Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Louisville/Archive 1

message: Hi all:
Mr. ADD here with two quick questions: Just how do we sign up to be a part of this project?
Frappyjohn
:Glad you asked.  Go here and edit the section, adding your username, along with a short bio. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to join

message: Hey Louisville peeps. Please see :Category_talk:Wikipedians_in_Kentucky -- CQ 11:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know about it.  It's good to see a statewide Wikipedia effort growing its legs. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 15:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also everyone note that WikiProject Kentucky is working on a launch of a Kentucky portal.  Please join in that effort if you can. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 19:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Kentucky 

message: We are including My Old Kentucky Home as part of the Louisville Project?  Just how far out of Louisville are we going with this project?--Bedford 03:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProject Louisville covers the entire Louisville Metropolitan Area, which includes Bardstown. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 03:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Old Kentucky Home??? 

message: An article has been created at Louisville waterfront arena for the proposed arena. Before delving too much into it (if you read the papers you know there's no shortage of sources we can cite on this) - is this a good title for it? I get 12 google results for this title, and I'm not sure if there's been a proposed placeholder title yet (like Lucas Oil Field was officially Hoosier Field until the naming rights were sold well after planning was finished). So uh, just requesting some comments here... not sure if this article needs a new name or what. --W.marsh 00:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose this would be a suitable placeholder name until a more correct title is discovered--at that point, the article can be moved. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louisville waterfront arena 

message: If there is a desire to have opportunities for near real-time collaboration sessions, I run a Jabber server at the company for which I work where I could easy host a chatroom for people to get together and discuss things in that sort of format/media.
So, I'll offer that up and see if there is any interest.  I can be reached via Jabber at jmcadams@appriss.com.
:If you're willing to write up a brief tutorial here for how to get on Jabber (including where to find the software), I would think that a monthly chat conference would be useful.  I'm not certain of the attendance it would achieve, but it's certainly worth a try. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 17:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near Real-Time Collaboration 

message: If anyone knows of any Louisville-related articles currently undergoing peer review, please add them to this new subsection of Tasks. Thanks! —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 00:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Today I reformatted how the project's templates are displayed on the project page.  What I did was "subst" them in, then removed their categories after saving.  I did this because the templates' categories shouldn't being applied to the project.  So, if anyone changes one of these templates in the future, please apply the changes to the template code on this page as well.  Thanks! —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 19:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Project templates

message: I'm at a loss on these. What makes a mall notable? Hyper Anthony 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that in terms of their size, economic effects and attraction-like qualities, some malls are notable.  In fact, there are already a good number of mall articles in the Wikipedia.  At any rate, notability is a judgment call, and it's hard to pin down exactly what would make a specific mall notable. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: River Falls was notable due to its amusement park, and the fact that it is now practically demolish to make way for Bass Pro and the new Dicks shows its faddishness.  Green Tree Mall started the trend of Clarksville becoming a major shopping area.--Bedford 19:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I was thinking that, but besides the two malls in Clarksville there aren't any ones that stand out.  Maybe Bashford Manor because of the trouble its been having?  Hyper Anthony 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bashford Manor was always a minor mall (in my opinion), which I think no longer exists, as it's been replaced by a superstore of some sort.  If we think in terms of economic impact (if that is enough to influence notability), Oxmoor Center and Mall St. Matthews would seem notable.  Also, Jefferson Mall was the largest mall in Kentucky upon its completion--maybe that makes it notable?  I'm not sure what mall is the biggest now, but that quality would seem to lend to notability. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think if we dug into it, several of Louisville's malls would have associated with them a fair degree of interesting encyclopedic aspects, esp. as they are large imposing multi-use facilities with major economic impact.  We're not talking about the cookie-cutter design of Wal-marts, and many malls, especially Mall St. Matthews and Oxmoor Center, exhibit features that aren't necessarily commonly found at most malls.  I just feel that our coverage of Louisville business wouldn't feel complete without their presence, the same way many feel that coverage of education isn't complete unless we have articles for all schools. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I say go for it then... the worst that could happen is someone AfDs them and we have to merge. --W.marsh 21:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will take a while for them to "bubble up" on my todo list, but I'll keep them in mind.  Of course, anyone is welcome to beat me to it. :) — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you kindly for your contribution.  Cheers! — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Malls

