Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania

Personal comments, wordings and easily fixed things
I'm not a fan of the galleries, but then maybe that's just me.
 * Thanks, per the Featured list criteria #3 ("It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status."), we wanted to have some images that were not maps, to give the reader an idea of what the county looks like. Since the tables are 100% wide, fitting the images between lists in one-row galleries worked and followed the model of the Featured List of Pennsylvania state parks. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think such images are strictly necessary to begin with (nobody felt the need to add something like that to our lists of counties), and also to me it's just disguised s . Not to mentions that those tables are recommended against in any reasonable accessibility recommendations, including our owns. I admit there's a bit of a visceral dislike, but to me these particular are not really informative (they don't show the municipalities, for the most part!) and a wasteful use of screenspace. Circeus 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because you have a "visceral dislike" doesn't mean that the photos should be excluded. They do show the municipalities, since every square inch of Lycoming County is part of one of the municipalities. And they show the reader/viewer what the county looks like. I really don't understand the problem here. Plus similar photos have been included in an FL list List of Pennsylvania state parks. Dincher 20:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to link "City" and "borough" in the table, when they should have been linked in the table. Circeus 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I do not understand what you mean here. I think you mean delink the words "city" and "borough" in the first list and this is what I have done, but could you please confirm this? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did mean they should not be linked in the table, but also meant these should be linked in the lead (e.g. "Any municipality in Pennsylvania with more than 10 persons can incorporate as a borough (Pennsylvania)." And so on with township (Pennsylvania) (NOT township, which is useless here) and possibly city.

"All territory in Pennsylvania is incorporated: there are no unincorporated areas in the county or state." This feels redundant and poorly written
 * Thanks, changed to "There are no unincorporated areas in the county, since all territory in Pennsylvania is incorporated.", is this acceptable? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better

On one hand, you say "there are no unincorporated areas in the county or state," and right after "Unincorporated areas within Lycoming County townships include [...]".
 * Thanks, good catch and sorry about that. I have changed the second and next-to-last sentences of that first paragraph in the Municipalities section to hopefully make it clearer. Not sure how much more detail on villages to add - despite the fact that villages have no legal status, people identify with them in terms of saying where they live and even in giving directions. The post office uses some of them for address purposes (i.e. most or all of Cummings Township's mailing address is "Waterville, PA" for its principal village). Because of this, we thought it useful to include the villages in the list under their townships. Also note that there are even smaller hamlets, which are marked on maps, but not with road signs. We did not include these anywhere. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think just saying that the list mention villages and defining hem (As faras I can tell "villages" proper are unincorporated, but defined for the purpose of road signs) is appropriate, you could add that bit about other occasional uses. I think since there is such a defined entity asa village, you could list them in a separate section (with much less details, of course, and probably unlinked) instead of mentioning them under the township.Circeus 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the villages should be kept as is. For one they are absolutely part of the township within which they are located. The villages are by no means independent of the townships and in fact many of the villages are the homes of the township's municipal offices. I see no need for a seperate section. It just adds more stuff to the list. Dincher 20:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Far too many spurious wikilinks in the references. The only one (besides dates) I can see useful is the first instance of Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. And the "no ISB"notes are silly.
 * Thanks, all extra wikilinks have been removed from references except for dates (which are automatically generated by use of cite templates) and the first mention of PHMC. Also removed the "Note: no ISBN" from three book refs - I originally added this note because it was requested in a successful FAC I was involved in. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous either there is, or there is no ISBN, and if there is not, you can usually put in something else instead (a LCCN or a OCLC number, for example), but giving them for web references is mildly redundant unless the sources is easier to look up on paper. That would be my take on it. Circeus 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Etymology/comments columns
Consider renaming "remarks" to "etymology" and drops the "include" parts. (or just actually list these villages separately,especially if the "counties split from Lycoming" section goes).
 * Thanks, I renamed "Remarks" to "Etymology, date laid out, or villages included" as that was the information present (plus identifying Williamsport as the county seat, which is still in the list). Please see my comment above for our rationale of including villages. I also removed the last trivia here per SatyrTN's comments above and the fact that it no longer fit the category title. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I think the most sensible option is a small subsection for villages. I have no idea what "laid out" means. How is it different from settling and incorporation? If you're going to have such a lridiculously long header, though, you might as well revert to "remarks"... Circeus 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Laid out" is when a planner/developer surveyed, cleared and graded the land, planning the town, it's streets, homes etc., Dincher 20:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A new town might have already had settlers for decades before being officially "laid out" (Williamsport, Montoursville) or it may never be laid out officially and just develop from settlements (Picture Rocks, Mongomery).


