Talk:McClain County

RFD discussion: March–June 2017

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

McClain County

SOP, McClain + county. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Those two parts don't tell us where it is. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

True, that is the job of Wikipedia. - [The]DaveRoss 12:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

delete it's probably not SOP because it refers to a specific administrative entity, but in any case it's not dictionary material. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. We need more coverage of flyover country in the US. We have no explicit comprehensive policy on toponyms. DCDuring TALK 14:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  Actually, what about "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Place names"? (See my comment below.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  Gee. I missed the vote. My negative vote would have tipped the result to fail. DCDuring TALK 16:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Not a fan of us being an atlas, but we do do place names, and this is one, and not SoP (as explained by Blotto). (P.S. Why did I create it if I don't like the place-name entries much? Because it was in one of Ungoliant's word lists, and I tend to be thorough...) Equinox ◑ 14:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• We aren't an atlas (“collection of maps”), but we are a gazetteer (“geographical dictionary”). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep: satisfies "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Place names" – "The names of primary administrative divisions (states, provinces, counties, etc)." — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• But the names of counties should not be added in such a way. I think the info for "McClain County" would be better off moved to McClain. As said above, it's not dictionary material, and I've actually NEVER seen an entry with "county" at the end of it that wasn't in the deletion log until now. This baffles me. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's part of the name, like city in New York City. Equinox ◑ 15:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Then why don't we have names for every county? Do you think we should include the other tens of thousands of US counties with the name "County" at the end of them? How is that dictionaric? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't have them because nobody has added them yet. Consensus and the place-name policy say that yes, we should have them. Personally I don't care much. Equinox ◑ 15:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete this entry, but mention the county at McClain, for the same reason we don't have (or want) an entry for Mississippi River (but rather Mississippi + river) or, for that matter, a Chinese entry for 北京市 (but rather 北京 + 市). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

We have quite a few US counties. Many, but not all have been added to Category:en:Counties of the United States of America. We should probably have them all, but it would be mind-numbingly boring to add them all. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep. The "County" part doesn't necessarily come after in English, so I think it's useful to include it. For instance, in Alberta, one can find the "County of Two Hills" and the "County of Vermilion" (neither of which can be shortened) but "Sturgeon County" (which can be shortened to "Sturgeon"). "County" is part of the name (at least in Canada), and it's not always predictable whether it precedes or follows the rest of the name (again, at least in Canada). Thus, it is as useful to have as "New York City," IMO. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Also in County Durham. Former counties like Middlesex are also represented, although this discussion is centred on US counties. Keep them all anyway and expand, there must be hundreds of them. DonnanZ (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why this should be included any more than tens or probably hundreds of thousands of other minor place names. Is a dictionary really the place for all these? I think they belong in Wikipedia. Mihia (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in what is in most cases a one-line entry. A link can be added to Wikipedia where an article exists; Wikipedia is of course the place for an in-depth description. DonnanZ (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the question is less about "no harm" and more about what is the purpose of a dictionary. I do not personally think that the purpose of a dictionary is to list potentially hundreds of thousands of minor place-names. Mihia (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

We recently voted on and passed a policy to include counties (see the fifth bullet of CFI#Place names), so if you oppose their inclusion, you'll have to get enough support to overturn that vote. I find etymologies of place names very interesting, so I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't include them in Wiktionay. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, place name etymologies are very interesting. Do these belong in a dictionary? I would say no. It does not bother me enough to campaign to overturn that vote, however. Mihia (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

They may not belong in a regular dictionary, but I think they are perfectly appropriate for a dictionary with unlimited space, a goal to be comprehensive, and no expenses to worry about. As long as someone wants to add them, I say go for it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Not dictionary material and uninteresting. Wyang (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