message: Since WikiProject Louisville is in the early stages, I would like to suggest a refrain from the future usage of the term "Kentuckiana". Kentuckiana seems to be a local news term, not used by Louisville residents (other than perhaps by businesses in the Yellow Pages). It's often a commonly misused word, as some refer to Louisville alone as Kentuckiana. In the future for things to remain clear (and pleasant), I would like to suggest "Indiana" for Indiana, "Kentucky" for Kentucky, and "Louisville" for Louisville when mentioned in the articles of WikiProject Louisville. --Gemini79
:Based on my working on a multitude of Louisville-related articles, "Louisville metro area" is used far more than "Kentuckiana".  "Kentuckiana" should really only be used as an "AKA" term for describing the metro area in the metro area and main city articles.  Otherwise, it should be replaced if found, in my opinion. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe its a generational thing.  I always heard Kentuckiana, not Louisville Metro.  Heck, we have a news program called Good Morning Kentuckiana.--Bedford 02:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kentuckiana is colloquial.  Even though the area is often referred to as this, it (in my opinion) has never held the encyclopedic precision of "Louisville metropolitian area", which has a specific U.S. Census definition.  Also, apparently Kentuckiana often refers to the local television viewing area, which isn't nearly contiguous with the official metro area.  As you indicate, Kentuckiana seems to be more of a slang or marketing phenomena than anything we could pin down in encyclopedic terms here.  That's why we see Wikipedia language like "the Louisville metropolitan area, sometimes referred to as Kentuckiana". That's my take on it. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I also want to emphasize that Louisville Metro and Louisville metropolitan area are different entities.  Louisville Metro is just Louisville-Jefferson County.  Kentuckiana was always meant to cover the region around Louisville, including parts of Southern Indiana. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kentuckiana

message: There are a few stubs that could easily be merged into other articles... are high school football teams notable enough for an individual article? Hyper Anthony 22:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a *very* good question, as I've noticed the same thing.  I think it would be best to address them on an individual basis.  There might actually be a few area high school football teams that are notable and have enough content to warrant their own separate article, but since I'm not a sports fanatic, I'll leave it up to others to make better decisions on that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, consensus on AfD seems to be that it's one article per high school, and everything (most usually sports team articles) gets merged there... unless the main article is glaringly over 30k in size, which is rare for HS articles. --W.marsh 00:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fair.  I'll go along with a merge then.  Thanks for your very good input (as always), W.marsh. - Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivial Stubs

message: The official CJ webpage only allows viewing the last 7 days worth of articles, which is a real pain. I wasn't sure if everyone knew about this... you can find near-complete archives back to 1999 at this location (you have to click through some links). Images aren't included in the archives but we couldn't use those anyway, really. The CJ's not perfect, but combined with common sense, old articles can be very useful for writing Wikipedia articles on many Louisville topics. --W.marsh 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that *very* useful info!  That was one aspect about the C-J site that I very much disliked.  Other newspapers seem to maintain their archives on their original sites, but for some reason, the C-J refuses to.  At least we now have an alternative avenue for referencing older C-J articles.  Cool. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CJ Back-issues 

message: Mom's bothering me about getting my current roll in my camera finished, so I thought I'd burn through the rest of it by taking pictures.  What pictures of Louisville do we still need, and I'll burn up the rest of my roll.--Bedford 02:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Louisville. Any better shots of Old Louisville is good too... as are shots of the bridges (currently using crappy pictures I've taken). --W.marsh 03:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked there.  Most of those aren't pics i could get tomorrow (Falls Fountain?), and I saw articles that should probably be deleted.--Bedford 03:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for asking. Here's a wishlist of things I'd like to see: 1) A better picture or two for Cherokee Park (summertime!); 2) Colgate Clock (article currently doesn't show our local one); 3) Seelbach Hotel; 4) Frazier International History Museum; 5) Muhammad Ali Center; 6) Speed Art Museum; 7) Iroquois Park (two or more, including one of amphitheater); 8) Neighborhood signs for Louisville neighborhoods.  W.marsh's ideas look good too.  Hope this helps. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I just added the reqphotoin template to all the articles I listed. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for all your work.  If you haven't noticed already, I've been following behind and refining the placement of the images, as well as brightening them.  If you have any Louisville-related images headed for the Wikipedia that you want brightened, cropped or revised in some way, let me know and I'll Photoshop them for you. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Hi! The page Prestonia should be moved to Prestonia, Kentucky or Prestonia, Louisville. Prestonia is the name of an Intel CPU and of a plant (family Apocynaceae). See :it:Prestonia. Semolo75 (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done... Prestonia is now a redirect, but a disambig can easilly be created there now. --W.marsh 13:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prestonia