 * As far as I know, none of the 50 villages have articles on Wikipedia, although the CDP does. They do not have defined populations (Census does not collect data on them separately from their townships), nor have I seen defined areas for them. USGS GNIS has coordinates and elevations for them, but for many the artcles would be extremely stubby. A separate list of villages could have their township(s), elevation, coordinates and not sure of anything else. I do not see why the villages need their own list. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 06:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don,t want the villages to have their "own list", but I do think this list would be better organized if they were moved to separate section: they do not need any more data than what you have here! And if they did, they wouldn't need articles either! it's just be something like (formatting borrowed from List of Orkney islands, another featured list):

===Villages and Census-designatd places=== Lycoming County's townships include one census-designated place (CDP) and fifty villages. CDPs are geographical areas designated by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of compiling demographic data. Villages are marked with signs by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Neither CDPs nor villages are actual jurisdictions under Pennsylvania law and their territory is legally part of the township(s) they are located in. This list indicates villages ordered by the towship they are located in. The only CDP in Lycoming County is Garden View, in Old Lycoming Township *Brown Township: Cedar Run, Slate Run *Cascade Township: Kellyburg


 * Does that make what I propose more sensible? You can even keep the links if you want to. Circeus 01:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't know what you are trying to get at. Dincher 01:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you mean you want us to remove the villages from the first table and put them in a "separate section" below (if I follow the example of the Featured Orkney Islands list, which has a sortable table, with a section below it. The only other thing I can think of is that you want us to replace the townships table with just a list of villages, but that has to be wrong. Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first option is what I refer to. Basically, if you are going to list the villages one way or the other, you might as well do it so they are more prominent, because as is, you have to lookk for the information to realise it's there. Circeus 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How about bolding the villages and keep them where they are? Dincher 02:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How about explaining to me why it is a much better option to keep villages scattered within the township table? I've explained my reasons, and it utterly failed to convince, so I assume you must have better arguments to keep them where they are? Circeus 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The villages are not municipalities. This is a list of municipalities. Dincher 02:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither are counties, for that matter, nor are tidal skerries and islets from the list I took the from islands per se. Circeus 03:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially since the villages are, mostly, just a small part of the overall township. But they are the center of population. So I am guessing that it could go either way. Note that the villages are unofficial and the townships are official. Dincher 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that, and it is why I specifically say this doesn't mean you have to have articles for them. Circeus 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

