Talk:St. Louis/Archive 3

message: What Gibberish! If those who set up the "warning" will look at other encyclopedias, they will see that sources for such standard items as the year of the founding of St. Louis are NOT cited. And information, held to be generally true never is. Otherwise, the citations would be the aliment and the information the condiment. That said, the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra's music is played regularly on the classical radio station here in Los Angeles California. And I say this as a listener to it. The food section I have a larger problem with as a former resident I see no mention of Fitz' Hamburgers. Those things do give local flare to St. Louis. I am not smart enough to sort out what is preferable. But at 60 years, I have a better historical perspective than some editors on this page.Mark Preston 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article or section does not cite any references or sources.

message: The St. Louis Metropolitan area is in TWO states, and is thus not the largest metropolitan area in the state of Missouri, since it is also in Illinois. If you were to calculate the largest metropolitan area in the state of Missouri, you would have to add Kansas City's MSA on the Missouri side and add St. Louis' MSA on the Missouri side. So, I have removed the fact that it is the largest MSA in the state of Missouri since it is in two states and is thus NOT the largest metropolitan area in the state of Missouri.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.191.6 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 January 2007
:What?! That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. STL is the largest metropolitan area in Missouri.  The STL Metro area mentioned only takes into account counties in Missouri. No one really considers the IL portion in the STL Merto area.  By your logic what is the largest Metro area in MO since KC is split as well?  Columbia?  Get serious and use some common sense. Gamer83 00:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are Census figures that break down each county and its population.  All you have to do is add those numbers up to see that STL is clearly the largest metro in Missouri.  How does it make any sense to add the STL and the KC metro together to determine the largest Metro area in Missouri?  They are opposite sides of the state, that can't be called the largest metro area.  The KC and STL areas have the two largest areas of concentrated population in MO, so one of those two logically HAS to be the largest Metro area in MO.  Add up the population of the KC counties + KC city in MO, then compare that to the sum of the populations of all counties in the STL metro area in MO+ STL city, and you can clearly see that STL is the largest metro area in Missouri. Gamer83 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but you fail to understand that it is hard to even DEFINE a metropolitan area. The STL Metro is NOT in missouri, it is in TWO states. Reguardless of the population the suburbs on the missouri side, a metropolitan area is ALL of the suburbs. It is not fair to break up a metropolitan area. And thus, it would be stupid to say that it is a missouri metropolitan area. Furthermore a metropolitan area is not a defined entity by the government, as it has no strucutred government. It should only be the CITY of St. Louis and the CITY of Kansas City, of which Kansas City is by far larger, since those are both fully and definatley in the state of Missouri. It is okay to say that St. Louis's metropolitan area is 18th in the US but not first in Missouri.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.244.214 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing "hard" about defining a metro area. The Census Bureau establishes official metro area boundaries. The Missouri portion of the St. Louis MSA consists of Lincoln, Warren, St. Charles, Franklin. Jefferson, St. Louis, and St. Louis City counties. The Missouri portion of the Kansas City MSA consists of Clinton, Platte, Clay, Ray, Lafayette, Jackson, and Cass counties. From here, the question of "which is larger?" is a question of simple math. Or are you saying that, for instance, the New York City MSA isn't the largest one in New York state because it also extends into other states? I think you'll have a tough time finding many people who would accept that definition. Jasontoon 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We could then simply say that the Missouri portion of the St. Louis metro is the largest metro in the state. Ryancarnated 21:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Louis Metropolitan Area 

