Talk:Culture of Atlanta

message: :Image:The atl.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 04:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use rationale added.--JKeene 00:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The atl.jpg

message: This article completely ignores the glorious southern urban sleaze that is the foundation of all that is beautiful about Atlanta.  Specifically, it doesn't mention The Majestic, The Clermont Lounge, or The Black Lips.  Also, if I'm not mistaken, this article makes no real reference to the culture of the 60% majority of Atlantans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.54.75 (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sleaze 

message: I removed the topic detail from this article. Many of these topics were duplicated on their own topic pages (for some) as well as on the Tourism in Atlanta page. Now, each major topic has its own page, and as well, each topic is summarized on the Atlanta article. So there is no need to duplicate the topic detail here - if it were duplicated here the content can't be kept consistent and fresh, since it would have to maintained in two to three places in addition to the summary on the main Atlanta page.Keizers (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think those other pages are significant enough to warrant their own pages when they can all be summarized here.--ATLcolts99 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of topic detail 

message: Hi all, 
I have long been dissatisfied with how the detailed content about Atlanta has been housed amongst the various detail articles such as Culture of Atlanta and Tourism in Atlanta.
Specifically, "Culture of Atlanta" included detailed text on: museums, performing arts, music, festivals, sports, media and religion
"Tourism in Atlanta" included detailed text on: museums, performing arts, parks, and festivals.
This resulted in three problems:
*The detail information for museums, performing arts, and festivals was in two locations
*Some of the topics are substantial enough to warrant their own pages (sports, museums, festivals, and arts)
*Rather unrelated subejcts such as sports, media, and performing arts were lumped together in the "Culture" page, similar issue for the tourism page (performing arts + cuisine for example)
I have since created separate topic pages for those major topics. This results in ONE home for the detail content on each topic.
*Museums in Atlanta
*Sports in Atlanta
*Arts in Atlanta
*Festivals in Atlanta
*Parks in Atlanta
and removed the detail content from the Culture of Atlanta and Tourism in Atlanta pages.
I am curious how other users feel about this. Please chime in below. 
I removed the topic detail from this article. Many of these topics were duplicated on their own topic pages (for some) as well as on the Tourism in Atlanta page. Now, each major topic has its own page, and as well, each topic is summarized on the Atlanta article. 
So there is no need to duplicate the topic detail AGAIN on the culture and tourism pages - if it were duplicated the content can't be kept consistent , since it would have to maintained in two to three places, and that's in addition to the summary on the main Atlanta page. Keizers (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new Tourism page looks great. However, I think the Culture of Atlanta was necessary as it summarizes all of those sub-pages in one. No offense to Atlanta, but I think we can all agree that it is no Chicago; are the arts so significant in Atlanta that they warrant their own article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATLcolts99 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, actually the visual and plastic arts are grossly under-described right now. There is a lot going on here including Art on the BeltLine, graffiti art, Goat Farm Arts complex, etc. A lot could be added. See my previous comments about the Culture article presenting all these topics together. Sports, Media, Performing Arts, Festivals... who is looking for all those disparate topics in one place? And see my previous remark about having content in duplicate places. It will create inconsistency. Keizers (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to look at FA-class city articles for some ideas and leave some ideas later this weekend. Majoreditor (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should topic detail go?