Jump to content

Talk:St. Louis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:St. Louis

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GT8918219281982 (talk | contribs) at 19:19, 4 March 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Distinction between St. Louis City and County

I believe St. Louis is prohibited by law (state constitution?) from ever expanding or incorporating other territory, but it's been a long time since I lived there. Anybody know? It would explain the "declining population" mentioned. Ortolan88 20:13 Aug 3, 2002 (PDT)

St. Louis City is a separate entity, apart from any county, which prevents it from being able to annex anything in St. Louis County. I believe you're right, that this does unnaturally speed up the population decline, as the St. Louis metro area doesn't really show any signs of shrinking. People aren't moving out of the area, just out of the city and into the ritzier suburbs. (I work in St. Louis; I live in the suburbs.) Dave Farquhar 05:40 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

Per the article:

"On July 4, 1876 the City of Saint Louis voted to remove itself from Saint Louis County and become Saint Louis City and Saint Louis County."

The "new" state constituion simply allowed home rule but did not prohibit anything. KC could have also split off under home rule but did not. (More details from city POV: [1])
Technichally St. Louis City and St. Louis County could reorganize back together, but that is very unlikely as it is now in the disinterest of the county which has a greater number of citzens to cast ballots. It was much more likely prior to 1945. From "The Great Divorce" until then the county was administered by the thre judge county court which was problamatic. In 1945 the state changed the constituion to allow counties of more than 85,000 people to reorganize under a home rule charter. (More details from county POV: [2]) Since that has happened I can't imagine the two goverments merging. Although there is a great amount of duplication and general ineffeciency the way things currently exist.--24.107.197.177 29 June 2005 00:04 (UTC)Jenn

Crime-Ridden?

I edited the phrase "crime ridden" out of the discussion of social issues, because it's just not true. First of all, if you look at a map of major crimes in the City of St. Louis alone (available on the city police web page), you'll see that car theft, burglarly, robbery and so forth are just as common on the white south side as they are on the black north side. Secondly, any discussion of whether an area is "crime ridden" or not that ignores white collar crime is inherently discriminatory. I assure you that in terms of dollar value, more money is stolen via embezzlement, kickbacks, insurance fraud, and other white collar crimes in any random office building in Creve Couer or Westport than is stolen by force in the entire St. Louis metropolitan area. J. Brad Hicks

St. Louis, MO official city name

My Dear Mr. Jredmond: I can prove it. At least from the Official/Legal side of things. I am pasting the legal language from the City of St. (not SAINT) Louis own website, concerning the Official/Legal name of St. Louis, Missouri. For those of you who understand legal verbiage, you will recognize that the City's LEGAL name has no SAINT in it.

http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/charter/data/art01.htm

Article I Incorporation*

  • City Counselor Ops.: 8513-A, 9228

Section 1 Body corporate; seal; enumeration of powers. 

    The inhabitants of The City of St. Louis, as its limits now are

or may hereafter be, shall be and continue a body corporate by name "The City of St. Louis," and as such shall have perpetual succession, may have a corporate seal, and sue and be sued.

The language about perpetual succession gives only one name to St. Louis, not many. 66.81.194.20 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't prove this, but I'm pretty sure that the official name of the city is St. Louis, not Saint Louis. The city's official website, http://stlouis.missouri.org, only uses the abbreviation. Moreover, I have official government documents issued by the city that all say "St. Louis," never "Saint Louis."

The city's Charter and Revised Codes and the state Revised Statutes all appear to use the full "Saint Louis" and the abbreviated "St. Louis" interchangeably. However, the Missouri State Constitution uses only "St. Louis".

[Mark Preston responds: The foregoing paragraph is most odd. I have posted URL to the proper noun and name of St. Louis from the City's own legal document (it's Charter), giving the name of the city of St. Louis as St. Louis and not Saint Louis. Other documents from city offices would not supercede the charter. That is St. Louis' "Constitution" as it were. Any spelling not "St." would be less, not more legal. Less, not more official. Any "interchangeability" would be subject to legal scrutiny if the case arose. The Charter gives St. and no alternative spelling, out of legal "professional courtesy" nobody acts confused when they see "Saint" Louis.]

In the interests of clarity and consistency, though, we should really stick to the full "Saint Louis" in this article. - jredmond 01:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[Mark Preston responds: Why is Saint not in contradistinction to the well known, legal and obvious to most usage? -- See my post about New York Times newspaper and Google search for St. versus Saint below. If Google and the NY Times have and understanding of the spelling (clarity) how can we change the spelling unto them?]