What you find uninteresting may be of interest to other users; personally I am interested in place names. How places got their names can also be interesting, and etymology is included in some cases. When creating Mascot I found that the original preferred name was Ascot, but the postal authorities weren't in favour for some reason, so the name was changed. DonnanZ (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It is Wiktionary policy to include counties. See the fifth bullet of CFI#Place names. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about Wyang, but my objection is solely to the listings with "County" in the name. I have no objection whatsoever to including county names under their "simple" names, such as McClain in this instance. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"Uninteresting" isn't part of CFI Purplebackpack89 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I am leaning keep because from what I know (as a non-Usonian) county names in the US are always named with the word "County" included, it's a fixed part of the name. Would McClain County ever be referred to as just McClain? If someone asked which county you are from, would the answer likely be McClain or McClain County? —CodeCat 22:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@CodeCat:: If the question was "What county are you from?" I'd say "McClain", because it would be clear from the question I'm answering that I'm referring to the county. But if the question were "Where are you from?" I'd say "McClain County", because "McClain" alone would be interpreted as the name of a city or town. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Should we also delete West Virginia as "West + Virginia" and move the definition to those two? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a pretty massive straw man. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Angr: I don't see how they are different. Or South + Africa, New + York, etc. We just had a discussion on place names and unless I misread that somehow, all first-level subdivisions were considered legit as were cities, towns, and villages. Is that incorrect? Are second-level administrative divisions not included according to your understanding? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Purplebackpack89 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Kept. It's a place name, we allow all of them, sadly. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

And all of Category:en:Counties of the United States of America

That is, to move them to their proper names, for example, Orange County's definition would be moved to Orange, and Orange County will be deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no less than eight counties named Orange County, so that entry kills eight birds with one stone. DonnanZ (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep per my statement above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep (oppose blanket deletion) per Andrew, and New York City: sometimes a place name includes the nature of the name (like city or county), and removing that word gives you a name that isn't what human beings use to describe the place. I think this is coming from a misguided idea about what SoP means (and I say this as a deletionist!). Equinox ◑ 20:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The category is seriously underpopulated, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I think the title of the category is far too long, and should be shortened to say "US counties". This would make addition of the category to entries much easier. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Following up on what was suggested here, I created the shorter name you mention (with language prefix: CAT:en:US counties) as a redirect. Entries that get placed in the shorter-name category can be moved to the longer-name category periodically by bot or AutoWikiBrowser. :) If you use Hotcat, adding even the longer name is not hard, btw. - -sche (discuss) 04:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Not dictionary material and uninteresting. Wyang (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep all. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

About placenames: note that there are placename paper dictionaries e.g. Dictionnaire des noms de lieux (Le Robert), which are purely etymological. Etymological information belongs to the Wiktionary project. Placenames should be welcome, even very minor ones (but not including placenames which cannot be considered as words, such as Excelsior Hotel or 4th Street). Another important reason to include them is demonyms. Lmaltier (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• It seems that in Louisiana they are called parishes, not counties. I wonder why. DonnanZ (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Louisiana was French until the Louisiana purchase.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, apparently it comes from French paroisse. Cheers. DonnanZ (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. These are inherently encyclopedic, as are all of the newly CFI-compliant place names. At least when the bar was at the state and primary administrative district level there wasn't the potential for hundreds of thousands of worthless entries, only hundreds. - TheDaveRoss 12:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't said it before, but keep this category. The subject has become of interest to me. DonnanZ (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep all. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep all CFI says keep these, and it should. Purplebackpack89 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The category has been emptied by Koavf in order to satisfy a personal whim. It has to be refilled. DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Its contents have merely been put in subcategories. Whether or not it would be useful to double-categorize, so that Virginian counties were in both "Counties of Virginia‎" and this big category, I'm not sure. One day it'd be nice if the site software itself allowed users to easily get a clickable list of everything that is in the subcategories of any given category. - -sche (discuss) 04:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I miss the parent category badly and found it very useful, so something has to be done. DonnanZ (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Donnanz I suggest CfDingRFDOing all the daughter categories. Purplebackpack89 11:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: Do you mean RfDing? If so, no, they are useful, I had loads of trouble with Koavf about having entries in the parent category after he moved the goalposts, but hopefully using Category:en:United States county index will solve that problem. DonnanZ (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, @Donnanz, RFDO was what I meant. What do you mean by "moving the goalposts"? Purplebackpack89 15:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: You can get the drift looking at move the goalposts. Koavf opened all the subcategories and then insisted that the parent category couldn't be used for entries any more. I had quite a battle with him. See my talk page. DonnanZ (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep all. John Cross (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Kept. It's a place name, we allow all of them, sadly. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)