Talk:Haverhill, Iowa

message: Here are the guidelines for articles on cities/settlements with some ideas for sections that can be added to this page.
It looks like a lot of the historical material anyone would probably want to add beyond what's already here will likely be in this book: Haverhill, Iowa Centennial Book. It doesn't seem to have a digitized version available online, but is held in the Marshalltown Public Library. I included as much detail as seems relevant for a general overview.
TheBananaKingForgot (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content to expand upon in this article 

message: Magnolia677 had the good idea of suggesting we move the below comments from their user talk page to the talk page of the article we were discussing. I had some quibbles with their edits, and said quibbles are laid out below.
''
I appreciate your help with maintaining professionalism and consistency on a somewhat marginal Wikipedia page about a very small town. However, I have to object to a number of the edits you made on a page I'd been pretty exclusively working on, as I think the rules are being over-applied in some cases. As always, points of disagreement are what conversations often focus on, but I want to reiterate that I appreciate you helping me stick to Wikipedia's standards.
1. Photos The previous images were valuable, did not violate the MOS, and are more appropriate than the Blacksmith shop photo (though I think retaining the blacksmith shop photo elsewhere in the article is justifiable). The two historic photos of the bank and town were all that was available through the public domain online and stored at the Library of Congress. Per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY there isn't a problem with the Library of Congress watermarks on the margins of the photos. Moreover, MOS:PERTINENCE would suggest that the image of the town in the infobox should be what it is meant to represent. In the previous photo, you could see a highly visible church, the town bar, and an adjacent house. The town Blacksmith shop, while notable enough to have its own page, is not the best representation of the town. Notability is not described anywhere in the MOS that I can see as a criterion for photographs. Maybe I missed something, but it seems apparent that restoring these photos is the clear path forward.
2. Sourcing For future reference, can you just flag uncited claims instead of deleting them wholecloth without any discussion on the Talk page? From the page history, it's clear I was active in this page. Wholesale deletions were unnecessary here. I'm going to go back and re-add previously unsourced information, but these deletions created unnecessary hassle for me.
3. The notability of the bar Per WP:NNC notability is not a criterion for mention in the article. While WP:NNC does point to other considerations, the article on Haverhill, Iowa is not long, and I do not anticipate it will ever be especially long. Notes on the town social club do not crowd out other important information, so re-adding it to the article seems the natural path forward.
4. Pronunciation I left a note that I thought pretty clearly addressed why MOS:LEADPRON does not apply here. Towns of the same name exist in other parts of the United States with different pronunciations, most notably Haverhill, Massachusetts. I anticipated this attempt to revert my edit, and am surprised it doesn't appear to have been addressed. So unless there's some other reason not to bring this back, my plan is to go ahead and re-add it.
Again, my disagreements are isolated to the issues I'm bringing up, and I think a lot of this could have been handled more productively on the town's talk page rather than the limited space we have to explain edits. I agree with a lot of the organizational changes and appreciate the chance to rethink what's especially important here. Thanks again for giving this article another set of eyes, and giving me the chance to become a bit better informed on Wikipedia's rules and procedures.
--TheBananaKingForgot (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Recent Edits to the Page 

message: This graph here was recently added to the Demographics section:
Maybe its purpose is lost on me, but I'm not sure what it adds beyond what's clearly visible in the table reporting the population every 10 years:
Scatter charts like this are cool for visualizing trends, but what's apparent about Haverhill's population since 1970 is that it's remarkably stable, so it's not clear to me what this chart is really adding to the page.
TheBananaKingForgot (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliminate Population Trend Graph?