I must admit reading saint spelled out struck me as odd throughout this article. I don't see why we should follow local convention and a abbreviate it "St." Honestly there many local parishes and such using the french abbreviation "Ste." but they also use the french spelling (Sainte) an still write St. Louis. Here is an example:
Ste. Genevieve DuBois Parish
1575 N. Woodlawn Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63122[3]
Emphasis added. I truly believe we should follow local connvention regarding use of abbriviations in place names. ----Jenn
Point of information: "Saint" and "Sainte" are both French spellings; the only difference is that the former refers to a male (or a noun of the masculine gender) and the latter to a female (or a noun of the feminine gender). Had anglophones founded Ste. Genevieve DuBois parish (or the city of Ste. Genevieve), the abbreviation would likely be "St.". - jredmond 29 June 2005 15:19 (UTC)
I live in St. Louis and definitely see it spelled St. Louis instead of Saint Louis most of the time. I also abbreviate it as STL instead of SL, as does everyone I know (who I have happened to see abbreviate it). 66.140.206.61 20:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Also I should add the only place I know that uses "Saint" is Saint Louis University. University of Missouri - St. Louis, Washington University in St. Louis, and St. Louis Community College all use the abbreviation. 66.140.206.61 20:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Consistency with what? I note that the "Saint Cloud, MN" and "Saint Cloud, FL" entries in Wikipedia both redirect me to articles on "St. Cloud, MN" and "St. Cloud, FL." So, it's not a matter of consistency with titling conventions. I have to assume, therefore, it's consistency with how the city in Missouri is referred to throughout Wikipedia (presumably, as "Saint Louis"). Wouldn't it be fairly easy to change those references to the abbreviated form, if, in fact, that is the official name of the city?

As for clarity, I think clarity is best served by providing readers with the name with which they will be most familiar, and that is clearly the abbreviated form.

This article should be consistent with the article on the city's namesake (Louis IX of France); the articles on other locations named for Saint Louis (see the Saint Louis disambiguation page for a complete list); the cities of Saint Paul, Minnesota, Saint Charles, Missouri, and Saint Petersburg, Florida; articles about significant city events like Louisiana Purchase Exposition or features like Jefferson National Expansion Memorial; and most of the articles listed on the "What links here" for the main article.

Why consistent with Saint Louis (Louis IX)? Yes, it's the namesake. It's not the common, current, historic and legal/official usage.

Also, we must avoid USPOV - not everybody reading these articles will be familiar with the abbreviation "St.", and not all of those familiar with the abbreviation will be familiar with or agree with the period at the end.

[Mark Preston responds: How do you know what 'everybody reading these articles [plural] will be familiar with'? I would aver that most people getting as far as 10th grade have geography class and most likely see St. Louis, somewhere or other. Also, if they are so uncertian, how about an alternate spelling of Saint near the top of the entry? There we could explain that Saint is the non-preferred spelling]

St. Louis, Missouri redirects to Saint Louis, Missouri, anyway, so changing the article title isn't really going to accomplish much. - jredmond 19:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I completely disagree. It's most commonly called "St. Louis," even in offical documents (as other users have shown), and frankly I have no idea why this is even a debate. It doesn't make sense that the article should be named anything different, even if Saint Louis the person is frequently referenced with the full "Saint." If anything, that just distinguishes the person from the place. Also, the fact that other cities use "Saint" is irrelevent. 66.140.206.61 20:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that either St. Louis or Saint Louis is correct and acceptable - legally, officially or otherwise. But I notice there's an article about St. Louis County, Missouri.

[Mark Preston responds: This foregoing paragraph is simply not factual. The city has posted it's Charter giving the full, legal and only name available for the city.]

What's not clear is whether this article is about:

  1. the City of St. Louis.
  2. the City of St. Louis plus St. Louis County.
  3. the entire St. Louis metropolitan area.

It seems to be about all three. At some points the article seems to be just about the city. But there's a list of universities, for example, only one of which is in the city proper (even the Univeristy of Missouri at St. Louis is primarily in St. Louis County). Bluelion 02:30, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[Mark Preston responds: jeeeezzz -- like you don't go downtown for a ball game., honestly people! Bye the by: St. Louis, City and County is one of the two City/Counties in the US, that are separate. We should make a point of that in the entry. I beleive the other is in Maryland somewhere.]

