Talk:Louisville, Kentucky/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

French version of this article just became Featured!

Check it out: fr:Louisville (Kentucky). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep and now you can copy it if you need ! LOL . Sylfred1977 ^Parler 13:47, 2 July 2008 (CET)

Naming convention for large cities strawpoll

I wanted to let everyone know that I have posted a strawpoll that deals with the naming conventions of large cities throughout the world on the English Wikipedia. Please vote. Wikipedia:Large cities naming convention strawpoll. Some cities already follow the naming convention that I am proposing while others do not, but because it affects this municipalities future name, I am posting the link here. Cheers. Rorry1 (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Murder stats for specific years

I disagree that this is a history article and that murder stats for specific years constitute "recentism". Recent information isn't bad in and of itself. In discussing public safety in the current city of Louisville, discussion of recent years' murder rates makes sense. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is recentism though, to give undue weight to recent history. This article is about the overall story of Louisville, not just what Louisville is like lately. Discussion of recent events is okay, but why should a prominent table just give the past few years of data? Why is this more notable than say, 1978-1983, except as a recentism? --Rividian (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagreed. In talking about the current public safety, recent years' data is appropriate. It's not recentism. 1978-1983 has a lot less to do with current public safety than the last several years. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But that's the whole problem... it shouldn't just be talking about current public safety. The article is Louisville, Kentucky not Recent situations in Louisville, Kentucky. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to give a full overview... if they just dwell on what's going on in the last several years, that's a recentism. This is also one of the key things that fails these kinds of articles at the modern WP:FAC by the way. --Rividian (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article is indeed about the current state of the subject, along with its history. If you continue to disagree with me, we can get a third opinion according to Wikipedia procedure. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But it's not about the last 5 years only when there's 230 years of history. The last 5 years isn't any more important than any other period (actually the last 5 years are considerably less important than say the 1904-1909 period where the police were thick in a rigged mayoral election, or 1967-1972 period with the race riots). The last 5 years is just more recent... hence, recentism. Feel free to file for another opinion, I'm not going to edit war over the issue. But honestly, introducing uncited and challenged material into a supposed FA isn't that good a thing to be doing if you want to keep it a FA, we shouldn't need a second opinion to confirm that. --Rividian (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

skyline image

People often seem to be changing the skyline image. I'm not a photography guru but the current image looks hazy, blurry and/or faded. There doesn't seem to be any guidance on the cities Wikiproject or the city infobox page, so I'm guessing we could use a day or night one. Maybe we could gather candidates here and try to pick a better one, rather than just people swooping in and making undiscussed replacements? --Rividian (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I've always been in favor of a kind of deliberative process on making the image better. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Stevie, don't be a pain the ass. The image like any other bit of content can be improved. When a superior edit is made (an improvement), we don't need to convene the legislature in Frankfort to make it stick. :) Just chill. The image just uploaded from Flickr by Avala is case in point. Now, I am not particularly fond of Avala's edits on Kosovo, but in this case he made a stellar improvement to an important article. And lest you accuse me of not knowing Louisville, these words are written by an NKU'82 grad and typed from Cincinnati... Peace. --Mareklug ^talk 06:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a featured article. The long-standing image can stay until we look at an array of replacements and decide on which one to go with. My reversion back to the standard image is in no way a reflection of anyone's other efforts. So I'm basically saying "Hold your horses!". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 07:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I also would discourage your use of such personal language. It is not befitting the spirit of our work here, and it reflects far worse on you than me. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 07:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To continue the discussion, I think some people may be under the impression that an image we would choose acts as ornamentation for the article. Not so. The image that conveys more information about the subject, even if not a perfect image, is what we're after. The current image conveys more information about the city than the recently attempted replacement. I would recommend that we look into finding an appropriate aerial shot of downtown that gives a more complete visual description of the city. A clear picture of a few downtown buildings is lovely, but that's not what Louisville is about. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the image that User:GeckoRoamin is trying to place in the article as the leading image, my position is that it's not superior because it focuses on a few downtown buildings without any city perspective that you will see in other city articles. I am all for a better image, but this clearer, but less informative image is not better. Find another one for us to discuss. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either image is that great but if he keeps re-adding his without discussion he should be blocked, right? it's a silly thing to edit war over. --Movingday29 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If he violates WP:3RR, then he could risk being blocked. I agree that discussion is much preferred over an edit war. I am more open-minded about this than I think he realizes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not mean to step on anyones toes. I simply agree with Rividian and think that even if the pic featured in the Downtown Louisville article is not perfect, it's an improvement over the blurry current one. What about that nighttime shot that is further down the page? I think that's a wonderful shot of Louisville. GeckoRoamin (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC) GeckoRoamin

Sorry I've been away from the Wikipedia for so long. Anyway, I will go along with this as a compromise, until an even better image can be located. Of course, if anyone objects and thinks there should be more discussion, revert the image change I did and we'll keep talking. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

New Flag, Information

I just added a graphic of the new flag as well as information straight from louisvilleky.gov. Since this information is accessible from the government site, does it need citation? mheart 08:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheart (talk • contribs)

The flag is copyrighted, and so cannot be used unless uploaded with a proper fair use statement, and even then, it's dicey with the admins here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)