counties formed from Lycoming and former townships
I'm really not sure that "Pennsylvania counties formed from Lycoming" is a relevant section. This is really a big chunk of an obvious Territorial evolution of Pennsylvania article (cf. Territorial evolution of Mexico, Canada, the United States, Australia...). Without a map showing the original extant of Lycoming county, it's just very confusing too.
 * Thanks, please see my general comments below for the rationale for including the counties in this list. As for the Territorial evolution of Pennsylvania article, it is a great suggestion (thanks), but this is not that article. Pennsylvania has 67 counties (not counting the three Delaware counties that were initially part of the colony), and its land was purchased in 12 separate treaties (see map below), so I think the suggested article would be much more complex than this list is, and proably more complex than most of the example articles cited. Plus beyond the "formed from" list, there are any number of smaller land transfers between counties not mentioned here - as one example, what is now Gregg Township was originally part of Lycoming County, then part of Union County, then back with Lycoming, then finally part of Union County (for simplicity I just listed where it is now). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest point is that, technically, while these counties where in the past part of Lycoming, they, when they were entities of their own, where never in Lycoming: a county cannot contain another, and as such no other county was ever part of the set "municipalities in Lycoming county". Does that make sense?
 * Also, the section is way overdetailed, and there is no need whatsoever to copy the entire table rows from List of Pennsylvania counties! The only things about these counties (not counting te name and map) that are relevant to this particular list are the "created" and "origins" columns! The rest is fluff that makes the table overwhelmingly complex for what it needs to say. Also, consider putting the split counties in Chronological order instead of alphabetical
 * Similarly, if you keep only incorporation details for "former townships", you can have all the details within the section (because they don't really need to be in a table anymore), and make the relationships between the townships clearer: I think they should be placed in a "hierarchic" order (Township A in Lycoming into Township B and C, C Latter split into C and D. B and C are now in counties E and F respectively... you get my drift) instead of a disconnected alphabetical order.
 * Finally, have any Municipalities in Lycoming ever disbanded or merged (as opposed to split to another county)? Circeus 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I hope the requested map is to your liking. It took me some time to make, so I did not get to the rest of the comments until now. I will put the counties in chronological order (dates of formation). When they have the same year, I will go by day and month (although this is not currently given in the list), and if those are the same, alphabetic order. I will remove the FIPS, county seat, and etymology columns. I think the current area and population are useful as they give an idea of how much teritory and how many people live in what was once part of Lycoming County and will not remove those. As noted elsewhere, the format of the List of Pennsylvania counties article was used as there are several FLs with this same format. Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The map is great. However, you misunderstand my argument. While the table format is perfectly appropriate for List of Pennsylvania counties, here it is entirely unnecessarily detailed. The only information that is needed is that which link the county/township to Lycoming county (see /example for an example). Circeus 01:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that in theory the hierarchic order of townships would be useful (though I also think the current list is useful), much of the required information is just not available (notice there is not "formed from" column in this table). As an example, Ceres Township in modern McKean County was incorporated in 1797 while a part of Lycoming County. That is all I know. I assume it was formed from either Pine Creek or possibly Lycoming Township, but I cannot find this information anywhere (and I have looked and am still looking). Same thing for Tioga Twp in Tioga County. For those counties where the hierarchical order is somewhat known, I have tried to give a brief order in the three notes (Bald Eagle Twp / Centre County, Clinton County, and Sullivan County). Even there, it is not as linear as your example suggests. Frequently townships were formed from more than one predecessor (A very simple example: parts of A and B were taken to form C, so do I include C in A's hierarchy or B's or both?). I see this as a model for other county lists, and there are some very complicated histories out there (A, B, C and D form E, C and E and F form G, part of B is later added to G, G and H form I, that sort of thing). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, no townships in Lycoming County are now defunct, although some have changed names. Centre County had a Centre Township, but that no longer. Clearfield Co. had a Chincklacamoose Twp. (spellings vary) that I think may have been part of Lycoming Co that no longer exists. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that out. Circeus 01:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

General discussion
Initial reply First off, thank you for your comments on the article. As always, a fresh pair of eyes has caught some things that need to be improved. I will make some edits and then reply to each of your points above, but wanted to give a general reply here first, giving the idea for this list and starting to reply to the question of whether the list of counties formed from Lycoming should be included here.

The basic idea of this list is to include every known municipality in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, both current and historical. Because all territory in Pennsylvania is incorporated, including townships (unlike, say Ohio on its western border), this means that all territory that is now or has ever been in Lycoming County is fair game for inclusion in this list. In fact, we believe that it would be irresponsible and even dishonest not to include past townships that are no longer part of the county in this list.

Now the problem is that while information on counties formed from Lycoming County is relatively easy to come by, information on which specific townships or parts of townships became these counties is difficult, if not impossible to acquire (at least in some cases so far). Of the 18 counties which now contain land taken from Lycoming County, only six are included in the former townships table (and I just realized I could add Gregg Township in Union County to that table, for seven). So for 11 of 18 counties that we know were formed from Lycoming, we do not know which township(s) were involved (some you can make a guess, but WP:NOR). I already have a scratch map of Pennsylvania counties taken from Lycoming and will make a larger, nicer one to add to the article. This may take some time. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this comment confuses me more than explain anything. Which comments of mine are (I think tat is the point) made unaddressable by these issues? Circeus 20:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been quite busy in real life and will be so for a few hours. I already replied briefly on the main page and will try to address your concerns here and with new edits within the next 6 or 7 hours. Sorry for the delay and thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The list of former townships is not complete, because we have not yet found the information. If you eliminate the list of counties formed from Lycoming Co. (which is what I thought you were proposing, at least originally) then there are 11 counties which contain territory from Lycoming Co. that would not be included in the article. We know they were formed from Lycoming Co. / contain land that used to be in Lycoming Co., but not specifically what former townships or parts of townships they contain. It now seems you would perhaps be OK with a less detailed county list. I can make the 18 county list simpler (less detail) - I originally made it like the Featured county lists as I thought that was the preferred format. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Circeus, when you have a chance could you please comment on the changes we have made to the article to try and meet your objections? 1) There is now a map showing where each of the counties that contain land from Lycoming Co. are within Pennsylvania. 2) The counties list has been made simpler and the order has been changed to chronolgical by date of formation. As I hope I have made clear, the "unadressable" issue is not your comments nor is it caused by them, but it is the lack of information on some former territory from Lycoming County. I am working my way through Godcharles's five volume work on the state's history to try and find more information and will add it as I find it. Thanks again for your comments, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now, my only real gripes, as I am typing above, has to do with the way we deal with villages/CDPs (I still think a section is a more elegant way to do it, and have put a mock up above to show you what I meant) and the fact the "township" and "counties" sections are over detailed (I'm typing this before I'm don with my argumentation for that.) Circeus 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to reply here to several developments.