Unless someone violently objects, I intend to rename this article St. Louis, Missouri, as per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). Bluelion 02:41, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[Mark Preston responds: I object to the multi-culturalism that would say St. Louis is the same as Saint Louis. PBS is to "intellectual the way Etch-a-Sketch is to Picasso. I object, violently that you haven't changed the name as of yet.]

Well, shoot, I like 'Saint Louis', but I'm not planning to get violent about it. Seriously, I and others have tried to get some sort of concensus on this topic, and haven't. The best argument I've heard for 'St.' is that it is what most people would expect - not everyone agrees with that. My favorite reason for 'Saint' is that it avoids abbreviations, which can be US-centric and which aren't really needed in the computer age. A really good compromise I've seen somewhere is to call the original person 'Saint' and anything else, like a city, 'St.', but I don't think that's more than a proposal. Still, if that became an approved guideline, many (not all) would follow it. I would.
Well, shoot, I really like St. Louis, and I wouldn't spell out St. on a bet, but I agree with you: whether it's St. Louis or Saint Louis is a minor issue. "Call me anything you want; just don't call me late for dinner." Bluelion 03:55, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Please do, Saint Louis seems very unnatural to me. I also like seeing it spelled Saint as a change of pace, but to me the actual name of the city is spelled with the abbreviation. 66.140.206.61 20:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
According to Manual for Writers & Editors by Merriam-Webster, "Saint is usually abbreviated when it is part of a geographical or topographical name" (p. 86). I have seen this elsewhere. I don't know that it's a rule, but having lived in Missouri all my life, I have rarely (though on a few occassions have) seen "Saint Louis". Additionally, all road signs have "St. Louis", not "Saint Louis", and even "East St. Louis". Rt66lt 03:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
City docuemts and website indeed use St. Louis, and the abbreviation is used in the city seal. It also the common local and national convention. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch article is also incorrect, as the paper uses the abbreviation and that is what its copyright is under. Evolauxia 20:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Naming Conventions the policy of an article name is to "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I would think nine times out of ten, an editor would use "St. Louis, Missouri" and not spell it out. It's just never used that way. Someone start the voting! —Wikibarista 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would gladly vote for the official name of the city. And I ask those who wish to give the name spelled incorrectly as Saint, to show, a sufficieny of such use in newspapers or other magazines of general circulation around the nation, per the above Wikipedia:Naming Conventions. The idea that there is ambiguity is incongrous. The legal name is given in the City Charter, much as the Federal "Articles of Confederation" make the ground we are standing on the "United States of America". A quick search of the New York Times newspaper website shows, as of Friday March 3, '06, a return of 23 results for "Saint Louis" Missouri and 2011 returns for "St. Louis" Missouri. 'Nuff said. By the bye: the first citaiton returned in spelling Saint is some woman announcing her wedding engagement or some such nonsense. Similarly Google returns 25,200,000 for St. Louis and 3,270,000 for Saint on March 3, '06. I ask again: WHAT AMBIGUITY?Mark Preston 02:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames

I'm curious. When was St. Louis called Mound City? Or, who calls it that? I've lived in the Gateway City for decades and I've never heard it called that; River City maybe but, then, that would apply to a lot of cities. If someone says mound around here, people think of Cahokia. Bluelion 02:30, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's an old nickname, used recently as the title of a newspaper column and book, and a company, Mound City Shelled Nut Company. Many Native American mounds used to be found in the city, but most were destoyed by constuction. Sugarloaf mound still exists near the river in south St. Louis; a house is built on it, and some say that Cote Brilliante mound can still be seen on the north side. marcusscotus 9 Aug 2005.

The City of St. Louis has a website entitled Mound City on the Mississippi. Quote: "The largest of the precolumbian Indian mounds in St. Louis, and the one that gave the city its nickname of "Mound City," was completely demolished in 1869. Parts of the mound had been demolished earlier to make way for streets and other structures."