message: Ever since I had to quickly change the project image due to a fair use image, I was thinking that what I had changed to appeared a bit cartoonish.  So, I'm trying out a new sepia-toned version I just created. Let me know what you think. I'll be happy to change back if not received well. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I'm hoping this isn't the final version (image quality and sepia background). Second, I think the best fleur-de-lis would be a blue and gold one, preferably using shades similar to those in the Metro seal. Basically, so long as it's more of a muted blue and gold. --Carl (talk|contribs) 01:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could easily substitute Louisville's colors in and see what happens.  As far as the design is concerned, if a different design is wanted, I would encourage others to work on one.  I'm not much of a graphic artist myself.  At any rate, I'm very open-minded as to what graphic we will ultimately use. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the legal status of Microsoft Clip Art? --Carl (talk|contribs) 03:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So, how about this one? It's 100% public domain. I'm not completely happy with the trace job on this one. I don't have a program (that I know of) that can handle svg as a vector, so I had to work with it as raster. End result is that it's a bit jagged at high res. However, given that, I think it's pretty good. --Carl (talk|contribs) 04:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added it to the project page.  It looks rather crisp, and it's definitely the best so far.  If nobody objects, we can make this the project's image for the forseeable future, and I'll add it to the various project templates. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: After seeing it deployed in templates, it appears too dark.  Could you possibly brighten the image a little--I could do this if you like.  I've already been starting to reduce the height used in the templates, as this image is shaped differently than the last one. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'll take care of that. While personally, it's not too dark, I can understand how it might look that way. I'll look into doing something about it this afternoon. I think if I change the gradients used, it'll be fine. --Carl (talk|contribs) 11:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I took care of it before seeing this response. Hope that's OK. I just ran it through the GIMP brightener (Sometimes I use GIMP instead of PhotoShop just to keep my feet wet in it). If you can make it look even better, have at it--there's no such thing as "finished" here in the Wikipedia. :) Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, lightened it is, and I took out the 3D rotation. I think it looks better this way, but if you like it better rotated, we can do that, too. Doesn't take that long. --Carl (talk|contribs) 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look more clarified in general, but if you could add back a minor 3D shadow, it would look more crisp in some of the templates.  The rotation looked cool, but I don't think it's necessary.  Thanks for all your fantastic work on this. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There is one there, it's just not as pronounced. I'll take care of that, however. --Carl (talk|contribs) 17:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I just noticed that. However, I'll wait until we decide on a "final" image. Speaking of which, what do you think of this one? Is there enough contrast between the band and the background? I downloaded Inkscape and was finally able to get a vector image into PowerPoint without rasterizing. This one is much higher quality. --Carl (talk|contribs) 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just uploaded a new one, and I'm starting to notice that what looks good at high-resolution does not necessarily look at all pleasing at low-res. I'm thinking I may need to work from a low-res source image since the usage of this image is generally at 100px or less. --Carl (talk|contribs) 19:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The larger sizes of it look perfect to me; with the smaller sizes, it's hard to see the details that make it a fleur-de-lis.  Perhaps we could use the last flat one I created for the small templates?  Or, if you can rework yours somehow to work better with small sizes, that's fine too. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here's yet another one. I think this is one of the best so far. I changed the lighting effects to more of a "glow", which produced better all-over shading. I also added a black border using the GIMP which I think helps a bit. It looks to be fairly intelligible on all the templates. --Carl (talk|contribs) 21:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, it stands out very well at all sizes. It's one we can be very proud of. We still have the disappearing problem, though.  Hopefully, it will look as good as a GIF. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks all right, despite being slightly jaggy, but that's what converting to GIF normally does.  I think it works.  I already replaced the image at the top of the project page.  What's remaining is the templates.  I'll change them if you don't first. :) Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On second thought, it wasn't looking that great at a small size.  How about this jpeg version with a background?  I testing zooming out with it, and it looked decent when small. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The JPEG looks fine -- I just personally despise backgrounds on images like that. I took the border off the GIF (it's one of the previous versions), and it didn't look too bad. We'd just need to change the background color of the templates so that the gold color contrasted. In other news, I made an SVG using Inkscape. It's not near as fancy, but will at least look okay at different resolutions. --Carl (talk|contribs) 00:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm not a fan of a white background. I think the background on the jpeg appears to be a good enough contrast at all the sizes.  I'd like to stick with the 3D design you did that works at all sizes when it is a jpeg and has a background, but I'm open-minded to considering a background different from the one I chose. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, let's just stick with what we've got. We've spent a whole 24 hours throwing this back and forth. It's taking away from time that could be spent editing actual articles. --Carl (talk|contribs) 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, and we can always change it again later. Cheers! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fleur-de-lis