message: there's a trillion things called St Louis. St. Louis should not redirect here, it should be a proper disambig page. thx 128.250.37.103 08:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Unfortunately Astuishin appears not to agree.  I asked him to explain his rationale, but he chose not to respond.  I'd be all for changing St. Louis back to redirecting to Saint Louis (disambiguation), which is where Saint Louis currently redirects and where St. Louis redirected until recently.  Is there a consensus? Dabarkey 05:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People are more likely to be looking for some of the things named St. Louis than others, so I don't think redirecting right to a disambiguation page is most helpful.  It seems to me that all of the people and places listed at the Saint Louis (disambiguation) page are all ultimately named after St. Louis IX.  If any subject has the best claim to the St. Louis and Saint Louis name space I think it would be he.  TMS63112 05:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Sir:
I was the force (recently) behind getting the article at Wikipedia known as Saint Louis changed to St. Louis. If you will go to the discussion page prior to this one, you will see lengthy discussion about it. Briefly: the spelling: "St. Louis" is the official and legal one. Various sources were searched to see if St. Louis or Saint Louis was preferable. It became instantly obvious that the geographic term is St. Louis. Below is the WikiCityPages statement of "nameing conventions:
"Structure (format for city template)
Each city shall be called by the common name of the city, e.g. Jackson, Mississippi, Des Moines, Iowa, New York, New York. All other possible common names for the city should re-direct to the main city entry. Ideally, it should be that every city has an entry titled in the CITY NAME, STATE NAME manner. New York City, for example, or other such instances should at least be in some way associated to a CITY NAME, STATE NAME entry so that a common linking standard can be maintained. (The proliferation of New York City entries shows, I think, the need for a naming standard specific to cities). In the event of a naming conflict (e.g. a township and a borough having the same name), it should be called by its city, county (with the word "County" removed), and state. Also if the location is a township only, you should attach the word "Township" to its name. (Example: Manor Township, Lancaster, Pennsylvania)."  Mark Preston 15:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark, thanks for helping to get the article title changed to reflect the correct spelling of St. Louis, Missouri.  The problem this user raises is that someone typing "St. Louis" into a search box will get the article for "St. Louis, Missouri."  They might be looking for some other place or person called St. Louis (or Saint Louis).  Currently our only disambiguation note on the St. Louis, Missouri article directs people to an article on St. Louis County, Missouri.  At very least, we should probably add a line to the top of the St. Louis, Missouri article directing people to the Saint Louis (disambiguation) page.  Personally, I also think it is a little confusing that St. Louis and Saint Louis redirect to two different places. TMS63112 17:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ugh, not this again. I am switching it back to point at Saint Louis (disambiguation). — GT 10:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig 

message: The section in this article on social and crime issues is not a summary of the main article Crime and Social issues of St. Louis, Missouri...it IS the main article.  Either way, both of these need to be cleaned up.  Could someone lend a hand in doing that?  I'm not an expert on St. Louis, especially not its social/crime issues.  So if soemone could pitch in with that, it'd be much appreciated.  Metros232 14:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The crime section is a lame ass attempt to downplay the crappiness of the area.  Is there a "absurd use of caveats" tag on wikipedia? 71.121.72.114 20:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime and Social issues 

message: I updated the population with the actual 2005 Census estimates. According to the Census, St. Louis has an estimated population of 344,362. This information can be found here Ajwebb 14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: St. Louis sucessfully challenged those estimates back in March.  The confusion on the population stems from the fact that the original 2005 figures were only just made official a few weeks ago.  I've reverted the St. Louis population back to it's 350,000+ state.  The challenge can't be found by following links, but can be found here.  --Millbrooky 15:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For consistency purposes, I added a sourced citation next to the figure. --Moreau36 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: This is an article on The City of St. Louis.  McKendree College is not inside STL City boundaries (25 miles away) and is of no note nationally.  It doesn't need a blurb dedicated to  it on this wikipage.  Please no self-promotioing of your minor Universities 20+ miles away on the WIkipage.  Thank You. Gamer83 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All because there are disagreements over the St. Louis vs Greater St. Louis article scope issue discussed below. --Millbrooky 17:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colleges 

message: I corrected some vandalism on this page, for some reason it's getting a lot of attention.  If this continues, does anyone support a temporary disabling of editing by unregistered users?  ERTBen 20:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Gamer83. --Millbrooky 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of vandalism 

message: I removed this link because it was a link to what appears to be a personal project "Wikipage".  After looking at the Wiki it is very incomplete and it is not the only STL Wiki out there.  I think it is linkspam and if anyone disagrees feel free to discuss it here. *WikiLou - St. Louis' Very Own Wiki Gamer83 01:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Spam Discussion 

message: *"St. Louie Louie" does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (web).  It is a new forum with 13 members.  Currently the site has no pertinent information about St. Louis.  It appears to be a cheap clone of the existing forum link.   Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote your new personal site.  Wikipedia is not a link farm.  Please do not re-add the link.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising agency. Gamer83 19:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Louie Louie