Here's another interesting website: St. Louis' Ships of Iron; The Ironclads and Monitors of Carondelet (St. Louis), Missouri. One of the ships, built by James B. Eads, was the Mound City, built in Mound City, Illinois (a few miles north-northeast of Cairo, IL). U.S. NAVY SHIPS -- USS Mound City (1862-1865) Bluelion 22:50, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, there's an old building north of the Edward D. Jones Dome which says "Mound City" on the side of it. I don't know exactly what it is.

well, shoot

If I didn't have a sense of humor, I'd just move this article to St. Louis and be done with it - no Saint spelled out (which nobody in their right mind does except because it looks good on a jersey or a logo) and no Missouri, because it's totally unnecessary. But I'm gonna leave it at Saint Louis, Missouri, because it's not worth arguing with people. And trying to figure out what kind of hoops you have to jump through (and how ridiculously long a link you have to create) to avoid getting redirects is fun. Bluelion 17:53, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, double shoot. I tried to move this article to St. Louis, and I couldn't. The pedants win. Bluelion 19:47, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

You couldn't move it there because there's already a redirect page from St. Louis to Saint Louis, Missouri. An admin would need to delete the redirect page and then move the main article.
Of course, it's worth noting that articles on every other city and town in the United States include the state in the article name, and that the current format for U.S. cities on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) is "City, State". - jredmond 23:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

And it's worth noting that the convention for US cities sucks big time. Bluelion 23:44, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I could cut and paste the whole thing, talk page and all, but they'd probably label me a vandal for trying to bring some sense to all this pedantic stupidity. So, it's not worth it. For the pedants, anything short of all caps SAINT LOUIS MO and ZIP codes is just a half measure. Bluelion 00:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that'd get you in trouble quick. But what exactly is "pedantic" about it? - jredmond 00:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Do something like that again and you'll be blocked from editing. That is vandalism. RickK 00:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Yea, but enforcing a convention that no one has agreed to is OK? Bluelion 00:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Putting the article on St. Louis at Saint Louis, Missouri may not be vandalism, but it ain't too pretty, if you ask me. Who makes these decisions? Bluelion 00:43, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Consensus. - jredmond 00:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Naw, it's an enforced convention which no one voted on and no one has agreed to. Bluelion 01:10, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

So where were the many who voted for the name change you made? RickK 01:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I've got as many votes as the proponents of Saint Louis, Missouri have. Bluelion

Maybe I'll work on the St. Louis County, Missouri article instead, if I'm not banned for having an opinion. At least St. is spelled the way it is commonly spelled (the irony is that St. Louis County prefers Saint spelled out because the ain fills in empty spaces, and some of the graphic artists they employ like the way it looks). Don't even get me started on the List of female movie actors - the newspapers won't touch that 'female actor' stuff with a ten foot pole. Bluelion 01:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Bluelion, as long as a search engine can find the page, and the page title is recognizable, the title is pretty much irrelevant. And if your wikilink results in a redirect, it's not the end of the world. People set up redirects to my articles, named how they think they ought to be named, all the time. If the reader gets there in the end I really don't care what the link s/he clicked on looked like. I agree with you, I prefer "St." But this convention has existed since Wikipedia came into being and trying to change it now is a waste of energy better spent improving the articles or writing new ones. Having an opinion is fine. Most writers have hundreds of millions of them. Breaking things that were working just fine because of that opinion hurts people who might be trying to use this site to gain information. Is it worth it? Dave Farquhar 19:14, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the title of an article is not the most important thing in the world, but I disagree that "as long as a search engine can find the page" then the title is "pretty much irrelevant". If that were true, then there wouldn't be as many naming disputes as there are. Considering the preferences of the US Postal Service, I suspect that "SAINT LOUIS MO" (all capitals) is more common than the current title of this article. I see two letter abbreviations for states ("Philadelphia, PA") more than I see states spelled out ("Philadelphia, Pennsylvania"). Apologists of the policy of unnecessary disambiguation seem fond of saying that it doesn't matter what an article is named because readers will be directed, anyway. That's a lame argument and a low standard to hold, but it's about all they have. (The "St." vs. "Saint" question is pretty trival, although I'm convinced that, in this context, "St." is considerably more common than "Saint".) Bluelion 14:16, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

So now the rest of the planet has to know our two-letter postal abbreviations? That's a rather North-American-POV assumption, don't you think? - jredmond 16:34, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Sure, it's a very North-American POV. I don't advocate it. But it's no more US-centric than the current policy. That is exactly the point. I was just pointing out that two-letter abbreviations for states are quite common. I'd even contend that they are more common than spelled-out state names. By far the most common, even in the US, is calling well-known cities by their name, as in Philadelphia or Los Angeles. That's what I'd prefer. Bluelion 17:22, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

But, for most major US cities, the "common name" redirects to the "City, State" article with disambig links at the top. (Notable exceptions: New York and Washington both link to the states by those names.) This keeps those major-city articles consistent with articles for smaller cities... anyway, why are we hashing all this out here instead of at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)? - jredmond 18:57, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
anyway, why are we hashing all this out here instead of at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)? - jredmond 18:57, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

