Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of counties in Colorado/detail


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While the nominator may have come to AfD looking for an enforced merge or a rename, I do not see a consensus for either. Numerically and policy-wise, there is a clear consensus to delete. Arguments in favor of keeping tend to fall along the lines of Its useful! or I like it!. Both have been found to be poor arguments by the community. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 12:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

List of counties in Colorado/detail

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

These were split from their parent articles List of counties in Colorado with this edit and List of municipalities in Colorado with this edit without any attribution by. Since subpages are not allowed in mainspace, these should be merged back into their respective list articles without leaving a redirect, or if there is a desire to keep these separate, they should be moved to a separate descriptive or disambiguated title. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I will move these illegal subpages to the List of counties in Colorado: details and the List of municipalities in Colorado: details. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure a colon is appropriate when a backslash is not, but in any case, nothing should be done until consensus is reached and the discussion is closed. Moving pages during a discussion just creates a mess (and creates redirects unless they are suppressed) and causes confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep : These two pages contain tables of detailed information used to populate many Colorado-related articles. These two table are sufficiently large that including them in the main articles would disadvantage users with phones and other small screen devices, so I moved them to these secondary articles. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SPLITLISTs are certainly valid, but they need descriptive names. I am not sure what would be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The new pages contain a lot of data in a single place that will prove helpful to researchers. Perhaps a title like Statistical abstract of Colorado counties is more fitting, for the pages are not mere lists. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not really seeing why this is a valid split list. The only additional detail listed in this table is elevation, and a column could easily be added to the main list for that. AFAIK there aren't similar articles for other states. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the fact that other articles don't have something is a good reason not to eliminate something. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 22:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Just another Listcruft. Lorstaking 16:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Listcruft or not, these lists are actively used by WikiProject Colorado. Perhaps they should have a say.


 * When the List of municipalities in Colorado was nominated for Featured List, the main complaint was that the table was far too wide. Moving the original table to the List of municipalities in Colorado: details was intended to remedy this problem. This also eliminated the need for a separate table of Municipalities in multiple counties.


