While you've placed a deletion discussion notice at Isabel, North Dakota, the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabel, North Dakota does not exist. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. I've gotten it started now. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. I saw that you participated in a discussion on a similar topic. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wahlsten, Minnesota (AfD discussion)

This is going to be awful. Minnesota doesn't have villages, since it got rid of the idea in 1974; and most of the state is incorporated, either as a home-rule city or as a township with a board of supervisors, so the population of Category:Unincorporated communities in Minnesota should be almost zero articles, especially as the few bits of Minnesota that are unorganized territories are Category:Unorganized territories in Minnesota. There are going to be a lot of people fighting these basic truths. Uncle G (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Uncle G: I don't know where you hail from, but it is important to understand that townships in the US have nothing really to do with towns. Some states have them; many (e.g. Maryland) do not. In some states (e.g. NC) they are completely vestigial and have no function other than to appear on real estate documents; in others they are the important political division rather than counties. In all cases, if they exist, they are districts within counties which typically cover the whole thing except for some incorporated places, but not always.

  The big issue for our cleanups has been that people will typically try to save a place by merging/redirecting to the enclosing township. Minnesota is weird in having an area which doesn't have townships, but it isn't really going to figure in discussions. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the contrary, in Minnesota townships and towns are the same thing, and in fact legally they are towns and there is even some official Minnesota documentation that reserves township for the old Territory survey rectangles; and this is explained in a lot of places. I just wrote it up for you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota/GNIS cleanup.

    The mid-West doesn't work like you think, or like Wikipedia's town article. Wisconsin is very similar. It has an exception carved out for it in town, but Minnesota is even more exceptional in this regard.

    The big problem is that people are going to get very confused by (a) historical or even modern sources that say "village", (b) the idea that towns surround or even contain cities, (c) the fact that cities can contain as few as 18 people (Funkley, Minnesota), (d) the fact that towns are low-population density places and not population centres, and (e) loosely-written sources that use the non-Minnesotan idea of a town to describe what in Minnesota would have been a village or a city.

    Then there are problems like Cloverton, Minnesota which was platted in several blocks, had a telephone directory, has the MRHP Cloverton School, and is even mentioned in the Pine County Arcadia Publishing book as being built alongside the railway; but which wasn't named after the Red Clover company (as that was 5 years afterwards), wasn't incorporated, has been padded with geography that's actually not correct per the platting records and is clearly some editor just going by a Google Maps pin, and is governmentally simply a part of the town of New Dosey and is not formally a legally recognized statutory city (because the then village basically collapsed in the 1920s). Just like Kingsdale, Minnesota, another Tri-State Land Company donation.

    Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An User talk:Gooseneck41 is adding what looks like whistle-stops which they call unincorporated towns. Wanted to get your opinion of those recent AFC approvals on the bottom of their talk page. I sent one to AfD. Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kirk, Kentucky is probably OK but the others are classic GNIS/post office ones where actually looking at the map would cast serious doubt on the reality of a town. We really need to have a talk with the AFC people about these but it's not likely anyone would be listening. Mangoe (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• For what it's worth, I've been working on Kentucky for a while, now, and the way to handle at least Eastern Kentucky is by the Creeks, which is where the people settled, and along which they ran roads and railway lines, after which most things are still named, and which we have quite a lot of good sources for that go creek-by-creek.

  The sad thing is seeing Forks of Elkhorn, Kentucky and even Rennick cited in it, and it still being "unincorporated community" crap. Rennick's full county history, better than the abridged book, calls The Forks of Elkhorn a "village" twice over. And the history books point out when Nathaniel Sanders arrived there, have all of the captains and colonels, the Baptist church, and the distillery. There's even an entire UKP book devoted to the 8 miles (13 km) reach downstream of The Forks.

  Elkhorn Creek (Kentucky) and Forks of Elkhorn, Kentucky could be like Troublesome Creek (North Fork Kentucky River) and The Forks of Troublesome. There's even a directly analogous situation of The Forks having history that pre-dates organization as Kentucky state. But we have GNIS-sourced "unincorporated community" crap instead, and don't even address the forks of the creek in the article that's named "forks".

  Similarly: How can one look at a source that has "town" in its title and not call Patesville, Kentucky a town?

  The problem is that people think that the GNIS mess is the way to create new articles.

  Uncle G (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've wrung some sources for which are the post offices and the hamlets in Cheyenne County, Kansas, Ellis County, Kansas, and Decatur County, Kansas, q.v., which has revealed several "unincorporated community" and "ghost town" articles that are difficult to confirm as more than post offices. See the county articles. I tried to fix Wheeler, Kansas for you along the way, but Special:Diff/1198032374 and Special:Diff/1194147150/1198034098 shows content-free boilerplate, which you've probably noticed yourself across these ghost town articles, outweighing truth. Uncle G (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]