One reason to hash it out here is that St. Louis is a good example of why having a special convention for US and Canadian cities sucks. St. Louis, Missouri is ambiguous, and the special convention for US and Canadian cities does not address the problem at all. (I'd argue that it makes it worse). Does St. Louis refer only to the city of St. Louis, or does it refer to the city plus St. Louis County? Common usage is that it refers to the latter, but the special convention (which nobody agreed to) implies that it refers to the city of St. Louis only. I beg to differ and I challenge the advocates of a special convention to demonstrate why a special convention, in contradiction to the general Wikipedia convention, is either needed or desirerable. Bluelion 21:34, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Saint Louis, Missouri = city. Saint Louis County, Missouri = county. This is confusing how? And the metro area with suburbs vs. city limits situation is hardly unique to St. Louis. Even Kansas City, Missouri, which annexes everything that doesn't move and some things that do, has suburbs.

Under your system, Springfield would sure be a mess. There's a problem with any naming convention--you pick the one with the fewest problems. City, State is something that U.S. citizens recognize, it's something Canadians recognize, and it even disambiguates duplicate city names for people in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. It even helps them find it on a map. What's wrong with any of that?

This is hardly a special convention. It's very similar to or identical to what everyone else uses. The Associated Press has a small number of large cities that go by name only, otherwise it's City, State. Local newspapers do the same thing, just adding local cities its readership will recognize to its city-only list. I guess we could force everyone to learn AP style... But this convention is much easier. And made all the more desirable because it already exists and won't require days and months of retrofitting. Dave Farquhar 13:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

"Saint Louis, Missouri = city. Saint Louis County, Missouri = county. This is confusing how?" It's confusing because "St. Louis, Missouri" refers to a lot more than the city of St. Louis. Just look at the article on St. Louis. The University of Missouri at St. Louis is listed among colleges and universities, but it's not even in St. Louis by your definitions. To be "correct", mention of UMSL should be moved to the article on St. Louis County. The first "Nearby attraction" is the Delmar Loop, which is closer to the city than UMSL. "This is hardly a special convention." It most certainly is a special convention as far as Wikipedia goes. It is a violation of the general Wikipedia convention. And it doesn't help one bit. Bluelion 14:54, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I see. So you ignore every other argument in its favor just because UMSL is technically outside the city limits. (Suburbs, cities like Springfield, international users, AP style...) Not to mention Jredmond's very valid points. I see there's no convincing you. Dave Farquhar 15:16, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
You're right. You're not going to convince me that having over 30,000 city articles in the form of "City, State" even if that is not common usage is a good thing. Since when does the Associated Press determine the names of Wikipedia articles? Many international users don't care what state Chicago is in, and most US users already know. UMSL is not just technically in St. Louis County. It is in St. Louis County, as are Webster University and Concordia Seminary. An example of a university that is technically in St. Louis County would be the university that calls itself Washington University in St. Louis. Five universities and colleges are listed and only one is actually in the city. If, as you claim St. Louis, Missouri means the city of St. Louis, most of those colleges and universtities should be in the St. Louis County article. But, the point is, St. Louis, Missouri does not mean just the city of St. Louis. An article just about the city of St. Louis would need to be disambiuated, and should have a title something like St. Louis, Missouri (city) Bluelion 18:12, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, then hopefully someone else will listen to your temper tantrums. You're going to change 30,000 entries because 30 or so of them are recognizable by name only (and already have redirects in place, so if you want to refer to it as St. Louis you can) and ignore any possible arguments for the status quo. I'm going to do what everyone else is (very wisely) doing and ignore you. Dave Farquhar 20:56, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

No offense but, in common usage, St. Louis, Missouri means more than just the city of St. Louis. The curent policy regarding the naming of articles on cities in the US and Canada is a joke. What's worse, it's misleading. Bluelion 08:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And speaking of names...