message: I do not know how contraversial this action will prove to be but if it is accepted there is some cleanup that needs to be done.  Double redirects need to be fixed.  And the Disambiguation page needs to list St. Louis, Missouri high enough that it will appear on the screen without having to scroll down.  All the same, I am thinking it is better to see if people are going to try and have this changed before we get into all of that.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who moved this, there is some additional discussion at User talk:Bkonrad#St. Louis move. Basically, both Saint Louis and St. Louis were already redirects to the disambiguation page and had been since at least late April 2006, so there is no additional cleanup resulting from the move. And I already checked for double-redirects (as I usually do whenever I move a page), although of course more eyes looking is always a good thing. older ≠ wiser 02:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed double redirects; for example the hatnote on the attached article.  Since it was not quite the case I orginally thought I think the people should focus on cleaning up St. Louis so the most likely wanted pages are at the top instead of the arbitrary order the links are now in.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those aren't double-redirects, they are simple redirects. A double-redirect is where the target of a redirect page is another redirect. Those are bad because the redirection stops after the first redirect. older ≠ wiser 02:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Sorry.  Nevermind about those.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Saint Louis (disambiguation)]] recently moved 

message: *I do not believe that this "study" has any place on this page.  The methodology of this report has been called into question by many people, including the FBI, the supposed "source" of their data. 
http://www.kmov.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=98157
This ranking compares full metro areas like Houston to St. Louis City, not St. Louis Metropolitan area.  The result is nearly every other city in the study gets to use their suburban areas to "pad" their overall crime stats, while cities politically independent of their suburban neighbors get stuck holding the bag( St. Louis, Boston, and DC).  The crime statistics are already included in the current version of the page, readers can look at the raw numbers and form their own opinions, a slanted study violates NPOV.  As such the inly conceivable way to include the study, would be to have it followed by a counter point explaining the studies many flaws.  But that would turn this page into a place where the validity on the Morgan Quinto study is debated, and that has no place here.  If anything a new page should be created for the Morgan Quinto numbers, and then a "criticisms" section should be added explaining the flaws in the study there. Gamer83 00:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know exactly what edit you are talking about, but the crime section talks about how all these sorts of studies are skewed for St. Louis.  It is hardly this one study.  It seems to happen twice a year so I feel we should talk about why these things always rank St. Louis deceivingly high. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW I see no reason to mention this most recent study in particular. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on the inclusion/exclusion of the Morgan Quinto study

message: There has been a proliforation entries into the cuisine section, recently, and I would argue that not all of them pass the notability test for inclusion in this article; and some seem more like advertisements for particular brands of food than unique St. Louis cuisine despite their separate wikipedia articles.  Entries (entrées?) that caught my attention were 1) Amighetti's Special sandwiches, 2) Red Hot Riplets, and 3) Gerber sandwich.
I gotta vote for Red Hot Riplets' inclusion.  It's only sold in STL.  I missed those chips dearly when I left for college. Gamer83 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Red Hot Riplets - these chips have been covered in multiple independent media and were the subject of a song on a major-label recording. They're notable. They stay. Jasontoon 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, you don't get to make up your own criteria for notability. Per Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." Again, see Red Hot Riplets. If it's notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article, and it has a distinctive relationship with St. Louis, it should be mentioned in the St. Louis article. Whether "the majority of people" know about it or not has nothing to do with notability (and how would we establish that, anyway?). By this "majority" criterion, most of the information in Wikipedia would be deleted. I am continually astonished at Wikipedia editors who assume that, because something falls outside their own knowledge, it must not be notable. That's not the way it works. Jasontoon 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed on Pevely, Switzer, etc. Red Hot Riplets are a distinctly St. Louisan style of potato chip, not merely a different brand. They are very popular in the African-American community, which might explain some editors' lack of knowledge about them. A given editor's unfamiliarity with a subject has no bearing on its notability. Jasontoon 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuisine 

