County, California
98:Template:Amador County, California
24:
402:(1880, note the early date). See
230:, while we have a decent one on
29:
1:
296:07:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
244:06:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
212:05:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
428:
375:and the lead paragraph at
369:Josh Bell County, Kentucky
94:California county navboxes
345:So-called former counties
392:15:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
335:15:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
404:User:P64/Counties/Names
300:FYI wikipedia includes
166:Drawbridge, California
158:Stockyards, California
124:Stockyards, California
120:article on the subject
377:Bell County, Kentucky
42:of past discussions.
349:Knowledge includes
152:. I think the term
183:former settlements
154:former settlements
143:former settlements
112:Former settlements
100:refers to them as
291:
280:Former settlement
228:former settlement
207:
198:
175:original research
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
419:
289:
276:Rugg, California
259:Apyu, California
205:
192:
162:Apyu, California
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
427:
426:
422:
421:
420:
418:
417:
416:
347:
294:
210:
122:. For example,
96:. For example,
90:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
425:
423:
415:
414:
411:
346:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
323:
322:
321:
286:
278:) is not one.
247:
246:
202:
197:for that link.
89:
86:
83:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
424:
412:
409:
405:
401:
396:
395:
394:
393:
389:
385:
380:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
356:
352:
344:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
315:
310:
309:
307:
303:
299:
298:
297:
293:
292:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
264:
260:
256:
251:
250:
249:
248:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
216:
215:
214:
213:
209:
208:
201:
196:
191:
186:
184:
180:
176:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
144:
139:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
104:
99:
95:
87:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
400:Tenth Census
399:
381:
368:
363:
359:
348:
311:
288:
267:
204:
195:User:Zzyzx11
187:
182:
178:
153:
146:
142:
140:
115:
111:
101:
91:
78:
43:
37:
179:ghost towns
147:ghost towns
145:instead of
132:coordinates
116:Ghost towns
110:calls them
103:Ghost towns
88:Ghost towns
36:This is an
312:See also:
284:Yilloslime
232:ghost town
200:Yilloslime
193:Thanks to
130:, but the
170:WP:BOLDly
79:ArchiveĀ 7
73:ArchiveĀ 6
68:ArchiveĀ 5
60:ArchiveĀ 1
353:and its
304:and its
236:Nyttend
39:archive
106:while
263:WP:OR
255:Bodie
220:Bodie
16:<
388:talk
331:talk
316:and
272:this
240:talk
224:GNIS
150:here
136:here
384:P64
327:P64
181:to
390:)
333:)
242:)
64:ā
386:(
329:(
290:C
274:(
238:(
206:C
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.