Talk:List of Texas county name etymologies (K to Z)
From VfD:
This material has been incorporated into the individual county articles. Also includes List of Texas county name etymologies and List of Texas county name etymologies (A to J). - Kenwarren 03:56, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP! Now, I don't care if the information is incorporated into the individual county articles, but I DO care about deleting List of Texas county name etymologies (A to J and List of Texas county name etymologies (K to Z). What if you wanted to find all the county etymologies in one fell swoop? Look at List of California county name etymologies and List of Minnesota county name etymologies! I contributed much to the page, and I do not want my hard work destroyed. Dralwik
- Keep. There are plenty of things that we have lists of and also have content elsewhere on. I agree with the above rationale (which should be signed, btw). Not doing any harm. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:42, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
- I have two reasons for this:
- First, it creates a maintenance nightmare. Who's going to know to update both locations? The anonymous editor above probably won't bother with future edits, based on his comment. Once the information is out of sync, both sets of pages are, umm, screwed. The information is no longer trustworthy. To be blunt, this is a problem with Wikipedia in general; I've heard from several people who've uniformly said "Yeah, there's a lot of information, but I looked at 2 articles about aspects of X and they were contradictory. Which one do I trust?" (If this vote goes for keep, I feel strongly enough about this that I'll remove all etymologies from the individual articles for the same reason.)
- Second, it doesn't make the information easy to find, one of the primary purposes of an encyclopedia. (Wouldn't the Principle of least astonishment apply here?) If I want to know how El Paso County, Texas came to have that name, where would I expect to look? At the article about the county, of course. If I didn't find it there, why would I look at Texas to find a link to List of Texas county name etymologies? For the user who says "don't destroy my hard work" I would say it's not destroyed, it's migrated to where it's actually useful. And I was planning to do the same thing to Minnesota, California, Kansas, and Arizona.
- Kenwarren 14:08, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Note for above: I AM going to continue editing and creating the afore-mentioned pages and I am creating links on each county page to the etymology lists. (See Anderson County, Texas, for example.)
- See my edit to Anderson County, Texas for what I think could be a good compromise; the information will live in the "List of ..." pages, a single location, but is easily available from the individual county pages. - Kenwarren 15:05, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Kenwarren, on the above edit, I agree to that compromise. Proceed with the edits. Over and out. Dralwik
- Keep - ditto what I said on A-J, but I'd also like to add that it is useful to see the whole list to get a feel for why Texas counties were named the way they were. It gives an idea of the kinds of people we Texans have felt were important to us. Same for California, Minnesota, or any other state. H2O 19:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, it's useful and precident exists for such pages. But regarding the recent edits to Anderson County, Texas, I disagree with the decision to remove the etymology info and instead link the user to the List of Texas county name etymologies (A to J) article in order to find out who the county is named after. It doesn't hurt to have the info in both places. You don't have to remove good info from the Anderson County, Texas article just to justify another article's existance. - Eisnel 19:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The information will only be good for as long as it takes someone to make a single edit to either a single county directly or one of the lists, without transferring it to the other location. (I figure that would take a week or so.) Then one location or the other is out of date, therefore wrong. Or are you volunteering to do a regular sweep of counties to make sure their etymologies and "list of etymologies" are up-to-date? This situation exists in numerous locations in Wikipedia, and results in people discounting the usefullness of Wikipedia. (This per a number of conversations I've had of late...) - Kenwarren 23:16, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
- This doesn't make any sense to me. The information is either accurate, or it isn't. Just because the information agrees doesn't mean it is accurate. H2O 23:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The information will only be good for as long as it takes someone to make a single edit to either a single county directly or one of the lists, without transferring it to the other location. (I figure that would take a week or so.) Then one location or the other is out of date, therefore wrong. Or are you volunteering to do a regular sweep of counties to make sure their etymologies and "list of etymologies" are up-to-date? This situation exists in numerous locations in Wikipedia, and results in people discounting the usefullness of Wikipedia. (This per a number of conversations I've had of late...) - Kenwarren 23:16, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep (both lists). It's an interesting topic and a lot more sensible to organize this way rather than spread out across dozens of articles. I don't understand the concerns about this information being maintained or up-to-date - these counties have all been named and Texas isn't adding new counties, so once this list is done there shouldn't be any new information to add. MK 02:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion