Talk:Louisville, Kentucky/Archive 3

message: Someone, or some people, should really work on the Thunder Over Louisville page before the festivities.  It's a tiny little stub.  I don't think I'm the one to do it, but the editors of this page have definitely proven themselves worthy.
-sparsefarce 16 Feb 2006 1:00pm (EST)
I agree, but it would be hard since there isn't much else to add, except for the schedule for each year, the theme for each year, and some pictures of Thunder.--Dp462090 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a rough history. The article should really take off once Thunder happens this year, articles like this tend to get a lot of interest when the annual event occurs. --W.marsh 06:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thunder over Louisville page 

message: municipality: 
1. A political unit, such as a city, town, or village, incorporated for local self-government. 
2. A body of officials appointed to manage the affairs of a local political unit. 
3. A primarily urban municipal corporation; also : the governing body of a municipality 
4. An urban district having corporate status and powers of self-government 2: people living in a town or city having local self-government
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
---------------
It is more accurate to say that Louisville is the 16th/ 26th largest Municipality, rather than city, because in today's urban environment city is a very vague term. Some "cities" only include the innermost urban areas (like Cincinnati), some are even in a seperate district (St Louis), some include most of the urban areas in their county but are not consolidated (Charlotte/ Memphis), some are consolidated with one or more counties( NYC, Phildadelphia, Lexington). User:Brando03
:Thinking out loud here: It seems to me that we would need some kind of Wikipedia-wide policy/guideline on that before we change the article to reflect that position, even if it is correct. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 02:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: mu·nic·i·pal·i·ty is the word

message: The article is 60k, and I think it's a tad too lengthy. I think we should perhaps create subarticles for geography/climate/cityscape (one subarticle), and another for culture. Perhaps trim transportation and utilities. Since this involves creating new articles, I thought I'd solicit for opinions here first. 
Remember that bigger isn't always better, as articles get rather long it is often useful to focus on keeping them just summaries, and going into greater depth on subarticles. I think this would also let us talk about these topics in greater depth, as we could devote an entier article to them, not just a section. Thoughts? --W.marsh 03:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle.  And even the summaries leading into current subarticles are too long.  I wish I had the time to help out with such changes, but I certainly endorse such an effort.  As long as information isn't lost entirely, I'm for moving info into appropriate subarticles and reducing this one accordingly. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 04:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article size 

message: Kentucky Derby has been nominated for US Collaboration of the Week.  This is definitely an article that needs a lot of eyes, and I hope many of you will offer your support with your vote. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kentucky Derby]] nominated for USCOTW

message: I've removed this link :Category:Wikipedians in Louisville. WP:SELF#Examples of self-references clearly indicates that Users should not add themselves to categories that are for the main article space. Similarly - cross-namespace links to the user names space are removed as one fo the clean-up tasks (see Special:CrossNamespaceLinks). It follows that links to categories that are lists of users should not be included in the main article space. BTW, this is one of the things that must be cleaned up if an article is nominated to be a featured article. Trödel 19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this article already is a FA (see top of this page). Anyway, I agree that the category is a self reference if it's in the see also section. From my understanding of things though, it could go into the external links section without being a self reference. But then... what's the point? I don't think it's particularly interesting to readers of the article to know of some Wikipedia editors who live in Louisville. I'd be fine leaving it out, either way. --W.marsh 19:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed re FA - that is why I mentioned it - if it is required to not include self-references to be FA - that implies to remain a FA one can't just add them. :) This is a great article! - I think the best place for the link re Wikipedians in Lousiville would be in the :Category:Wikipedians, :Category:Wikipedians by location, Wikipedia:User categorisation and their subpages -  Trödel 21:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No "user has added themselves to categories that are for the main article space".  It's merely an informational See also that links to Wikipedians who happen to live in this city.  There's nothing amiss here.  It's restored. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look :Category:Wikipedians in Louisville is a subcategory of :Category:Wikipedians in Kentucky which is a subcategory of :Category:Wikipedians in the United States which is subcategory of :Category:Wikipedians in the Americas which is a subcategory of :Category:Wikipedians by location which is a subcategory of :Category:Wikipedians. :Category:Wikipedians clearly identifies itself and all it's subcategories as being a self reference This category is a self-reference (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references).This style guide states:Such self-references are entirely acceptable on talk pages or in the Wikipedia namespace, but they are inappropriate in articles for two reasons....User pages may be categorized under :Category:Wikipedians, but not under :Category:People. Trödel 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: All existing guidelines state that such categories should not be included in articles.  I move for the page to be unprotected and the category to be left off; it appears to be an open-and-shut dispute.  Does anyone support Stevietheman's position, other than Stevietheman? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your personal attacks only weaken your stand. As I clearly stated - I was using the encyclopedia when I came to this article - noticed something that, I thought, was an obvious & minor error and fixed it. However, because you seemed so sure that this link was ok - I sought guidance. My article edits speak for themselves. Trödel 07:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make any personal attacks, but rather described behavior.  This removal was indeed petty, as guidelines are meant to guide, but they are not sacrosanct.  That you wasted a lot of editors' valuable time over this quibble of an entry (that remains useful while here in the talk page) is actually quite petty. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 00:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to list of wikipedians 