message: It has become increasingly clear to me that the litmus test of what is included or excluded from the St. Louis page has nothing to do with notability, or any other wikipedia standard.  It seems to be the personal sentiments of a small group of people, particularly Gamer83, who make decisions about what to include or exclude based on their own POV of the item/link/anything and wrap their decision in the ambiguous guise of a "notability test" when they exclude things.  Things like St. Louie Louie forums and WikiLou are excluded because they aren't "notable" enough, while things like Red Hot Riplets are included because Gamer83 likes them.  I live in St. Louis and I've never heard of or seen Red Hot Riplets...So, to be clear, I'm complaining both about the ambiguity of wikipedia policy, and its questionable implementation on this page.  I wanted to make my feelings clear, and hear the opinions of others on the issue.  --Mijunkin 09:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought I was logged in. The above comment from 70.129.106.22 is mine. Jasontoon 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, my complaint was two-pronged.  If the majority feels that the two sites I mentioned should not be included in external links, whaterver the reason may be, then so be it.  As for the second part of my complaint, I don't understand why Wikipedia policy seems to err on the side of excluding information.  Personally, I'd much rather err on the side of inclusion, which would present the user with as much information as possible.  It hasn't been my experience on just the St Louis page that has made me feel this way.  But this discussion has little to do with the St. Louis article, so I'll end it here.  Honestly, I'm sorry to have attacked Gamer83.  He was merely the most recent example of a user implementing a policy I feel to be silly.  --Mijunkin 07:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion/Exclusion POV

message: I restored the removal of things from this section.  It does seem to be anything that should be removed without dissusion.  I think the people inrested in those issues should work on Crime and social issues of St. Louis, Missouri and then make a proper summary of the end result a part of this article.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime and social issues 

message: I think this edit is misleading but the editor has changed it twice and I have no wish to edit war.  What does everyone else think?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then we should probably take the sentance out entirely as the lead already says St. Louis is the largest metropolis in MO and 18th in the US.  No need to say the same thing twice in the same section. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second biggest city or metropolis? 