message: I took this picture yesterday.  I don't have time to insert it in all the pages it needs to go, so I uploaded it.  Would someone use it in the Freedom Hall and Kentucky Exposition Center pages?--Bedford 09:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to those two articles --Carl (talk|contribs) 11:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I love seeing new photos come in.  I also took pictures of Freedom Hall (closer up), as well as the Expo Center, Freddy Farm Bureau (or whatever his name is), Cardinal Stadium and the Midway when I was there on Monday.  But alas, I haven't finished the roll, so they're not developed yet.  This Monday, I'm planning to take pics of other Louisville things and get this roll developed. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of these days, I'm going to take my digital and my 2GB of memory cards and go on a field trip. Who knows what will show up then. --Carl (talk|contribs)
I have the Freddy farm Bureau and other pics ready to be downloaded after I fix them.  (I just downloaded them from my 5.2 megapixel digital camera, so each pic is over 1MB and thus I need to crop them with MSPaint before I upload them.)--Bedford 22:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freedom Hall

message: Most of the stub type images are transparent (or possibly white-backgrounded).  Is there any reason why   can't be as such?  It would look better on articles.  At first glance, I thought the background was an error. Kevin_b_er 04:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to sum up what we discovered above, the transparent GIF just didn't look good at that size, the transparent PNG's in general were giving us problems with disappearing/reappearing on pages/templates, and I strongly feel that white backgrounds in general look unappealing.  However, for the small version used for stubs, I'm willing to consider a white background for clarity at that size, but another image would need to be created.  Would that be sufficient? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a resized gif that's desired, I'll do the resizing since I have the original vector source image to work with. --Carl (talk|contribs) 07:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took the PNG and resized it with Photoshop, saved as GIF, then applied it to the stub template.  It looks pretty good to me.  But if you can make it look sharper in GIF format, have at it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 07:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, looks good to me. Of course, we could always go to the trouble of creating separate images for each of the templates. --Carl (talk|contribs) 07:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we could.  As in "not me". :) I like your recent idea that we should get back to addressing content. :) Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 07:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stub type background 

message: OK, I've been sneaking around like a naughty little gnome to ensure that all Louisville-related articles were catalogued--this is essentially complete, although I'm sure there are still some articles remaining that haven't been catalogued.  This cataloguing was needed for two reasons: 1) To make it easier for us to organize project tasks and apply quality scales, and 2) To make it possible to have a "change patrol" on all Louisville-related pages.  This is to announce that change patrolling is now possible--Check it out on the project page. Please feel free to offer feedback, and hopefully, use the new tools. Enjoy. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change patrol

message: Here's some ideas for things we could especially work on in September. Please feel free to add your own suggestions.
*Take Old Louisville and History of Louisville, Kentucky to Featured status.
*Take University of Louisville and Kentucky Derby to Good status.
*Create articles for everything in the "Requested articles" list.
*Pay special attention to election-related articles.
Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Old Louisville will probably see a surge of interest after the St. James Art Fair, we should have the article spruced up for that if nothing else. I do want to get both of those articles to FA status, I'm just lazy. --W.marsh 21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rome wasn't built in a day. :) But I definitely agree that St. James Court Art Show could be beefed up quite a bit. I'll add it to the list of articles needing attention. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have an idea related to this as well. It seems to me that a "Collaboration of the Week/Month" is rather limiting.  Perhaps instead we could have a "[Month] Focus" every month where we have a short list of specific tasks and articles to mostly concentrate on. Any thoughts? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In WikiProject Kentucky, we just started a Focus of the month section.  Would anyone object to this being added to this project? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll publish the article once I get the big ones down.  (UPS, Ford Motor Company, Humana, etc.)  I seem to only be able to find decent numbers on the Business First website, so if anyone runs across other references, feel free to add or replace.  Adamkik 09:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: FYI - after my username change went through, this article is now here.  SquidSK (1MC) 06:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for September activities 

message: Not sure where to mention this or even if I should, but I've nominated the recently created Pendennis Club article to be on WP:DYK (and thus featured on the main page for a while). The nomination is at Template talk:Did you know and will remain valid for 5 days, as is my understanding. This isn't a solicitation for votes or anything (I don't even think articles are voted on), I'm just letting people know so they can help improve the article if people on that page express any concerns. --W.marsh 01:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats on the DYK.  Looks great! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it seems to have made the main page sooner than I thought. --W.marsh 18:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know nominee 

message: Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI - [[:Category:Louis Brandeis]] submitted for deletion 

