Talk:List of places with fewer than ten people
|
|
| Contents |
|
1 Deletion? |
Encyclopedic
If this article is to ever become encyclopedic. It needs a background, such as why did the population shrink? The current intro offers no insights whatsover. --Menchi 07:44 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Won't that depend on the place? Martin
- There's probably a general trend. For example, the lack of industry, tourism, natural resources. Or the deprivation of natural resources -> Ghost town. And one could elaborate on the causes, drawing from unique, interesting, and specific examples. --Menchi 20:05 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- An interesting idea - but perhaps better placed as an article on depopulation? Martin 22:56 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Deletion?
VfD notes: the page as a whole has been listed. I've also just listed the four places with a population of one (though on reflection I wonder if a redirect/merge would have been more appropriate). Martin 01:39 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
DELETE THIS PAGE? these are two of numerous examples of these useless "list of..." pages. These pages are not useful for almost anything. A significant percentage of changes lately are to these pages. Where will it all end? List of list of pages? Iammaxus 21:33 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Actually there is a List of lists. The list of places with fewer than ten people is useful for people who are looking for just that: information on places with fewer than ten people. Same for the list of fictional bears. Wikipedia also has a list of fictional dogs, a list of fictional cats, and a list of fictional monkeys, and much more at the list of fictional animals article. These pages should not be deleted. -- goatasaur
- Agree with Goatasaur, seems like the kind of thing to chop from a paper encyclopædia, which Wikipedia isn't. -- John Owens 21:45 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- How do we decide what is useful? Should we make any list we can possibly think of? Sure you can think of some explanation for the usefulness of the fictional bears article... Who knows? maybe someday, some psychologist will want to write on the symbolism of bears in fiction? Im not asking to delete every "list of" page or even 'any' list of page, if there is any opposition. im just saying that these pages are becoming a big waste of time and energy. Iammaxus 21:58 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- If a list involves some kind of trivia then it's usually acceptable. I remember the "list of books without an article in the title". I can think of at least twenty books without an article in the title off the top of my head, but thinking of fictional animals (much less ones that aren't on the list) or places in the US with a <10 population is somewhat more taxing. Also, lists are a good way for newbies to cut their teeth. -- goatasaur
- ...and in the credibility of the Wikipedia project. The article makes the ridiculous claim to list "every place on earth with less than 10 people". Seems to me as a parallell to e-mail spam and usenet cross-posting effectively sabotageing a possibly good idea. Ruhrjung 22:14 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, this list should (as it does) only list those places officially recognized by any census as a place worth counting. I only haven't found a catchy phrase to add to the article. But that should better be discussed in the talk page there. andy 23:03 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Agree, leave it. Passes the tests of contains accurate info, might be usefull to someone, and mostly harmless. -- Infrogmation 22:06 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Lists are indexes, that's why people spend time on them, and why they're good to have. At 130K+ articles, indexing is becoming more and more important. We have lots of material, but many articles are effectively invisible because there aren't enough paths to them. Stan 22:36 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- One thing is to index articles. Another is to create lists based on concepts which the contributor has none understanding of: How many "places" exist on Earth? Can a "place" be part of another "place"? How many dialects exist? How many ethnicities? Is X a nationality or an ethnicity? (Maybe list frency also invites to copy-right violations when lists are copied from sources like http://www.dmoz.org/ and http://www.ethnologue.com/ ?) Ruhrjung 23:08 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- indexing yes, junk no. jimfbleak 15:19 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Jimfbleak and Ruhrjung understand what im saying. An index like list of rifles or list of battles in WWII could be highly useful. These other lists are another matter. List of people whose name starts with a certain letter? how could that possibly be useful? Iammaxus 21:22 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I've no strong objection to deletion, but if y'all do decide to delete, would you mind letting me move it to my user space? Thanks. :) Martin 01:32 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I think this is something that needs to be handled in some wikipedia policy page... These lists need to get under control and be a little more organized Iammaxus 02:14 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I actually thought this article was interesting -Antonio MTV Dancer Martin
- I think so too. It needs more explanations than a list, that's all. --Menchi 12:54 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Why ten people?