message: I've protected this article because of the dispute.  I suggest that the style guide may provide some ideas for resolving this. --Tony Sidaway 13:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't even be a dispute; this is a clear case of a self-reference that doesn't belong. Ardric47 02:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I don't think there's a real dispute. Besides all the other excellent cited reasons for removing such a link, it does not add to a reader's understanding of the subject. Demi T/C 06:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 06:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Since one of the to-do items is to list historic sites in Louisville, I'd like to provide a link to Louisville Metro Mapper.  It's a site I built that has all 600+ registered historic sites plotted on a searchable, interactive map.  It also has maps of crimes committed, live traffic cams, and every restaurant with its health rating.  I think it should at least go under the Map Links section of the page.  
Please make your own collective determination if it should be included here.  It could be viewed as me promoting my own site, but I honestly think it's an asset to the community.  If I hadn't built it and just found it on the web, I'd still be recommending it for this page.  --Purple Squirrel 22:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps of Louisville 

message: This isn't like a massive content dispute, but I think it's encyclopedic and informative to describe Hurstbourne as an edge city. Here's at least one source so it doesn't sound like original research: . Also, just look over our article on Edge city and it's rather clear that these are an important recent development in the structure of American cities, and it's important to describing Louisville's cityscape to mention that Hurstbourne is the largest suburban commercial/industrial epicenter. Anyway I'd like to include it at least. --W.marsh 19:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the biggest problems I had was the placement/grammar and the then-lack of an article for edge city.  If that phraseology is well-tuned, I can easily change my mind.  Perhaps consider though that maybe that discussion is probably too esoteric for the main Louisville article and perhaps is better placed in Geography of Louisville. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 01:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edge city 

message: Long overdue, IMHO, I have launched WikiProject Louisville to coordinate the development of this and all Louisville-related articles.  Everyone interested in this effort is strongly encouraged to join.  Cheers! — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 17:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Louisville