message: Apparently, this month's focus has been too much for us to handle.  I myself have been bogged down with category reworks to the point of precluding much new article development. That's OK, Rome wasn't built in a day, and we can carry over this month's items to the next month.
Since we're a week out from October, check out the nominations for October Focus.  Feel free to add your own, and indicate which ones you think should have the highest priority. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus of the Month 

message: I can't decide whether we should mention the recent murder in Cherokee Triangle in our article on the neighborhood. I have a hard time judging these things. Any thoughts? I'm mentioning it here because discussion on the talk page there would probably be minimal or nonexistant. CJ article here --W.marsh 21:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have a strong opinion either way. Unfortunately, the murder will be forgotten  by most people in a few days and will only be mentioned again if the shooter is caught and during a trial. On October 12, 2003, Zachary Scarpellini was killed in the 1200 block of Cherokee Road, but even with this recent murder just a block away from the 2003 murder it is hardly mentioned, if mentioned at all. If you decide to include the recent murder, I would consider mentioning the 2003 murder as well.  CJ 2003 murder article --Chris24 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're probably right, and thanks for the link to the 203 story. I just suffer from recentism sometimes. I'll reconsider adding it if anything new and substantial comes out, but for now I don't think I will. --W.marsh 23:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion advice

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 19:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Last week, I started the Louisville History & Issues discussion board.  This is a "place for Louisville metropolitan area citizens to discuss area history and current issues".
It would be very easy for me to create a new board forum dedicated to WikiProject Louisville.  In this external forum, we could perhaps discuss issues related to development of Louisville-related articles more in-depth.
If several of the members here would like to see such a forum on the new board, let me know and I will start it.  If not, that's ok, too.  I just wanted to make the offer since the resources are there.  Cheers! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New offsite discussion area (if you want it) 

message: Just saw this article and thought its content might spawn some interesting editing for users in this WikiProject: Louisvillian had starring role in basketball's birth Acdixon 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting article in the CJ 

message: OK, just completed some long-overdue spring cleaning.  I cleaned up the project page and archived a lot of talk.  One of the big changes I made was removing the "Focus of the Month".  This wasn't receiving much interest, so for now, I disposed of it.  If there's interest in the future (or even now), it can easily be brought back. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring cleaning 

message: I've requested that the WatchlistBot go through all the stubs in our project and mark them with the stub class for assessment.  This will be for our convenience as it will make it easier to assess all the non-stubs.  So, yeah, our watchlists are going to blow up yet again.  :) Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head's up: Auto-assessment of stubs probably coming soon 

message: I've completed a rework of Articles Needing Attention.  Instead of being a flat list that few Wikipedians would run into, it's now a set of approaches for identifying what articles need some form of attention, so that regular users can look on the article's talk pages (including embedded todo lists) or "needing attention" categories to see what is needed.  Hopefully, this approach can get us more traction for needed changes in various Louisville-related articles.  Please let me know if anyone has any questions or suggestions. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Articles Needing Attention" made into a department 

message: Well, we've recently lost Green Tree Mall and within the past day, we've lost Jefferson Mall to the deletion process.  I have to admit I had taken malls off my watchlist, and thus wasn't able to defend them.  But I just added the remaining malls to my watchlist, so at least they will now be protected (as best as I can). Assuming that the deleted malls were prod'ed and remain notable, hopefully, we can get these recreated in the near future. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearing Malls 

message: Recently, there has been a substantial amount of debate regarding the city of Louisville (as well as the state of Kentucky) on two talk pages - the one for the Southern United States, as well as the one for the Midwestern United States.  Some of this has related to regional maps displayed on these pages, some to other content/considerations on the pages.  Unfortunately, there have only been about 5 or 6 editors involved, and while there have been substantial verifiable citations from both sides, it is hard to determine what the "true" consensus is with so few editors involved.  If any contributors to Louisville's Wikiproject are interested, it would be great to hear a wide variety of native-born opinions, and your sources, regarding this discussion to aid us in the expeditious arrival at a conclusion and consensus.  Thank you.
--Gator87 07:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louisville discussion 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 22:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Has anyone contacted the copyright holder of The Louisville Encyclopedia to see if we could excerpt bits from it (with attribution, of course). It's a great reference, if poorly written. Wake 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you mention that, as I just got this book for Christmas.  We can already rewrite content in our own words, and cite the source.  I'm not sure why we would want to copy any source word for word, except perhaps for the occasional select phrase.  I agree that the book underwhelms on some topics, but provides overall good coverage. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using The Louisville Encyclopedia?