Talk:Battle Creek, Michigan

message: Can anyone provide evidence that Justin Zellers is in any way notable enough to be mentioned in the article? older≠wiser 02:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable persons 

message: :Image:Cityseal F2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cityseal F2.jpg

message: I thought it was Warren, Michigan which is being overtaken by Sterling Heights, Michigan.  7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon rereading, I note it is by area, not population.  My mistake.  7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle Creek as third largest city in Michigan?

message: Does anyone happen to know what was Battle Creek City's land area before it the rest of the township merged with it? --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Territorial Road is the dividing line.  One half of Territorial Road, then head south.  The house numbers along Territorial Road reflect this history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.111.151 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  But, do you happen to know how many square miles the city was before it was annexed, or how many square miles the township measured before being annexed? --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle Creek City & Township Merger

message: The article refers to the 'Native American' name of Waupakisco.  I think it would be much better if we could cite that actual language or tribe that name comes from.  'Ntive American' is a VERY broad term to use for such a specific reference. -162.6.97.3 (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native American name of Waupakisco 

message: feaw  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.49.78 (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  fdagfr 

message: Does anyone else think this article is up to GA status?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not saying one way or another, but don't you think a review request at WP:MICHIGAN would be a more appropriate first step for a start-class article?  I can see the merit in your request at Lansing, Michigan and Spokane, Washington, as those are already B and A class articles respectively.  I am not that involved in the Spokane article or I would nominate that myself. There is nothing to stop you, Bigpoliticsfan from nominating it yourself.  This article is more important to me, but I think a review would be a better first step and I will request one. John from Idegon (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs significant work before it is of GA status. A few thoughts: History section is extremely incomplete, Geography section should be in prose rather than bullet points, Culture section needs major work on referencing and prose, Government section needs referencing, Economy section is empty, there shouldn't be external links in the body of the article (they should be formatted as references or moved to the external links section), there are dead links throughout the article and references, Fort Custer section needs referencing and the existing references need cleanup. I would suggest looking at recent city articles promoted to GA status to see what they normally look like; multiple cleanup banners and tags will earn you an automatic quickfail at GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for someone to nominate this article for GA status 

message: Not sure if its just my browser, but the infobox source code is being displayed as plain text on the article, rather than being rendered into an actual infobox. I looked at the source and can't seem to figure out what's wrong. It's probably just a typo like a missing bracket somewhere, can someone take a look?
alex3yoyo (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi alex3yoyo - This edit removed the closing brackets which broke the format - I don't know if the attempted addition was correct or not, so I left it out. - Arjayay (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox formatting messed up 

message: Suggest adding:
:/ˈbæɾl̩/ /kɹiːk/
mdkarazim (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation in IPA