message: stevietheman would like to list louisville as "one of the largest" cities in the united states -- despite not being in the top ten largest cities for the country. the city's actual rank is 26th. i was tempted to remove the claim entirely given the actual rank. however, a minor edit to "larger" was reverted despite my attempt to discuss the claim on his personal talk page. figured i should also post my reasoning here to give some insight into the edit and also seek others input. Randella 01:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Louisville is thought by many to be the 16th largest city, including city leaders and the local media.  A top 50 city can be listed as one the largest, logically speaking.  There was no attempt to discuss this on my page except him basically saying "I am right and you are wrong." —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Further, I disagree that your solution is a solution.  The reason we were saying "one of the largest" is due to the current ongoing intergovernmental dispute as to whether it's the 16th or 26th largest city.  However, I will defer to the community as to what they think is best.  I hope you do too. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant to also say that I will cede to your solution as a temporary wording until others speak up on the matter. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Saying "one of the largest cities in the US" is a bit vague. I suppose by some accounts it could be somewhat misleading; it's certainly nowhere near the size of New York City, Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles, California, or even Phoenix, Arizona. Yet, it is the largest city in Kentucky, so that is somewhat significant. I would think it is also a similar size to the nearby cities of Indianapolis, Indiana and Cincinnati, Ohio, and it's even similar in size to Richmond, Virginia. Certainly, it's not a small town with a population less then 100,000, either. There are also major events that draw worldwide attention, such as the Kentucky Derby. Dr. Cash 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i agree that louisville is a fairly large city and also support the largest claim for kentucky since that is based on fact. but i disagree with the claim that any city in the top 50 can be considered "one of the largest" because that is a title usually reserved for the top ten. some might argue that it should only be used for new york, los angeles, and chicago. since this was turning into a revert war, i attempted to provide a solution by stating the actual rank -- but i see stevietheman has already removed my "solution" despite claiming here he would keep it pending this discussion. note that all of my contributions to the louisville page have been completely removed by stevietheman with a full revert. i do not think that is any way for a collaborative article to be managed. Randella 01:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not removed the last solution you posted.  I reverted a different change made by somebody else at an earlier time.  Please actually check before making accusations like this.  Also, it is fully within Wikipedia rules to do "full reverts" (up to a point) in disputes, especially because in this case, you were changing long-standing material without any explanation here in talk.  So, since you now have explained your position, it's now open for the community to decide.  As I said, I accept what the community as a whole thinks. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 02:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  i did refresh the page and that edit had been removed... perhaps your revert to a previous version took it out or maybe i hit a cached version. not sure, but i do see it back now. my previous statement about you reverting all my previous edits stand. you did not consider any of them nor were you willing to discuss them on your personal talk page. at least now people can go back and see how you revert and change contributions to this article. Randella 03:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sad that you're making this such a personal thing over a very minor clause that you could have well left in place with no issues for the Wikipedia or for factuality.  In other words, you picked a fight, knowing you were picking a fight, and pretty much over nothing.  I've done nothing wrong.  But what is decided will rest with the community interested in finding the best solution.  Are you going to commit to accept what the community decides? —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 03:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  i really wish you would stop trying to turn this into something personal and mislead people about my posts. i made a number of changes at one point that i thought made the article better... but you reverted them almost immediately. rather than get into a revert war with you i simply suggested you consider them on your personal talk page. but you chose to reject my comments as well. so now i make one minor edit about an embellished claim -- yet you revert that as well. so yes, i am going to insist on this one particular change to this one particular claim because it is not factual. and why i made this conversation public rather than try to talk to you on your own page. Randella 04:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper thing for you to have done was initiate the talk here first before changing anything!  And especially after having been reverted once!  What's difficult to understand about that?  My reverts of your change were absolutely proper.  This is a featured article, and changes of longstanding content, if disputed, require talk here. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 04:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Further, the change you made did nothing to enhance factuality--that is why the change was unnecessary.  The change was also unreflective of the reality of the intergovernmental dispute of 16th vs. 26th.  You just went ahead and made a non-enhancing change without consulting the other editors here.  And a dispute occurred--big deal--that's when a talk here is expected.  Since you wanted to make the change, it was up to you to start the talk. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 04:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Now, back to the merits of this issue.  