message: From reading many of the American city entries on Wikipedia, I understand that many of the entries are somewhat factual, but have a lot of cheerleading and boosterism to it.  Even with that unfortunate standard, I think this entry for St. Louis might be the worst one that I've seen.  And I'm someone who has visited St. Louis numerous times and find it to be a great city!  It would be nice if someone toned down the POV in this piece...it's really blatant. Asc85 04:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha!  You should read the East St. Louis article.  The main picture makes the place look quite delightful.  Rklawton 05:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rklawton...I went to the East St. Louis article and actually laughed out loud when I saw the picture!  Looks like a place out of Norman Rockwell!  But at least they appear to address the huge crime problem there in the article. Asc85 15:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, of course you don't see POV, which pretty much validates my first point.  I won't go line by line in this entry as it currently stands today, but here are a few (not including of course some of the things that I softened earlier):
1.  "the world-renowned Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra"?  Come on now.  Is this even considered among the best in the U.S.?  Regionally-renowned at best.
2.  gives the city a reputation as, "a top notch sports town."  That's a very down-the-middle objective comment.  Says who?  The people of St. Louis?  I have no problem with "The Sporting News" reference that follows, but that first quote is cheerleading.
3.  "unofficial capital of professional wrestling."  I'm not an expert on professional wrestling, but I know enough about it, and I seriously doubt the veracity of that statement.  But I don't know enough to shoot it down, so I left it in there.  And even if it is the "unofficial capital," is that even something important enough to mention?
4.  The Crime and Social Issues section - This section OPENS with a virtual disclaimer saying that the crime data is skewed, implying that it shouldn't be taken very seriously.  If one didn't know about St. Louis, you wouldn't even realize from reading that section that it has historically had one of the worst crime rates in the country for many years now.  To be fair, the link to the larger article addresses that issue, but this section does not.
5.  The Colleges section is ridiculous.  St. Louis has "a unique place in the establishment of American colleges and Universities."  What does that even mean?  St. Louis certainly isn't Boston, and isn't even Philadelphia, New York, Raleigh-Durham, or the Springfield, MA area when it comes to higher learning, just to name a few places.  Washington University is there.  So what?  Rice University is in Houston.  Emory University is in Atlanta.  etc. etc.  Additionally, the entry talks about, "a vibrant and energetic college student population."  How is that defined?  How is it more "vibrant and energetic" than college student populations in Ann Arbor, Columbus, or anywhere else?  The article says St. Louis has, "a plethora of institutions of higher learning."  Huh?  This isn't Boston.  This isn't Philadelphia, etc. How is plethora being defined?  
I've spent far more time addressing this then I should have.  These are just a few of the more egregious examples I've come across in this entry.  When there's just a couple, OK.  But eventually, things reach critical mass, and there's a tipping point.  As I noticed someone had written in this Discussion section on a different matter, there should be a difference between a "tribute" to a city, and an encyclopedic entry.  Asc85 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know much about the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra, but it's not hard to figure out that it's more than just "regionally-renowned at best". In 1983, Time magazine ranked it as the second-best orchestra in the United States.  In 1994, the Japanese magazine Friend of Music ranked it among the top 20 in the world.  To date, the SLSO has won 6 Grammy Awards and received 56 nominations. As I said, I'm no classical music expert. But all this adds up to more than just "regional renown." Remember: just because something sounds counter-intuitive to you doesn't mean it's false. And it only takes a few minutes with Google to settle the matter. Jasontoon 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I never pay much attention to the sports area of the article nor whereever the orchestra comments are.  I agree with you on those points.  However I disagree about the comments on crime rates, the data is very largely skewed and always has been.  Anyone who reads the Post-Dispatch knows this, as it happens every year. This year's hoopla over it is older than the stuff they archive on the internet so I don't have a link.  But I believe is quite obvious that when you compare any statistical number from a city that is 66 sq mi to cities which are over 500 sq mi, the results will be skewed.  It is not just the crime rate, but the literacy rate, unemployment rate, etc.  All statistics comparing the City of St. Louis with other cities are skewed.  Regarding the colleges, I think that while St. Louis may not be comparable to the Eastern Seaboard, it does have "a unique place in the establishment of American colleges and Universities" for half of the country.  Granted this unique place happens to be in history, but I don't this is as much cheerleading as remarking on the prominent role St. Louis had in all things culutral when it was considered on the edge of the "frontier".  I agree with you about the current student population stuff however.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your thoughtful comments Birgitte.  I really do like St. Louis whenever I visit.  Not that I've visited every major city in America, but of those I visited, it is by far the friendliest...although I don't know how you mention that in a Wikipedia entry! Asc85 14:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are both being so civil, I will try to be much better at that as well.  I watched that YouTube video (interesting to say the least), and I think I know where you're coming from.  I THINK what you're saying is that the Metropolitan area of St. Louis is not among the most dangerous, it is the City, only.  But that many people confuse the two when this is in the hands of the media.  (If I'm wrong in my interpretation here, please set me straight).  Nevertheless the City of St. Louis being unsafe should still be mentioned in an article like this a little bit more forcefully.  I went to the Morgan Quitno website, and to be ranked as more dangerous than Newark, NJ isn't a good thing.  I grew up in a suburb of that area, still visit the Ironbound section (the ONLY relatively safe part of that city) for the best Spanish food in the Northeast, and trust me when I say that most sections of Newark are places you wouldn't want to be, either in the daytime or at night. Asc85 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I work in one the worst areas (63147).  It is definately urban blight.  Between a quarter to half the house resembles that picture.  But I lock up the shop by myself many nights, and have no problem being here past sunset.  I would not come by around midnight, but it is not like you are describing Newark.  Things gets stolen if they aren't locked up but there are still a number of people living around here who have had a business and property in the family for three genrations.  Blighted, yes; No-man's land, no.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shilling 

message: Though I dont believe it to be intentional, this section is suggestively racist.  It's mainly because this section was copied from the main article (Crime and social issues of St. Louis, Missouri), and discusses demographic areas without an explicit reference to crime.   Without some discussion that links the city's demographics to actual data on crime, this section (because of its title) is suggestively racist.  I dont think it is intentionally so, and I'm not trying to start up a polemic.  I just want to call attention to it so that someone can rewrite this section. It really isn't a very good article as far as WP standards go.  NPOV is a big issue as some have already mentioned but there is not even a references cited section.  Not to mention.... no citations! Yikes. greek lamb 11:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime and Social Issues: Suggestive Claims