1) "Attached to" Several counties were established by the legislature before any sort of administrative infrastructure was in place. Because of this, they were attached to an established county for administrative purposes (courthouse, judiciary, law enforcement). Once the new county developed enough, it became fully independent. We can add a sentence clarifying this.

2) You say "I don,t want the villages to have their "own list"..." then suggest we make a separate list of the 32 townships with villages. As you can tell, I prefer sortable lists - that way if someone is interested, they can sort by area or date or alphabetically. I frankly don't see the advantage of a separate new list with only 32 townships again AND villages, that is not sortable. The Orkney islets and skerries little list is of separate bits of land surrounded by water. These villages are not separate, they are part and parcel (and often the heart of) the townships they are in. Most people may not know Cummings Twp, but they know the village of Waterville is where they went to fish on Pine Creek or ride or hike on the rail trail. I am glad the FIPS codes are gone from the counties, but the villages are useful.

3) As already stated, we think the counties and former townships should be in this list article as they were once part of municipalities in Lycoming County. Having stated that, I fail to see what your suggested format does that is better than what we already have. You strip them of much information - where are they? (don't know - the locator maps are gone), how large are they? how many people now live there? What if I want to sort in a different way - can't now. I would rather have this fail to reach featured status than to strip out all this information just to get the support vote of one person. I appreciate all your work on this, but my willingness to change the article to meet your objections (especially when we have two supports on the previous version) has reached its limit. I have one more idea I need to work on that may satisfy your objections - it will take me some time, then I will put it on the example page. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

PS If Dincher feels otherwise, I will defer to the majority will. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ruhrfisch I would rather have it fail than to strip out a lot of work that was not easy, is factual and accurate. How can there be such a thing as too much? Take what you need and forget what you don't. Dincher 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Through my own stupidity I have just lost about an hours worth of work on a mockup version, so I am going to quit for the night. I apologize for any crankiness. I know we all want what is best for this article and the encyclopdia, we just differ on what that is. Thanks again to Dincher for all your work and help, and to Circeus for really making me think about this list. Sorry for the delay, but I am too tired. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sub page discussion

 * Thanks, FYI this is the first Featured candidate proposal I have ever seen with a subpage, which raises two concerns. First, does making a subpage break the bot that archives these or cause other technical problems? Second, I feel as if it devalues my contribations. I worked hard to reply point by point to all your concerns and now my remarks are shoved out of sight, in the basement as it were. I will reply on the subpage, but wanted to say this here now. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind returning the conversation. It's just that it immediately got so large and unwieldy in discussion I didn't want to keep the entire thing here and most likely prevent further users from contributing. I have no idea if the "bot" (I don't think there is one involved with the FLC process...) is likely to break, but moving the page only happens if the nomination is failed and a new one is made. I'm quickly answering here and now there because I'm in a rush, I'll look at your comments as soon as I get home. Circeus 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could the subpage just be moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, that is the talk page and moves automatically if this gets moved? Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no need for a sub page and agree with Ruhrfisch's comment about feeling as if the work has been set aside. Dincher 21:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mockups
There are mockups at /example. I made a new section because I simply could not find it in all the verbiage above. Hope this helps. So far it has Circeus' mock up for the county and township lists and my village mockup. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)