Talk:Ohio

RFV discussion
As we learned from the deletion of Mazandaran, the current CFI only accepts place names if they are "used attributively". So how about this one... Kappa 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we've recently agreed that rivers get both forms, so keep the river. We have a vote going through in WT:VOTE that looks likely to pass.  If so, then we'd keep the state defintion because a state is the largest subdivision within the US.  However, we'd probably have to delete Jesus Christ because we don't accept full names of individual people. --EncycloPetey 02:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Conceptually, I'm not sure; "Ohio" is used attributively in the names of a bunch of other places (Ohio River, Ohio City, Ohio University, Ohio State University, Ohio Valley), but then, I'm not sure those satisfy the CFI, so I'm unclear on whether they should count toward Ohio's doing so. (I'm leaning toward "yes", but could go either way.) That said, I think it's irrelevant: this one will pass RFV because it takes a month to fail RFV, and I think it's pretty clear that the Mazandaran-undeleting vote (which closes 1 July) will alter CFI in a way that makes this pass. —RuakhTALK 04:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that this was discussed in the distant past, and that our European counterparts agreed that US states and capitals all passed automatically. Did that change recently?  --Connel MacKenzie 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If such a discussion did occur, then its outcome failed to be reflected in Criteria for inclusion. Do you think you can dredge it up from the archives and figure out what happened? —RuakhTALK 00:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If the CFI says that Mazandaran and Ohio should go, then the CFI is broken. Ohio, besides having an undeniable existence, already has useful translations in it (but not as many as Mazandaran had), and professional translators look to dictionaries for terms, spellings, grammar and usage. It would be difficult to find a decent general dictionary of the English language that didn’t include names such as Ohio, and our Ohio has different and better information than most dictionaries give. In just the past couple of months, some of our newest admins have taken the stance that to delete is divine and we’ve been on a deleting rampage. It’s always much easier to effect change by eradication than it is to spend time constructively, but important work is being lost and Wiktionary is being reduced to a child’s elementary-school glossary. —Stephen 01:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I take offense to that. This page had been building a backlog for a while, and recently I and only two other editors have been working to clear it out (that I've noticed, anyway — my apologies to anyone I haven't). Since many of the old entries were languishing uncited for long past the normal RFV period, this has meant triage: citing the words which seem most likely to pass with some work (and by the way, I must point out that it's a lot more effort for one of us to cite an entry than it is for you to state here that we should keep it), and deleting the rest. It's also meant that it would be fruitless to try to bring all these words back up for discussion; if no argument has been made that the word passes our current CFI (which yes, are quite broken), then they will certainly get deleted. This isn't because deletion is divine; it's because it's better to err on the side of following our codified policies than to err on the side of keeping every entry that anyone ever contributes. (There may be a middle ground — keep some CFI-violating entries and delete others — but I don't think it's any single editor's place to perform that sort of final, policy-flouting arbitration.) Now, in the case of Mazandaran maybe I should have just avoided the argument by letting the entry slide for now, seeing as it really does look like our CFI will change soon in such a way as to let us keep it; but conversely, it really didn't seem like deleting it was a big deal, since we'll probably be able to undelete it pretty soon (and if the vote fails and we can't, then I guess the argument was unavoidable anyway). —RuakhTALK 02:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Stephen, please learn to play well with others. You cannot dictate policy here. If you disagree with the community's policies, the correct way is to discuss how to improve them, not comparing those who carry them out to a comedic figure or making implications about people who are just cleaning up a backlog being on a "rampage" or not "spend[ing] time constructively". You are fully aware of the policy vote taking place on whether place names such as Ohio and Mazandaran should be included (since you voted in it) -- this sort of personal attack serves no purpose other than antagonizing others. Cynewulf 03:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * CFI, Schmee-eff-eye. If this doesn't pass, I quit. So, unless anyone objects, RFVpassed. sewnmouthsecret 05:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is any other city/state named "Ohio" other than OHIO, USA?
Is any other city/state named "Ohio" other than OHIO, USA? i.e. Ohio, France; Ohio, Canada; Ohio, Japan... for exemple, there is Dublin, Georgia, USA and there is Dublin, Irland


 * No, there are only the State of Ohio, the Ohio River, and an asteroid named Ohio. Dublin, Georgia shares its name with Dublin, Ireland because it was named after Dublin, Ireland. In the case of Ohio, it is an Iroquois word and there were no other Ohios for it to be named after. —Stephen 02:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)