Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Ohio county name etymologies/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed 18:00, 16 April 2008.

List of Ohio county name etymologies
-- Scorpion0422 14:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The list lacks properly formatted individual references.
 * 2) It isn't as clear as it should be, for example Several of the references say "For the Indian word for ______". There are several different Indian languages, so which tribe does the word come from?
 * 3) Several of the entries contradict eachother (one source says Crawford County was named after the treasurer William Crawford, others say it was named after William Crawford the soldier.
 * 4) Finally, some of the entries are confusing, ie. the entrie for Adams county says it is named "For President John Quincy Adams (clearly wrong)"... What? If it's clearly wrong, why is it in the list?
 * I don't think you should hold that (#2) against this list. It's not this list's fault that there are different respectable books that are contradicting each other. The lead mentions that there are disagreements.-- Crzycheetah 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just removed the "(clearly wrong)" part. That entry should stay because there is a reliable book that states it.-- Crzycheetah 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea, I agree. Interesting idea for a list, but the execution seems spotty at best. Drewcifer (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Well, it's original and complete, but where are the references in long sections such H or M? -- jskellj -  the nice devil  13:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you oppose the delisting of the article? -- Scorpion0422 17:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Elementare, Watson :-) This list must exit from the featured lists! -- jskellj -  the nice devil  17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove from featured lists. It's no longer a good example. To retain featured status, reference callouts should be updated to current standards. Also, the "Analysis of names" section should either be converted to text (discussing the namesake types that occur more than once) or somehow merged into the same list (for example, in the form of footnotes). --Orlady (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. If you wanted to research more than one or two of these, you would not want to have to deal with 150 numbered footnotes at the bottom of a web page.  This format is more accessible.  There are twelve reliable reference texts and each is represented by its author's name or initials.  This referencing method has been used for decades in the humanities-- and literature and history seem to be what we are referencing here.  So why break out of the style used by a specific field?
 * I don't see that making the individual numbered entries more complicated would be a benefit to readers, especially if from different sources. It simply would not make it easier to interpret the data presented.  For example, changing the following:

Wyandot County (1845):


 * 1. For the Wyandot Indians, who lived in the area. "Wyandot" supposedly means "around the plains" in their language. (O.R., O.A.)
 * 2. For the Indian word meaning "calf of the leg" or "tobacco tribe" (Rydjord)
 * 3. For the Indian word meaning "dwellers on a peninsula" (Rydjord)
 * to

Wyandot County (1845):


 * 1. For the Wyandot Indians, who lived in the area. "Wyandot" supposedly means "around the plains" in their language. (O.R., O.A.)
 * 2. For the Indian word meaning "calf of the leg" or "tobacco tribe" (Rydjord) or the Indian word meaning "dwellers on a peninsula" (Rydjord)
 * simply doesn't make the information any more clear; if anything, it makes it more difficult to follow the list and interpret what each entry indicates-- which is the entire purpose of a list in the first place.
 * On a final note, this list cannot be faulted if the historians that have bothered to try to answer the question of 'where did this place get its name' have not been particular about which Indian language or dialect their suggestion comes from. At this point, there is a good chance that many of the 'Indian' languages referenced are extinct and therefore no one really knows what the words were.  If you review other states entries by clicking at the bottom of the page, you will find no references, and a single, pretty entry for each one.  The fact that Ohio has competing theories about a lot of its counties is what makes this list look the way it does.  Would the list be better if only one of the sources were followed and all of the others removed (leaving this list looking like the other state county name lists, but with one source)?  No--because it would not include all of the varied theories proposed by different historians.
 * Just my 2¢, I suppose. The footnotes should probably be made to look like the other parenthetical references, though-- for consistency sake; this is a matter of 5 minutes of editing.  --Matthew K (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC) (edited)


 * Support, the referencing is spotty, and uses a mix of styles (per MOS, one style should be used consistently). Specific referencing is also preferred to just "this book" or "somewhere on this site." Nothing wrong at all with 150 references in a list of 88 counties. Collectonian (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you support the delisting or support the keeping of the article? -- Scorpion0422 02:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support the delisting. Collectonian (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepIndividual references are fixed. -- Crzycheetah 06:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It's better, but the lead still needs to be expanded. -- Scorpion0422 17:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead explains why the particular Indian language isn't known and why there are more than one entry for each county. What else would you like to see there? -- Crzycheetah 07:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have three specific issues for the lead:
 * What reference support exists for the assertion that "some of the scholars in this area have been unfortunately unconcerned with or unable to determine the particular Indian language"? (That assertion borders on being defamatory of "unconcerned scholars". As an aside, I doubt that all of the sources cited are accurately described as "scholars.")
 * If the information is available, it would be nice to tell how Ohio's county names were determined. (Are they bestowed by the state legislature, selected by referendum of settlers in the new county, or what? Probably the naming methods were different at different historical times.)
 * See my earlier comment about the "Analysis of names" section in the article. Some of the information there could profitably be added to the lead (such as the number of counties with names derived from Indian languages).
 * --Orlady (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC) / refactored to add third issue --Orlady (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist needs to link references to individual page numbers. More explanation of multiple etymologies. gren グレン 09:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Closing comments Consensus seems to be balanced against this list (crudely 5:2) largely over inadequacies with the referencing. The per-entry citation format style isn't critical but not all entries are explicitly cited, which can be a problem for a list such as this where anyone can come along and add their own best guess. As noted, the references lack page numbers, and many are substantial volumes of work. Ultimately, the reader has to work too hard to verify the info, which (given the disagreements among sources) appears to be often mere speculation by local historians. Other issues raised were an inadequate lead and the "analysis" table providing a less then optimal presentation of the information. Compare List of U.S. state name etymologies. Colin°Talk 18:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.