Talk:Seymour, Indiana

message: I hardly doubt that only 4.85% of the population in 2000 was Hispanic, numbers closer to 20% would be more accurate(unless of course you don't count the illegals).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Need documentation to prove it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustjody (talk • contribs) 13:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Baron Hill is a notable resident of Seymour.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.136.78 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustjody (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baron Hill. 

message: There is no University of Indiana.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.113.157 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustjody (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teri Moren 

message: this is a thankless task.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustjody (talk • contribs) 01:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Thankless task

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: What citations are we missing in WWII?  
I don't see any.  At one point a included the number of war casualties from Seymour but it looks like it has been removed.
Can we remove this tag now?
Thanks,
--Itsjustjody (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Two of the last three paragraphs of the section are completely unsourced and the one is supported by a single citation. The first three paragraphs look OK, but none of the sources are available online; so, none of them can be verified. Not being available online is not always a problem per :WP:PUBLISHED as long as the source being cited is reliable and used in proper context, but unsourced states can be removed at anytime per :WP:BURDEN. If you're going to cite sources that aren't available online, please try to provide as much information as possible about them as explained here because doing so can help others try and track down the source. So, if you want to cite a newspaper article, try and also provide the name of the writer (if there's a byline) as well as the name of the article because sometimes this can help others find a version of the article that is actually online. Many Wikipedia editors are able to access sites like :Newspapers.com or other online archive-type sites, and often a request can be made at :Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request to verify a source. It's also a good idea to try and place a citation as close as possible to the content it supports per :WP:INTEGRITY, but there might be different ways of doing this and it depends on what's being cited. Short paragraphs of simple factual statements are probably OK with all the relevant citations placed at the end of the paragraph, but larger more complex paragraphs probably need the citations placed after the relevant sentences. Anything that might be seen as contentious as well as quoted speech should have the supporting citation as close a possible per :WP:INTEXT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII Citations 

message: Please don't remove content or make major changes to the content.  GA approval is only waiting on citations for the "notable people" section (and I want to complete citations for the mayors).  The only other content I believe it's missing is a "climate" section but GA did not ask for this. It's just a 'nice to have'. Unless you can help with these sections, be kind and refrain. ItsjustGatsby (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OWN applies; any editor can step in and make changes even if there is an ongoing content review. The mayors list is not notable (as evidenced by the lack of articles for these mayors) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. There's a lot of additional problems with the article that would prevent its promotion to GA (lack of a proper Geography section, prose issues, over-detailing of unimportant elements, bullet-point lists that should be prose). SounderBruce 17:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  this page is in the progress of being GA'd