Why is there a redirect from St. Louis to this entry... shouldn't that be a disambiguation page? There are other places with that name... as well as the two saints they're named for.... FZ 18:25, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That would make as much sense as the current situation, which isn't saying much. The disambiguation page is at Saint Louis. We could follow the example of articles like the one on Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which has a disambiguation notice at the top, despite not being overly ambiguous to begin with. (How many Philadelphia, Pennsylvanias are there?) The reason given for the notice is that Philadelphia redirects to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. But heaven forbid anyone suggest simply putting the article at Philadelphia to begin with. If you're trying to make sense of it all, I hope you have more success than I've had. ;-) Bluelion 19:28, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
One suggestion that is not very popular, is to move 'Saint Louis, Missouri' to 'Saint Louis'; cf. Encyclopædia Britannica. The disambiguation page could be either Saint Louis (disambiguation) or St. Louis. Philadelphia is different, as Encyclopædia Britannica disambiguates between Mississippi and Pennsylvania. Again, my suggestion is not very popular. Pædia 20:14, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)
Yes, but people are going to type in "St Louis" meaning all sorts of different things (I ended up here initially looking for the king of France).
Would it make any sense to have St. Louis page redirect to Saint Louis, which is a disambiguation page, rather than have it link directly to Saint Louis, Missouri? deckard 16:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neighborhoods in or out of the city?

The list of neighborhoods includes both Clayton and U.City, neither of which is within St. Louis city limits. The section header says "neighborhoods in the city." Perhaps these should be moved to a new list; "Notable nearby municipalities" or something. 'Course, then we'd have to argue about "notable"...Bbpen 00:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

climate copyvio

The climate section inserted at 20:44, 13 July 2005 by 67.64.204.65 duplicates text on a local Fox TV station's website.[4] Bbpen 00:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Image needed for another article

The Zig-zag bridge article needs an image. The Saint Louis Bottanical Garden has a suitable bridge. See [5] - thanks, Leonard G. 16:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

City Infobox

I've added an infobox, similar to the ones commonly used on a variety of other cities. I've also added a city flag image, as well as a city seal. The city seal is pretty low quality, so if someone has a scanned image that is higher resolution, that would be appreciated. Likewise, the image of the gateway arch is also pretty low quality and could be replaced with one of higher quality.Dr. Cash 01:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the "mayor" link in the infoxbox links to "mayors of Louisville". Just wondering if anyone is working on a "mayors of Saint Louis" or "mayors of St. Louis" or "mayors of Street Louis" link.--CrazyTalk 17:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Oops. I copied the template from the Louisville, Kentucky article, and forgot one link to change. It's been fixed now. Dr. Cash 02:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Social Issues

"especially white males, who tend to hold the better jobs in the region and enjoy higher pay scales than women and minorities" This seems unsubstantiated and POV to me and I am inclined to delete it. Any discussion? TMS63112 05:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

TMS--I agree that this needs a citation. I also deleted the city O'Fallon from the description of North St. Louis neighborhoods--there may be two O'Fallons in the metropolitan area, but I'm afraid neither of them are close enough to even be considered "North St. Louis." One is in St. Charles County, and the other is well East in Illinois, and neither of them compare very well to an older, heavily African-American community like Baden.

I think whoever included O'Fallon was probably referring to the O'Fallon Park area, which is near West Florisant and I-70. GuruBuckaroo 04:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe I made the original reference to the O'Fallon neighborhood and was thinking of the area around O'Fallon Park (not either of the the municipalities). TMS63112 07:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Historic and beloved Busch Stadium II

CrazyTalk is absolutely right in his edit summary rant that the old stadium is historic, contradicting 198.173.15.250's ridiculous assertion that it "CANNOT" be historic if you choose to tear it down. (What I don't quite understand is why the excessive rant about "historic" after I'd removed his word "beloved".)

Even though I, too, love the doomed Busch Stadium, I'll argue (civilly!) that "beloved" is a POV word that belongs in a chamber of commerce brochure or in a hometown newspaper Sunday supplement, but not in the encyclopedia article. It is sufficient and accurate to state, "The 2005 baseball season will be the last played at Busch Stadium." It is accurate and acceptable to state that as "historic Busch Stadium".

Note to participants: It is accepted practice to use the edit summary for brief descriptions of what has been changed, or what part of the article has been changed. Very brief justifications that fit easily are generally okay, too. Where extended justification or discussion is warranted, that justification or collegial discussion should take place here on the discussion page with a brief "see discussion page" included in the edit summary. The edit summary is not the place for extended rants and SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS!  ;-)

Thanks to all for participating and contributing to the growth of Wikipedia. -- Kbh3rd 19:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Checked out the anon's edits and he seems to be from Cook County IL; I should have just done a rv and been done with it. I only reverted it because he was from Chicago; I just put beloved in there to stick it to the anon, but Kbh3rd seemed to take the brunt of it. Note to participants: CAPS were used to be CONSISTENT with the Chicago ANON, not to RANT. (I think by "participants", Kbh3rd meant me specifically, so the rest of the "participants" can disregard this comment and the above comment.) From an encyclopedic view, historic seems appropriate, but unnecessary. I would like to apologize to Kbh3rd for ruffling feathers, and I hope I did not offend any other users. Have a good one!--CrazyTalk 20:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
In the US we build things to tear them down. It creates more jobs. :-/ --Hfarmer 05:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Mound City