The only thing that bugs me is, "Why 10 people?" why not 100? -fonzy
- An arbitrarily mark, or it'd not stop. --Menchi 12:54 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
What is a "place"?
How about Mars? Tuf-Kat
There are quite a few uninhabited places on the Earth, for instance the summit of Mount Everest, and just about every mountain summit for that matter. The places on this list are basically US Census boners, which should have been folded into other places and weren't, most likely due to bureaucracy and/or inertia. Many of them will be gone from the next Census. (In case people don't realize, the 30,000 articles added from Census data are still only a fraction of all the named settlements in the US - look at a state map of Tennessee for instance, see how many of the little dots are not in Wikipedia.) Hmmm - perhaps the list criterion should be something like "declared by some government to be a settled place", which excludes wilderness areas, archaeological ruins, Mars :-), etc. Stan 22:20 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- The two I added were articles I created about places not on the census list. --Infrogmation
What is "place" here? It is the question Stan asked before. The top of a mountain, an isolated island, a small village, a ghost town, or even my house are places with population less than ten. Guidelines should be added. --Wshun
Rambot humour
Some of those articles created by Rambot look totally amusing when there are few people in it. Example: North Red River Township, Minnesota
- Demographics
- As of the census of 2000, there are 3 people, 2 households, and 1 families residing in the township. The population density is 0.0/km² (0.1/mi²). There are 4 housing units at an average density of 0.1/km² (0.2/mi²). The racial makeup of the township is 100.00% White.
- There are 2 households out of 50.0% are non-families. 50.0% of all households are made up of individuals and 0.0% have someone living alone who is 65 years of age or older. The average household size is 1.50 and the average family size is 2.00.
- In the township the population is spread out with 0.0% under the age of 18, 33.3% from 18 to 24, 0.0% from 25 to 44, 33.3% from 45 to 64, and 33.3% who are 65 years of age or older. The median age is 54 years. For every 100 females there are 200.0 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there are 200.0 males.
- The median income for a household in the township is $13,750, and the median income for a family is $18,750. The per capita income for the township is $8,983. 33.3% of the population are below the poverty line, all between 18 ang 65 years of age.
In the third paragraph, you might as well just say: "One person is between 18-24, another is 54 years old, and the third is 65 years old or older. Two of them are male." In the fourth, you could say, "One of the three is poor (living below the poverty line). --seav 04:37, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)
- I recommend editing such sections... Martin
- But that would probably mess up with the automated Rambot updating after the next U.S. Census. --seav 18:02, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
Disney town?
Here's an (alleged) example of a place with fewer than ten people. The Disney town. They have no residents, only workers. All property is owned by disney, a manager is the mayor, and all employees who live there live in trailers, and can be kicked out at the whim of the corporation. Allegedly this is so that the corporation can retain control over things which are otherwise controlled by municipalities, like water, etc.
~ender 2003-09-12 04:14:MST
I don't think it's a very good idea to have people's incomes for such small places. Everyone in the world can come here and find out the income of a family lving in og these towns! That's why in Canada information for small places are rounded. We can't even know the exact population until the next census! Earl Andrew 23:13, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Well, you can go right here http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US36%7C16000US3646349&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=ervings&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on to find out how much the one guy in Ervings, New Hampshire makes. Nelson Ricardo 06:50, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
May I suggest that this page be moved to List of places with fewer than ten residents or List of localities with fewer than ten residents? The current title's wording of 'people isn't very precise. --Kwekubo 15:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Separation?
I personally think that places with 0 population should be separated from places with a population from one to ten. I was directed here from such a place, and I think that those sorts of places are more interesting than destroyed cities and whatnot. Tell me your thoughts. clarkefreak 21:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Nevermind clarkefreak 21:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)