This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I propose that this template include only Unincorporated Communities with a Census Class Code of U6 (A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name), and that have a GSA Code. This would limit the list to:
Otherwise, this template could easily become very cumbersome if it is expanded to include nearly 400 populated places recognized by the GNIS. This proposal would exclude the following, which should be added to a (yet to be developed) list of populated places in New Castle County, Delaware:
This is meant to be a navigational template for all municipalities and unincorporated communities in the county that have articles. It's one thing — and a bad idea at that — to have links to all communities regardless of whether they have articles, but all county templates nationwide link to all known unincorporated communities. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with knowledge of NCC geography knows that places like "Talleyville" and "Montchanin" are communities, while the vast majority of others are mere neighborhoods / housing developments / subdivisions. They should not be placed on the same level of categorization. Having a GSA code is one thing that distinguishes the former from the latter.
It makes sense to list communities on a navigation template meant for navigating between communities. You created articles on many of these places — why did you do it if they're not real communities? As long as there are articles, we link to them for the sake of navigability. By trying to remove some of these, you're trying to make this template different from every other county nationwide — there's absolutely no good reason to do that. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created these articles because we refused to delete Gwinhurst, Delaware. If a non-notable, 8-street housing development like Gwinhurst gets an article, then so do the other 400 just like them. Your comment below about ignoring redlinks will be obsolete when I finish creating the rest. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In other words you don't believe that Gwinhurst should have an article, but you create tons more just like it, except far shorter? Confused. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The community has spoken in favor of having articles on every populated place, regardless of how non-notable they are. I'm finished with the ones in Brandywine Hundred, and until directed otherwise, will continue to make my way through the rest of New Castle County. The only point I'm making is that in doing so, this template is rendered ridiculous. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The community has not spoken in favor of having articles on all populated places — a year or more ago, there was a proposal to have a bot create articles on hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of communities worldwide, and it was rejected. It's more like "permitting articles on...". Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Should the Unincorporated Communities be limited to those with a GSA code?
Perhaps a version 3: don't include any redlinks. You're concerned that the template is too large — these templates are meant to allow navigation between currently existing articles, not to be a list of all such communities in the county. Please note that each of the approximately three thousand county templates nationwide either links to every community in the county with an article, or it omits some out of oversight. As a navigational template, this should include every community in New Castle County, or people won't be able to navigate to any community in the county easily. It's like saying "{{Rhode Island}} is too big, so let's cut some of the towns" — it's meant to include every town, because there's no easy way to link all of them in a practical fashion. By excluding redlinks, we'll reduce the template's size significantly without impacting navigability. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't accept it until I know what you mean. Not your fault (I'm somewhat tired); but could you explain what you mean by "limits the scope of navigation"? Are you suggesting removing all unincorporated communities in other hundreds? Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that instead of using the county-wide navigational template, New Castle County geography articles would adopt templates at the Hundred level. This keeps the list of unincorporated communities from becoming unwieldy and ultimately unusable. Since all of the populated places (according to Wikipedia's notability threshold) now have articles for Brandywine Hundred, I've created that template to get started. I'm a good way through Christiana Hundred as well. My goal is to finish everything north of the C&D canal. I would also propose switching the map to one that would allow for the placemarkers. I intend to work on uploading a usable map of New Castle County only later this week. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
