Template talk:Humboldt County, California

Places with unclear unincorporated/former distinction

There are a number of places on this template listed under "Unincorporated places" that may or may not belong under "Former settlements". They are those places whose pages reference only a GNIS entry and the Durham book California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State--specifically those whose entry in Durham says "locality" instead of "village", "settlement" or the like. The GNIS "populated place" class includes ghost towns, so GNIS by itself is not enough to determine whether a place is an unincorporated community or a former settlement. I wrote about this a while ago at Talk:Dinsmores, California and edited the page Dinsmores, California to demonstrate the issue. Looking at this template again these are among the places with uncertain status (current or former settlements): Arlynda Corners, California, Beall Place, California, Beatrice, Humboldt County, California, Belleview, Humboldt County, California, Berry Glenn, California, Bracut, California, Brainard, California, Bucksport, California, Bull Creek, California, Burlington, California, Cain Rock, California, Capetown, California, Clam Beach, California, Cooks Valley, California, Dinsmores, California, Essex, Humboldt County, California, Ettersburg, California, Fernwood, Humboldt County, California, Fickle Hill, California, Fisher, Humboldt County, California, Freshwater Corners, California, Hacketsville, California, Harris, California, Hookton, California, Hunter Place, California, Indianola (Fields Landing), California, Janes Place, California, King Salmon, California, Korblex, California, Maple Grove, California, McCann, California, Mettah, California, Moonstone, California, Newburg, California, Notchko, California, Oak Glen, Humboldt County, California, Pecwan, California, Riverside, Humboldt County, California, Scott Place, California, Southport Landing, California, Spruce Point, California, Steelhead, Humboldt County, California, Stone, California, Surgone, California, Table Bluff, California, Table Bluff Rancheria, California, The Springs, California, Thorn Junction, California, Tyee City, California, Waddington, California, Waseck, California, Westlund Place, California, Whitlow, California, Worswick, California, Wright Place, California, and Yager Junction, California. All these listed use only two sources, GNIS and Durham. And for each the Durham book calls them "locality". For some there is no Durham entry at all, or they are listed as a non-settlement, like a stream. I didn't include anything with any other source, even a ZIP Code Lookup, nor any place Durham calls a "district" (whatever that means). So, unless there is a counter-argument or further sources, I'll see if I can find time to edit each page so they are called localities instead of communities, and remove the settlement infoboxes; and then, since their status and category is unclear, remove them from this template. As far as I can tell from the sources there is no evidence any of them are not former settlements. Since one can't tell from the sources one way or the other it seems to me they ought to not be listed in the template until clearer sources are found. Make sense? Pfly (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and made these changes up. For each place removed from the template I edited the place's page to say "locality" instead of "unincorporated community", took out the settlement infobox, the county template, the "Unincorporated communities" categories, and changed references as needed, moved coord template to lower on page, and other minor rewording. I didn't change a few because they had additional text that gave me pause, including: Bracut, California, Brainard, California, Bucksport, California, Freshwater Corners, California, and Moonstone, California. Pfly (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfly, thanks for correcting this false infomation back then! The creator negligently mass-created thousands of pages in California that like these are not actually communities and are not notable. We've been working on the clean-up of his mess at Wikipedia:WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force and Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data (and their talk pages. There've been over 350 of these deleted lately, with hundreds to go, including these. What we really need is a bulk deletion, and any comments or help on going about this would be appreciated if you're interested. Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost towns (and former settlements)?

While I'm at it, perhaps the section called "Ghost towns" ought to be renamed "Ghost towns and former settlements", like Template:Monterey County, California? Ghost towns are abandoned settlements that still have structures of some kind, even if in ruins, right? Quite a number of the places listed as ghost towns on this template no longer exist in any physical form. Any place whose GNIS entry says "historical" is a place with no physical remains (although it could be an archaeological site--artifacts might be buried, etc). Apyu, California is an example. Pfly (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and made that change myself. Pfly (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if "former settlements" is not wanted, should not the places that are not ghost towns be removed? Pfly (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out a related discussion at Template talk:San Bernardino County, California#Inclusion of uninhabited sites under "Unincorporated communities" section. Most of the county templates have the "Ghost town" header; Template:Monterey County, California seems to be one of the exceptions.

Also, your definition that ghost towns must "still have structures of some kind" seems to contradict the content on Ghost town#Factors and Lemieux, Ontario. Those articles currently define that community as a ghost town but also say that "the last building remaining in Lemieux, the Saint-Joseph church, was demolished on August 4, 1991." Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I won't argue the point much. The term "ghost town" is likely not all that precisely defined to decide one way or the other. I will say that the example of Lemieux is a place that was a ghost town in the sense of having structures until wiped out relatively recently. In contrast Apyu, California, Aranimokw, California, etc, are old Native American settlements whose locations are only vaguely known. The GNIS entry gives their coordinates as "unknown". I suppose ancient Native American settlements with unknown locations might count as "ghost towns", but it strikes me as stretching the term rather far. A ghost town which no one knows the location of? Sounds weird. But, I won't press the issue if others disagree. No biggie. I have no problem with Native American settlements known to have existed but with unknown locations being given their due--I am all for increased awareness of now-vanished Native American settlements. I just have trouble thinking of them as ghost towns. Pfly (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, my preference actually would be to merge all of those two- or three-sentence stub articles into one large page. In the immediate future, I highly doubt there would be anymore significant content beyond that for each of those settlements. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]