Talk:List of counties in Mississippi

Initial text
Wouldn't List of Mississippi counties be better so as not to give the impression that this is an encyclopedia article about Mississippi counties? Then pages with a title that has the string "List" could be excluded from the total article count statistics (because these aren't articles, they are lists - which really is something almanacs do and not encyclopedias; but because wikipedia is not paper I don't see why we shouldn't have these lists -- so long as they are obviously marked). --maveric149

Sure, I could change them. I think the advantage of having the lists is not for the lists per se, but rather to give an idea of the topics that need to be covered. There is so little information about most of the states. Once these links are filled in, they should give quite a bit information about the different states. Danny


 * Very true. Lists are a good way to start articles by making empty topics obvious. I can help you change over the lists to the "List of" titles. I asked the question because I was just wondering if you thought it would be a good idea to use the format of "list of" when creating lists in the future. Respond back to my talk if you would like help moving and redirecting the lists. --maveric149

Sure. States I have done are: Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nebraska, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. How should we name them so that they are uniform? Danny

How 'bout simply "List of X counties"? I know is sounds a bit forced but there really is only one place these lists will be linked from - that is the state itself (it might also be nice to link the lists in a "See also" section at the bottom of the county articles for that state and nowhere else. I really can't think of a valid reason why one would want to link to these lists from within the text of an article). And since lists are not articles, then normal naming convention rules don't apply -- allowing for the pluralization. Do you think we should change the state names to the possessive form (for example "List of Californian counties") so should we take the no brainer route and simply add "List of" to the start of each name (either way works for me)? I can start on moving over the lists that already exist so that you can finish the rest of the states. --maveric149


 * "List of Californian counties" sounds very strange to my ears. "List of California counties" sounds fine, but I have no problem with "California counties", which is certainly the simplest and most straightforward title. And, of course, such an article _could_ contain general information about, say, how the state was divided into counties, how the county fits into the power structure between the state and the city. Since these things can vary from state to state, it would not be completely unreasonable. --Brion VIBBER
 * If there were an actual article about Californian counties it should be named Californian county in order to conform to our naming convention on pluralization. All Danny and I were talking about is what to call the non-article lists. It looks like the possessive form is the one we will use. --maveric149
 * Problem being that not all states have possessive forms, or forms that are familiar to everyone. New Yorkese? Illinoisian? (Having had Liverpudlian and Mancunian [Manchester] friends, I have given up trying to guess possessives on places). My main concern at this point is uniformity. What would be the way to do it for all states. By the way, Mav, could you perhaps offer some insights on the Talk: Kiev page? Danny
 * You mentioned some valid examples of states that do not have separate possessive forms. In these cases the normal name for the state should be used. I will look into the Kiev issue later. --maveric149
 * So, Maveric, why is it that "it looks like the possessive form is the one we will use"? Unilateral decision on your part? Regardless of "list of" or not, plural or not, "* Californian count*" sounds strange, while "* California count*" sounds normal to my Southern California ears. I vote against using the adjectival forms for these lists for any state. --Brion VIBBER
 * Sorry – I guess I skimmed what you said too quickly. I thought you were arguing for the –ian form for the lists (like I said, either way works for me). I wasn&rsquo;t trying to make unilateral decisions here – trying only to find consensus. If I were being unilateralist I wouldn&rsquo;t have even asked my original question. So its agreed that the lists should not be in the -ian form. --maveric149
 * Ah, I see. Next time I'll say the opposite of what I mean and save us all some time. :) --Brion VIBBER
 * LOL. I'll get to work now moving the lists the old fashion way. --maveric149

Argh! I just made the completely ugly title of List of Maine counties. If nobody disagrees I will use the format of List of counties in X (therefore making list of counties in Maine which sounds far more natural to me). I have some other stuff to do while I wait for some other ideas. --maveric149


 * Well, I see nothing wrong with list of Maine counties. Uh, unless Maine is one of those states that has townships or parishes or something instead of counties, which as far as I know it isn't. I guess I can't complain too much at list of counties in Maine though. The important thing is that we decide on something and not rename fifty pages every day... --Brion VIBBER
 * True, nobody wants to do that. Since you don't see anything wrong with list of Maine counties I won't go through the extra work of undoing the work I've already done and will continue on my original path. --maveric149

Done. Just tell me if I missed anything Danny. Thanks for being so open to the change. Now there won't be any expectation by visitors that an actual article lives at the list pages. This also sidesteps the pluralization issue (which only applies to article naming). --maveric149

Wikiproject help
Some helpful information on U.S. county lists can be found at WP:COUNTYLISTS. Tom pw (talk) (review) 16:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Double county seats?
The table lists only two, while the text says there are ten. I can find the following on the MDOT map after a quick look: --NE2 18:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Chickasaw: Houston and Okolona
 * Panola: Batesville and Sardis
 * Tallahatchie: Charleston and Sumner
 * Yalobusha: Coffeeville and Water Valley