Template talk:Pinal County, Arizona

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ghost towns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ghost towns on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ghost townsWikipedia:WikiProject Ghost townsTemplate:WikiProject Ghost townsGhost town articles

United States: Arizona

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
	Arizona portal This template is supported by WikiProject Arizona.

2009 comments

Cochran, Ray and Reymert are abandoned ghost towns and it is not very accurate to list them with populated communities. As with some other templates, does anyone have any issues with removing unpopulated areas (ghost towns) from the template? If they are to remain it would make more sense to segregate them into an independent section for ghost towns. These locations are not currently communities in any sense of the word. Shereth 22:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard to include ghost towns on county templates. You have a good point, however — many states' templates have them segregated, although Arizona's templates don't generally. I've restored them in a separate ghost towns line. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. Shereth 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost towns

Please do not add former towns to ghost towns, if there is no indication that they are classified as that. Just because a place once existed does not mean that it is currently a ghost town. The fact that no one knows exactly where these towns once was is a clear indication that they are not currently a ghost town. As per WP:BRD, uncited information, once removed may not be re-added without citations. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Jones74 - Oh, and since you are in violation of WP:3RR, you might want to self-revert your last edit.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your bias and anger towards my contributions are duly noted, as is your slanderous allegation of my being a troll despite TWELVE years of actively contributing here and THOUSANDS of edits and ordering me not to reply to your page and deletion of my replies. Your temper-tantrum of eliminating 11 ghost towns on this county template that were added over a period of years -- and of which only ONE was added by myself -- shows you should be suspended from WP forthwith. DJ Jones74 (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2 additional Pima Villages as well, Cerrito & Cerro Chiquito. The others were added in January 2014 by Asiaticus.DJ Jones74 (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks - you did not address the issues with your edits, the fact that this is uncited information which is clearly incorrect. Stating facts is not biased, I removed all the non-ghost towns at your behest. In one of your edit summaries you used an WP:OSE exists, and I agreed with your assessment. Those other towns also were not cited as being ghost towns, so if I were to remove your entry, than it was only right to remove the others as well. You have a history of adding (and re-adding) uncited information. That is an actual grounds to get you blocked, as that is against WP policy. And your pretty standard lack of civility is also wearing. And you're latest edit puts you at 4RR, since it's dealing with the same subject matter. Again, I suggest you revert. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From your "contributions page" to my post --> (cur | prev) 08:59, 4 October 2019‎ Onel5969 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (59,158 bytes) (-2,165)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 919510173 by Onel5969 (talk): Delete moronic troll - don't post on my talk page again. (TW)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo) <---This is a personal attack and you cannot be considered non-biased where my edits are concerned. I did not invite you to VANDALIZE the template page with my comments. The Pima Villages ARE ghosts, regardless if their precise location cannot be ascertained, but they are explicitly within the Gila River Reservation. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20110711130007if_/http://www.griccrmp.com/PDF Files/Peoples of the Middle Gila.pdf This is an extensive document on the Pima Villages and covers their locations on the 1860 U.S. Census.DJ Jones74 (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Glad you pointed out your uncivil communications on my talk page which elicited that response in the edit summary, and you being banned from posting there in the future. You still have yet to deal with the fact that you have failed to provide a single valid source to back up your claims that these are "ghost towns". Simply claiming they are doesn't cut it. Either provide a source, or delete them, as per WP:BRD.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited in the edit summary only mentions Hueso Parado as an abandoned place. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To onel5969, I already stated my point above. You decided to make this personal. You have no objectivity in this matter.DJ Jones74 (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Magnolia677, I have not edited the Hueso Parado page yet, so I cannot comment. It was one of the Pima Villages, and was on the 1860 census. Since you have taken it upon yourself to orphan the pages of these villages and make the unwarranted removal of several ghost towns that are within Pinal County, under which "description" on this template do you intend to add them, or do we have to go on another edit war because you and onel5969 do not like my contributions and come up with subjective claims about references that didn't seem to be a problem before when others created these articles ? DJ Jones74 (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simply provide a source for your claims. That's all you have to do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How would I be able to update any of these pages at all if I didn't have a source for them ?DJ Jones74 (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, that's why WP requests a source. Stop wasting other editors' time. If you have a source, provide it. If not, move on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I always provide sources for the pages I edit. That's what those <"refs"> are for, y'know ? DJ Jones74 (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't. As has been pointed out to you by multiple editors. And if you have a source which shows that these former towns are now classified as ghost towns, simply provide it. Shouldn't be too difficult. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was consulting with another editor (not involved in this conversation) as to how to reference some of those locations as ghost towns, because the mapping I was working with couldn't all be directly linked. I have yet to hear back from them. But I review these places with a variety of mapping sources from past and present before I ever make an edit here. I've also stated that the USGS pages describing some of the places as "populated places" based off survey work from 4 decades ago is badly out of date. I was rechecking them alphabetically to confirm their status, which apparently was deemed "unacceptable" by certain individuals. As far as I can tell, the USGS does not classify a place as a "ghost town." So, by that reckoning, who is setting the standards for what is ? You fellas need to come up with a solution here.DJ Jones74 (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]