message: This section doesn't even talk about its title as it is simply the copied section from the Peopl and culture about music.  It is just music alone.  These sections should summaries and overviews of the main articles.  Not simply copied from the main article. greek lamb 13:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performing Arts Section 

message: I believe some decisions have to be made on whether the scope of articles about St. Louis, Missouri should focus exclusively on the ~60 sq mi of the City of St. Louis or whether they should include information pertaining to Greater St. Louis.  Some editors of this article have been excluding information, such as schools, that does not pertain exclusively to the city.  Meanwhile, the economics section lists every major corporation or industry that does business in the greater St. Louis metropolitan area.  Then there are topics, such as crime and social issues (eg Morgan Quitno), that simultaneously affect both the city and all of the region's surrounding communities.
Anyone have any ideas of ideas of how to fix or improve the situation?  Is there any precedence for a metropolitan article taking precedence over the local article (Greater St. Louis taking precedence over St. Louis, Missouri)? --Millbrooky 20:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Louis vs Greater St. Louis article scope 

message: The page is already in arabic but it is yet to be listed on the sidebar.
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA_%D9%84%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%B3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.217.239.222 (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2007 (PST) (from Ballwin)
:ok, I just added ar:سانت لويس to the bottom. Was I fooled? It doesn't mean Smelly City in Arabic, does it? Also, you should put the code en:St. Louis, Missouri at the bottom of that article to link back here. —Wikibarista 00:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Page Is In Arabic

message: This article is horrible.
Why do we have to keep mention things in St. Louis, that are actually in St. Louis County?  Oh, I know why, cause St. Louis City is A DUMP.  I propose we move all St. Louis County stuff to the county article.  Oh, wait then the city article will contain two things: the Arch and the "NEW" Busch Stadium.  Hmmm...
Let's just delete the city article and be real people, the City of St. Louis, is OLD NEWS.  VIVA LA WENTZVILLE!
J. Crocker 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  horrible. 

message: Anybody else think the list of local sports teams in getting as crufty and out of hand as the cuisine list before it? --Millbrooky 04:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sports List 

message: The section in the city's page says that Webster is larger (by student enrollment) than University of Missouri–St. Louis, but the page for UM-St. Louis states that this school is largest. I think that the main page is incorrect and needs editing, thx.
:Within the St. Louis metro area UM-St. Louis is the largest college, but Webster has many campuses around the world and includes all of its students in its various campuses.- thank you  Astuishin (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which college is largest? 

message: I reading an old copy of St. Louis magazine where they had an article about "St. Louis independant city" vs. "St. Louis region".  They actually cited Wikipedia in the article . . . but they cited fr.wikipedia.  I imagine the article here did not deal with the issue in the way they wished to cite.  Talk about cherry-picking.  Anyways it just makes me again think about the elephant in this article (i.e. scope).  Part of me wishes we cold simply scrap the MOS here because St. Louis, Missouri is horrible title since the post office (and most everyone else) uses that for the city as well 80% of the county.  Honestly I don't believe most people in the area know exactly where the boundary lies outside of the Forest Park/Clayton portion.  I really don't have an answer here but we need a creative solution.  It really confusing to exclude UMSL and Monsanto from the St. Louis article but the MSA is to huge to pretend that people would commonly consider all that are to be "St. Louis".  Any new perspectives on this issue?--BirgitteSB 16:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Louis Magazine 

message: If you want to add relevant information to various sections, rewrite those sections in an appropriate manner with proper grammar and punctuation.  Shoving extra info into a giant reference tag is poor style.  -- Davidkevin 18:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoe-Horning info into ref tags 

message: If you listen to people in St. Louis when they pronounce the name of the city, you often hear "Sent" rather than Saint. This has been my observation for nearly fifty years and includes people of both European-American and African-American ancestry.  Have also sometimes heard "Sent" rather than "Saint" when used in front of other saints' names, both in St. Louis and in other parts of the midwest.  Probably some linguists have studied this kind of thing. Don't know whether it should be included as an alternate pronunciation in Wikipedia, without having done research on the linguistic work, and without knowing Wikipedia policies about pronunciations in general. Publius3 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO wikipedia is not a form for as Gamer83 aptly put it anecdotal observations, and scrupulous historical research on language patterns should be offered for those observations to be included.- thank you  Astuishin (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate pronunciation