Talk:Washington Court House, Ohio

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Washington Court House, Ohio's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nris":
From Jacob Light House: 
From Marion County Courthouse (Ohio): 
From Fayette County Courthouse (Ohio): 
From National Register of Historic Places: National Register Information System, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service. Retrieved October 11, 2011.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Washington Court House, Ohio]] 

message: Should the Media section be revised to remove the "Fayette Advocate" as a media source?  A reference to the FA and an article promoting the FA was removed twice already on 16 July 2012 and 20 Aug 2012 noting a lack of significance.   Other edits removing the promotion of the FA as a "hyper-local" news source have been made as well.  The FA is a website and is run by a single person who is responsible for the original FA media reference.  The "reporting" of the FA emphasizes editorials criticizing the city and its administrators.  Any additional reporting of local news is extremely thin except for serious traffic accidents.  The FA primarily enjoys engaging local residents via its popular facebook presence, however this falls extremely short of a definition of a News Agency as previously indicated. The person behind the FA, via a facebook post, even referred to his own addition of the FA within Wikipedia as historical evidence of the FA coming into existence in 2012 as a local news source. ThomasSchroeder (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined toward inclusion, largely because it's somewhat recognised by other media outlets and appears to have been noticed by at least one local government outlet as a kind of news agency.  The comments earlier on my talk page (diff) and a quick check of the website made me suspect that he didn't deserve to appear at all, so I ran a search for him and got mildly surprised at the extent to which the website was appearing; I agree that it looks more like a blog, but even blogs can warrant mention in limited circumstances.  See my second paragraph in this statement; media outlets elsewhere (e.g. Portsmouth) are treating his writing as a media source, and Derek's place was recognised by the city school board, as briefly shown on page 1 of this document.  This is nowhere near enough to consider him a reliable source, but to me this says that he's getting some recognition as a media source, both locally and in other communities: since the section's only talking about news outlets connected to WCH, he seemingly should be mentioned quickly.  Just remember that (1) not all news outlets are reliable, and (2) our articles must not rely much on news reports, even from reliable sources, so mentioning him isn't a suggestion that we rely on his writing for our encyclopedia articles.  Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I'll consider this and continue to act with forethought and carefulness.  My evidence that the FA is much less than reputable is extensive, but I acknowledge your point, #1, above regarding reliability and lack there of.  Also note that the city of WCH refuses to add the FA in its list of local media, but again, that simply represents an opinion and Wikipedia exists for other purposes.  I continue to be bugged by the constant circular nature of Mr. Myers for writing articles about himself in the third person, then siting those articles and articles about the FA as evidence of their notability, and then using that evidence for inclusion in Wikipedia, and then siting inclusion on Wikipedia as evidence of importance when being ridiculed constantly on facebook.  That other sources refer to the existence of the FA does not, in my mind, validate the FA as media.  Lastly, I have documented numerous falsities of the FA wherein they'll post on facebook that they were "contacted by" or "so-and-so sent us this picture" in order to make themselves appear relevant only for the person sited to deny the attribution.  I was personally sited as having "contacted" the FA simply because I commented about them on their facebook page.  Thank you for your time.  I think this has been sufficiently covered for now. ThomasSchroeder (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't clear enough; they're not simply referring to its existence.  Articles from the Georgetown paper (I wasn't paying enough attention earlier; this is what made me think of Portsmouth), a North Carolina NBC affiliate, and the state treasurer's office depend on what it's saying.  Mind you, I'm not giving an opinion on whether this dependence is justified (I've never even heard of the Advocate until today), but when you get local government, state government, and out-of-state media treating it as a legitimate news source, you either have a legitimate news source or something that's been getting a lot of undue attention.  Either way, it's getting plenty of attention as a news source and should appear in a list of local media.  Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Nyttend.  I completely concede the FA is media - albeit fraudulent and disreputable media that I will keep a close eye on with respect Wikipedia. Right now I am questioning their source which is just a first party article written to show that third party web statics verify they have a visited website.  To be very fair to the FA, they should use a source you noted rather than their own silly article written just so it could be used as a Wikipedia source. ThomasSchroeder (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

text: One of your links on Thomas doesn't work, and the other doesn't show what you say it does.  Your comments about the law enforcement, besides being doubtful, are not something we use here; we need to see a statement in print or online, because anyone can say "They told me this by email".  I've fully protected the page because it's being used for spamming by people violating our policy on multiple account usage; those involved will be blocked (both for spam and for multi-account usage) if things resume when the protection expires.  Finally, let me remind you of what I said before: you've got a large conflict of interest here, and you should not be editing in this field.  Nyttend (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor do a bunch of photo credits make the Fayette Advocate notable, at all.  But notability isn't the question, whether it is a reliable source is.  Looking at WP:NEWSORG, I'd say that Fayette Advocate fails because most of the stories are written by Derek Myers himself with no editorial oversight.  This site should be treated more like a blog than a news organization.  Especially because the address for the business doesn't correspond to anything on good maps resembling the Fayette Advocate which isn't definitive by itself but is corroborating evidence.  The fact is, this is a WordPress largely run by 1 person.  That's a blog, folks.  At the very least, it's a self-published source and does not meet requirements laid out in WP:IRS.--v/r - TP 15:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I probably should have used the word "reputable" rather than "legitimate" to avoid any unwanted connotations relating to legality...  By reputatable, I mean "has established a reputation of providing accurate, unbiased information as indicated by third party usage of the media as a source (of facts, not merely pictures)." --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Fayette Advocate''

message: I don't think so.  I lived just outside of Dayton, Ohio from 1970 to 1972 and it was called "Washington Court House" or "Washington C.H." back then, and for many years previously I'm sure, and was shown as such on maps at the time (sorry, I didn't save one...).
:You are correct, due to your wording, and the article is correct as well.  The city was indeed called (referred to as) "Washington Court House" for many years before 2002.  However, around 2002 it was revealed, to the surprise of many citizens, that the official name of the city was simply "Washington" and that more than one community in Ohio shared that name.  A vote, as I recall, was put to the community to officially change the name to "Washington Court House" and it was approved.  I'll take the article's word for it that it was in 2002, which seems correct to me as I voted for approval. ThomasSchroeder (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The city was called "Washington Court House" only since 2002? 

message: A city is separate from the surrounding township.  So a city is not "in" a township.  The township is the local government for all the land not in the city, but not the city itself. 217.180.201.232 (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  City is not in the township 

message: Relevant discussion, mentioning this article:
* Talk:Old_Appomattox_Court_House#Court_House_vs._courthouse
--David Tornheim (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court house vs. courthouse