Based on the following online sources I have changed the first line of the history section of the article. I have added mention that the site of Saint louis was already a Native American City when the french arrived. These are both based on the latest scholarly research. They date the period of the Mississipian culture as late as the 1700's. When the Europeans arrived and setup trade with the Natives. Who then probably died of smallpox.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/seac/outline/05-mississippian/] Mississippian and Late Prehistoric Period, by the National Park Serice ( of the U.S.A.) This page has many many many links to books and such on the matter.

[6] The Mississippian Period Of the Woodland Culture Area in the Eastern US

And of course the Wikipedia article on the mound builder's Mississippian culture --Hfarmer 05:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Music Blogs

I removed three music blogs from the 'External links' section of the article. Blog sites really shouldn't go in an external links section of any article, however, I have no problem with providing the links on the talk page, as some editors might be able to use some of the information to edit some of the culture sections of the article. Dr. Cash 21:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A proposed preamble to the St. Louis MO WIKI article.

I want to add the following to the Saint Louis, Missouri article.

Throughout his life T.S. Elliot reclalled the city of St. Louis as having "affected me more deeply than any other environment has ever done" and counted himself "fortunate to have been born here, rather than in Boston, or New York, or London."

I am searching for the source of the comment.

If you are of the opinion that is is copyright infringement, please see:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

which I quote, in part, below:

One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: 

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use

is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 

  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

  3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of

the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

and

therefore I believe this "short" and "not for profit" and "educational" example and “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment" qualifies the foregoing under the Fair Use Doctrine elements.

Now if you are a lawyer or qualified legal scholar (I have a Paralegal degree -- Santa Monica College, 1987)and have done copyright practice for pay and for myself, let's talk. If you can't say you know the law, please stay on the sidelines. 66.81.194.20 01:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a copyright concern, but I would be a little it concerned about the relevance of the quote at the very start of the article. Perhaps a more appropriate place would be closer to the end, with a section entitled "Quotes about St. Louis" or something to that effect. I havelaso always liked Mark Twai's quote to the effect of "The first time i saw St. Louis I could have bought the enire city for $6 million and it is the regret of my lifetime that i did not do so". I'm sure we could find some other good quotes (including some negative ones from Tennessee Williams) about the city. TMS63112 00:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the concern about the quote coming at the start? I believe Elliot's words set the tone about what is special and unique about St.L. It is not just a quip, per Twain, or Dickens, who decried it as a swamp, that makes it worthy. Anyplace has good and/or bad. Think you St. Louis not unique in this as described in the Cityscape section of the Wiki article and confirmed, by Elliot?

I think st. Louis is a wonderful, special place and I have created and edited a number of articles that I hope help convey what makes St. Louis unique to readers. I personally identify very deeply with the sentiments expressed in the Eliott quote. However, we are creating an encyclopedia here, not a promotional brochure. I'm not sure the quote belongs at the start of an encyclopedia article about the city. Maybe I am just trying too hard to keep my own biases in check. TMS63112 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What say you to waiting a while (it might be a long while) and see what some others have to say on the subject? As for the "promotional brochure" idea, that a little harsh. I see it as an opening gambit about why the reader would like to see more about St. Louis. Bye-the-by, please see my St-L Talk about the "legal" or official name of St. Louis. Meanwhile, I'm sticking to my point until I take root. Do you still live in St.L? Maybe we should have this conversation via email. I am emarkprestonat hot male(spelling change please). Yours MP -30-

I'd be happy to wait a while and let other editors give their thoughts on this. I was just sharing my own reaction. Others may disagree. I'm sorry if my comments came ofas harsh. That was not my intention. Meanwhile, I'd be happy to continue this discussion at my talk page or you can e-mail me by following the e-mail link from the toolbar on the left hand side of the page at my user page. By the way, I agree with you about the official name being St. Louis rather than Saint Louis, but since we have redirects for each spelling, I don't care too much and have stayed out of that discussion TMS63112 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not keen on having the quote at the beginning of the article either but I don't have a strong objection. It doesn't really bring any additional information though it is a nice quote setting the character of the city through the experience of a notable person. Wikipedia doesn't seem to like quotes but they're not necessarily unecyclopedic; especially if it fits very well in context it could fit appropriately in various parts of the article. Evolauxia 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sirs: Per my comment using the word "harsh". If I were changing the entirety of the article I could understand the comment about "promotional brochure". Yes, I read the WIKI guidelines, including the one about "no rules". I recall seeing encyclopedia entries (printed books -- of all things!), that had short snippets, such as I have proposed, so I feel it's not outside the nature of things encyclopedic. As soon as I can cite to them, so that I might make User:TMS63112, more confortable with the unusualness of my idea.