The reason the current solution doesn't work is because there is a sensitive issue here with respect to the government of Louisville.  The city government (as can be seen on its website) says it is the 16th largest and the U.S. Census Bureau says it is the 26th largest (strangely enough, somebody just changed the top 50 template to place Louisville at #16 again--I'm challenging that for a source).  The rationale behind calling it "one of the largest" was a way to smooth over this conflict.  I am concerned that Louisville city leaders will openly spurn this article if it declares "26th" in the opener with full disregard to the conflict.  However, I also believe that it is clumsy to describe the conflict in the opener, thus saying "one of the largest" (which it is) was accurate enough for everyone for a long period of time until one editor disputed it.  However, given the conflict and the insistence of this one editor, I am open to an alternative everyone can go with.  How about "one of the top 50 cities of the United States"?  This clause would be 100% fact, no matter how you cut it.  Sound good? —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 12:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be underselling it. On the other hand, please don't go back to calling it "one of the largest" - when I hear that I think "top five or so" and this isn't even in the same order of magnitude. I'd definitely say go with "largest in Kentucky and one the 30 largest in the United States", which gives a very good impression of what this population actually means. To be honest, exact figures are meaningless anyway because different definitions of city limits and ways of measuring "population" (especially cities with significant cyclical populations) could easily affect exact ranking position. However, a "top 30" claim seems utterly reasonable. TheGrappler 15:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current approach seems to be working, saying it's either the 16th or 26th, depending upon how the population statistics are considered.  While "top 30" is reasonable from a logical perspective, it ignores the well-known ranking controversy, and less important, 30 is an unusual number to use for a "top xx" consideration (based on "top xx" lists we normally see in the wild).   What I thought would be clumsy to discuss in the opener has turned out not so clumsy. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 02:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: To clerify the recent edits, I moved the sub Future Plans from the History section to Cityscape where I expanded upon it. This gives a greater distinction where the sub is now more approperiate. It is also being expanded upon to include new development projects relating to urban infrastructure (new urbanism), transportation, recreation, etc. as needed. This is similar to what I have done (and will be completing) to the Lexington, Kentucky pages. To resolve any confusion, the reversion by W.marsh was very close and was probably not aware of recent changes. Seicer 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said on your talk page, keep at it, I will try to help out (without stepping on your toes again, hehe) and I'm sure some others will. But as this is an FA, it's important to keep the prose "brilliant" - which generally means paragraphs over bulletted one-sentence lists, and so on. --W.marsh 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking better already, especially as (apparently) a newcomer you're doing a great job of putting up with these seemingly oddball requests! --W.marsh 19:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it's still a learning process and I'm frequently viewing other pages to see how their cities are styled. Seicer 19:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the thrust of this, but with two caveats: 1) Cityscape should be a subsection under "Geography and climate" as it was before and is in the Geography of Louisville, Kentucky article; 2) This expanded content for future plans is great, but this article is *very* large as it is, and it would be a lot better if this extra content (beyond the summary that existed before) was moved to Geography of Louisville, Kentucky. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 19:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could the future development subsection be divided into its own page which would allow for detailed expansion of  various projects? Seicer 19:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have articles on Ohio River Bridges Project and Louisville parks expansion, so I would put any major pieces into their own articles, even if they are stubs.  But I think the expansive summary of these projects fits well into the Geography of Louisville, Kentucky article as a subsection under Cityscape.  In this article, I think it works out best if we just have a narrow summary, as existed before. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and did the restructuring by moving the expansive new material to Geography of Louisville and restoring the original short summary here.  I didn't create any new articles for projects, but if anyone feels it is warranted, go ahead.  I think this is a much better arrangement, as it keeps this article in its appropriate scope.  Of course, there are much more reductions we can work on. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, and feel free to contribute to the effort. Louisville is definitely a great city, and I think this article drives that point home even to residents who didn't already realize it.  As per your requests, Downtown Louisville already ranks skyscrapers, and if you know of somebody with a better photo who would be willing to basically give it away, then that's something I'm sure many here would be delighted to discuss. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 15:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits and Movements 

message: Please go here to support the nomination.  Thanks! —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 00:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who is interested in this... please check out the rewritten blurb for Louisville to see if it needs to be revised for any reason.  Thanks! —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 16:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominated for [[Portal:United States]] selected article