 * The List of municipalities in Colorado uses the List of municipalities in Colorado provide the coordinates for its GeoGroup. Likewise, the List of counties in Colorado uses the List of counties in Colorado provide the coordinates for its GeoGroup. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 22:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per Nom. There is redundant content with the parent article and per Lorstaking WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay based on What Wikipedia is not that is policy.  --  Otr500 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As nom, I'd like to clarify that I am not advocating for deletion of the content, only the page. The current situation is untenable, so the content should either be merged back, or the pages moved to new titles. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. The nominator proposed a merge but there seems to be more support for an outright deletion of these pages. Would those advocating Keep be amenable to a merge? The one thing that is clear is that these pages can not remain at these titles. Please do not move the articles in question during this AFD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is a duplication. As an ATD someone can merge with List of counties in Colorado or we can redirect which would preserve the history. Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * These articles were split from their parents with content not found there, so they are not duplications. As I've said, I favor them either being merged back (without a redirect) or moved to appropriate titles. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: for legal reasons, we cannot merge and delete the redirect. We could move the redirect to a different valid redirect, but we cannot delete it. All of the stats exclusive to the detailed list are contrary to WP:NOTDATABASE. Listing population is fine, but growth and past size are not needed. Finally, per the explicit examples in WP:LOCALCON, WikiProjects have no special influence in the consensus-making process (such as deciding to exempt themselves from NOTDATABASE). In sum, I do not see anything that can be merged, so I support deleting the entire page. HouseBlastertalk 23:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Two similiar lists. delete or merge. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Let's not be hasty here. The creating editor(s) have painstakingly constructed a two-page system which is functional and a little bit elaborate, with a lot of info.  And they complied with requirements set by other editors (for achieving "Good list" rating, or whatever), and they've complied with "legal reasons" for whatever, too.  This AFD is a brand new (for these articles) process and time must be allowed to sort out a different solution.  Pressing for immediate "Delete" is just unhelpful.  Perhaps this should be admin closed and taken out of the AFD domain, to allow for refinements that are satisfactory to the editors.  The two-page system, at least if some issues are worked out, may well be a model for improving all the other U.S. states' corresponding pages. --Doncram (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Possible refinements I have experience with many big list systems especially related to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), although I have not been a "Featured list" or "Good list" (is that a thing?) reviewer nor have I ever achieved a FL rating, and I personally think this two-list system is neat.  But note that the main list has a lot of white space, which means there is opportunity for rewriting to make the information denser.  In some lists I have saved space by combining multiple pieces of info into one column, e.g. put street address, city or town, and coordinates into one "location" column.  E.g. put both "Year built" and "Year listed on the National Register of Historic Places" into one column that is sortable by the "Year built".  Here are some possibly helpful ideas and some questions, towards working out a system that is fully satisfactory to "everyone that matters", which might not be everyone here, no offense intended.  I will write in named issue areas; feel free to insert comments. --Doncram (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * FIPS code How about drop the FIPS code column from List of counties in Colorado, either by completely dropping the codes or by placing the codes into another column, say in parentheses beneath the county name, filling in some white space? I personally don't see the usefulness of FIPS code in any way for myself, or for most readers.  I don't really know what it is, and have to look it up, and see that it is just an assigned number.  Like the NRHP reference number, it's arbitrary and shouldn't necessarily be presented.  Or as a lesser importance item, it can be kept but subordinated under the county name, so that it is still available, and a reader could run a search for a given FIPS number say to find which county it applies to, while letting go the (not too important) functionaliy of allowing sorting by FIPS code.  Few readers are arriving with either an NRHP reference number or a FIPS number that they want to look up, anyhow.  And, further, per Federal Information Processing Standards, it seems the FIPS code is being retired from wide use, so it may be of less and less interest.  Perhaps there is a state or Federal source online that provides the correspondence of FIPS codes to counties, and that could be mentioned with a link for readers who do want that. --Doncram (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Review issues / table width: The main list appears not to be a wp:Featured list, and the Talk page provides no link to any FL review. Reviewer requirements were mentioned above somewhere, perhaps stated in reference to a different similar list.  Please provide a link to the discussion.  Perhaps the reviewers were stupid and should be ignored.  Perhaps we don't care because this is not being developed for FL listing.  Maybe there will be future wikimedia software developments which magically help display for mobile device users, say by allowing them to toggle between viewing all the columns vs. viewing just selected columns.  So....why not just go ahead and make the main list wider.  I saw mention of concern for readers of mobile devices or other small-screen viewers, if a table is wide.  Is that really so bad, that they would have to scroll over to the right to see some of the columns?  Probably the more important info should be to the left.  Anyhow, let's look into what really matters, not just accept that a screen which requires scrolling is unacceptable. --Doncram (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Anger about duplication: In comments above, to me it seems there is possibly unreasonable anger about the fact that there is duplication between the two tables, and extreme statements that the duplication simply must be eliminated by deletion or merger. I don't know what the problem is, really, but how about present the two tables differently.  So, instead of having a main, limited table and a secondary table duplicating all of that and adding more, how about removing most of the duplicating columns from the second table.  Just call it "List of geographical facts for Colorado counties", or "Additional info by county in Colorado" or something like that.  And keep ALL of the info, just in two tables with no duplication except the "County name" column. --Doncram (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * County seat. This seems like fine info to keep, but how about subordinate it under the county name in the first column, which becomes "County name / (County seat)" or "County name / (County seat) / FIPS".  Being subordinated, the table would not be sortable by county seat name, but maybe that is of lesser imprtance than info which can then be included in another column. --Doncram (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone including children, and all this stuff is traditional and useful, and where are the policy issues?. Having a bunch of sortable columns is fun, to a degree, for children, and it is neat to be able to see which are ranked high when sorted by elevation minimums rather than by elevation maximums, etc.  Keep all of the info in List of counties in Colorado/detail.  Arguments above assert policy issues but don't hold water as far as i can tell.
 * User:Presidentman !votes "Delete" because "I'm not really seeing why this is a valid split list." What???  Please show me where "split list" is a matter of policy. --Doncram (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See, for example, WP:SPLITLIST. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Lorstaking dismisses the list because it is "just Listcruft". In fact this list does not suffer from any of the bad things covered at wp:LISTCRUFT.  The info is objective, requires little or no maintenance, does not require adopting a non-neural view, is not original research, etc.  Out of all the criteria for "LISTCRUFT", perhaps most possibly relevant is: "The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information?  But follow that link and you see that what is bad are "Lyrics databases" (this is not one), "Summary-only descriptions of works" (this is not one), "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" (everything here is immediately understandable, there is no confusion at all), and "Exhaustive logs of software updates" (this is not one).  Okay, then, but "Listcruft" states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  Fine, this page has true, verifiable info.  "Listcruft" does NOT say that true, verifiable info is unsuitable.  I happen to think this is very good for an encyclopedia, to have accessible info, like for children especially.  Like the "Childcraft" encyclopedia or encyclopedia-like set of books that I devoured as a child, was so wonderful.  I see no policy issue here.
 * User:Otr500 states: "There is redundant content with the parent article and per Lorstaking WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay based on What Wikipedia is not that is policy."  I don't see any link to any policy outlawing "redundant content".  I have dismissed Listcruft above.  About "Wikipedia is not a directory", that is about publishing ephemera like opening hours and phone numbers for museums in a list, say. Check wp:NOTDIRECTORY; there is no complaint there which applies here.
 * User:Lightburst states "it is a duplication". So what if there is one column, or several columns, in this article which appear in another article too.  Note another list by Colorado county is List of Colorado county high points; should we delete the county name column out of that because county names are already listed elsewhere?  I don't see any policy issue. --Doncram (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So, there are no policy issues as far as I can tell, so the outcome here should simply be "Keep". That said, perhaps there are some changes which might be made, as editorial matters of organizing information, and I wonder what User:Buaidh thinks now? --Doncram (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a policy issue here as I noted in my nom, that WP:SUBPAGES are not allowed in mainspace. So the content must either be merged back to where it was split from, or the pages moved to appropriate titles. So "Keep" is not an acceptable outcome. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments': Aside from the above mentioned WP:SUBPAGES, I think at least one is taking a very argumentative and final authority approach to the arguments for keep. Not sure why "unreasonable anger" was mentioned at all. It has been my less non-tenured (edit count wise) time on Wikipedia that the closing of the discussion be determined by --- the closer. Wikipedia is not a text book, statistics table, or database. Maybe I need to cast the page on my 60" TV (17" is not enough) so I can see the whole bunch of figures without scrolling. I imagine it would really play hell viewing on a tablet or cell phone per the creators rationale ("would disadvantage users with phones and other small screen devices") for the page. It seems most of this would be of use to a specialist (serious researcher of some degree) and not the average reader. I cannot imagine the world where kids would enjoy playing with sortable columns. To me (we are allowed opinions) this, as a stand alone list, is unneeded and unencyclopedic bunch of intricate details.  --  Otr500 (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.