So far, nobody has come up with a better place, although, it seems as though I've come across a WIKI with only two writers. I thought that there might be ten to 12. Reaching a concensus with three, well, I see there isn't one, at the moment.

I read and re-read the article and short of just including the blurb just about anyplace, I can't seem to find a more appropriate place. Cityscape is too particular about neighborhoods, etc. I hope we can take our time. I am certainly not going anywhere.66.81.23.132 07:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A possible solution is to use a quote box, for example:

"The City of St. Louis has affected me more deeply than any other environment has ever done, I consider myself fortunate to have been born here, rather than in Boston, or New York, or London."

T.S. Eliot on St. Louis

Evolauxia 06:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I do like the quote box, how about under the Seal and Flag, or near there?

I read the Gaslight Square (almost a) stub. There is on-line, the history of the place. I was often there in '64, '65', '66. Barbra Streisand, Woody Allan, The Smothers Bros. all got work there (Xtal palace) before they became famous. Anybody think I could add some. Happy to post the preview for review here first. 66.81.22.21 06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not finding an article for Gaslight Square. Am I doing something wrong? TMS63112 16:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, but here is the link:

http://stlouis.missouri.org/cwe/landmarks_gaslights.html 66.81.28.192 04:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote box seems like a perfect solution. Thank you Evolauxia! TMS63112 16:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to make the box, but: Could whoever is willing and able to do it, please post it as I have edited here in the Discuss page. Or tell me why not. Please! I'm still tracing the source of the quote.

OH! and where is it going TMS63112?66.81.28.192 04:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some trial and error trying to place the quote box in the infobox (I didn't expect it to work on a template and it didn't) as well as below it, to no avail. When I tried to place it on the right and below the infobox, it would be on the right but to the left of the infobox in the text field. The Apotheosis photograph seemingly works differently as a graphic, as I tried placing the quotebox just above it as well, to the same effect. I did change the sample width to 250px to match the standard graphic size for city infobox templates, if someone figures out how to place it there. Of course, I'm open to wherever it's decided to place it. A source would be nice too, as it's standard to cite it, and the year would be nice to place the period especially since St. Louis has changed a lot from the turn of the century and even the time of Gaslight Square. Evolauxia 06:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The citation, year, etc. to the quote is on the way, the primary source will take a little longer unless I get lucky. Thank you for all the work on the box. Whew! If I had known it would be such a piece of work, I probably would have quit. I am not, repeat, not computer savvy.66.81.28.59 02:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The preamble should be cited as follows:

T.S. Eliot, letter to Marquis Childs quoted in St. Louis Post Dispatch, October 15, 1930; T.S. Eliot, "American Literature and the American Language," address delivered at Washington University, June 9, 1953, published in Washington University Studies, New Series: Literature and Language, no. 23 (St. Louis : Washington Univresity Press, 1953), p. 6.

My source for the foregoing is: Stand Facing the Stove / Anne Mendelson (Henry Holt : New York, 1996) First Edition. Notes p. 418 #1 (Chapter 1, page 9, endnote 1).

I'm looking forward to seeing it somewhere.

Now, if we can confab about the proper spelling of the City of St. Louis, NOT SAINT.66.81.23.117 00:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Move to St. Louis

Seeing as articles are supposed to exist at the most common spelling of their name, and almost everyone, including the city govt. spells it "St. Louis", I've moved the article to the much more common spelling. Compare Google hits: 1 and 2. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-4 18:24

  • Thanks! I took the liberty of changing most of the references to "Saint Louis" to "St. Louis" in the article. I left the links intact though. Someone else can go through and fix the target pages then fix the link here. GT 18:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Done, I went through and and left intact the names of places and things in which Saint Louis is actually spelled out (Saint Louis university, Fair Saint Louis, Saint Louis Art Museum). Please don't change any further spellings of "Saint Louis" unless you're sure that it's not supposed to be written out. GT 19:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St._Louis/Archive_1&oldid=42227539"