Talk:Louisville, Kentucky/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Cities within Louisville/Jefferson County + Census

Prior to the merger of Louisville & Jefferson County, there were 91 cities within Jefferson County; however, these cities do not reflect what most people would consider a city. Of these cities, the only one besides Louisville to have its own fire department was Shively (the rest being served by 18 Jefferson County Fire Districts), and very few had city police departments. Kentucky law enables small areas to incorporate which benefits places such as those found in eastern Kentucky, but also enabled single subdivisions to become cities in Jefferson County. The majority of these 91 Jefferson county cities are subdivisions and their main functions involve contracting waste collection, so most of these cities behave as most homeowners associations would. Some examples are Cambridge KY (2004 population 193), Glenview Manor KY (2004 population 194), Hickory Hill KY (2004 population 145), Hills and Dales KY (2004 population 157), Lincolnshire KY (2004 population 155), Maryhill Estates KY (2004 population 177), Meadowbrook Farm KY (2004 population 147), Sycamore KY (2004 population 160), Ten Broeck KY (2004 population 141), & Thornhill KY (2004 population 176). The city of Sycamore KY is actually a condominium complex in suburban eastern Jefferson County and some of the cities such as Shively (2004 population 15258) and St. Matthews (2004 population 17374) were incorporated with business support to avoid annexation by Louisville. After Louisville and Jefferson county consolidated, the Census Bureau initially reported the population of Louisville as 556332, which excluded the population of all Jefferson County cities with the exception of the former City of Louisville. In 2005, the Census Bureau announced that the total population of what used to be Jefferson County (2004 population 700030) would be counted as the city of Louisville in the future due to the fact that since these micro cities vote for the Mayor of Louisville & pay taxes to Louisville, that they are, in fact, part of Louisville.

Chris24 06:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Chris24

Please see other similar cities such as Nashville, Tennessee, Jacksonville, Florida, and Indianapolis, Indiana. If the census is going to treat Louisville's situation that way, it should also do the the same to the three cities I just mentioned, which are city-county governments with other municipalities within them. In 2010 you will see two sets of numbers for Louisville: Louisville (balance) without the other 83 municipalities (see Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee) and Louisville-Jefferson together, which will be at the end of the state's list of populations. I highly doubt that the census will discount the other 83 municipalities. They need the numbers for funding available from county, state, and federal governments like I mentioned eariler

NOTE that not ALL cities in the U.S. have their own police or fire: the city of Diamond Bar, California, for example, has NO police or fire of their own. The city agreed with Los Angeles County, California to continue service after incorporation in 1989.

--Moreau36; 536, 15 Jaunary 2006 (UTC)

Although the citizens of Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond counties in New York all vote for Mayor of New York, you seem to advocate that it should be referred to New York (balance). You can either be for counting population by those who vote for a mayor or those who do not, but you can not have it both ways. When the new census population estimates are released, you will note that my posts are correct.

Chris24 06:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Chris24

See my post below, the 1898 New York City merger is not comparable to the Louisville-Jefferson County merger. Residents of any and all the boroughs of New York City vote for one mayor and only one mayor. There is not a mayor of Brooklyn or a mayor of the Bronx, because these former cities disincorporated with the merger. Residents of Jeffersontown, Prospect, and other intact, incorporated cities in Jefferson County will continue to vote for a mayor of those respective cities.

I agree, you "cannot have it both ways" - allowing residents of Jeffersontown count toward the ranking of that city's population and at the same time counting toward the ranking of Louisville's population.

Denvoran 06:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thunder over Louisville page

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)

The history of the event could be added.Clark 06:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

I have added list of corp. sponsors. --Clark 23:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a trivia section aswell as the first piece of trivia.--Dp462090 20:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC) I have also added a list of past themes.--Dp462090 20:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

i removed the stub tag from the TOL article. nice work, people!! Sparsefarce 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please vote on the population poll

In the article List of United States cities by population, Louisville is not listed 16th, but rather 26th. This is because the editors have decided to use the census balance figures rather than the actual city populations for consolidated city-counties. So despite it being billed as a "list of cities", it doesn't actually list Nashville or Indianapolis, but instead lists their "balances". If you have an opinion about this, please make it known in the poll. Thanks. Kaldari 19:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's billed as a "list of cities" - yet Louisville, Nashville, and Indianapolis are not cities, they are consolidated city-counties. In the list, counties are not being ranked. In the list, consolidated city-counties are not being ranked. Cities are being ranked. The "balance" population figures Kaldari refers to are the Census equivalents of cities in the case of consolidated city-counties.

Denvoran 20:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A city doesn't stop being a city if it has politically consolidated with a county. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If a city consolidates with a county, something does change - the city is no longer what it was before and the county is no longer what it had been. The city does stop being what it was before, and starts being something different. Denvoran 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. A city becomes a larger city. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In 1898 the largest "merger" in the country came into being by encompassing the counties of Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, & Richmond into the City of New York and yet nobody calls it Manhattan (balance). A city exists due to what its population desires and votes for. Chris24 05:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Chris24

The 1898 merger of Kings, Queens and Richmond County with New York City and New York County (Bronx County was created several years after the merger) eliminated the incorporated cities of Brooklyn, Jamaica, Long Island City, Flushing, etc., leaving the entire amalgamation within one single incorporated city - New York City (which, by the way, was never the "City of Manhattan" but always "New York City").

Therefore, there was never and there is not a "balance" - i.e., the only incorporated city within the New York City merger is New York City. There were and are no other incorporated places to subtract from the New York City consolidation.

In contrast, the merger of Louisville with Jefferson County has left several dozen incorporated cities and towns intact (e.g. Jeffersontown, Douglass Hills, Prospect). These are not boroughs, like Queens or the Bronx - and they are not simply neighborhoods of Louisville, like Flushing or Jamaica - but they remain incorporated cities or towns. If these several dozen towns had disincorporated with the Louisville-Jefferson County merger then it would be a case comparable to the 1898 New York City merger.

Apparently the populations of Jeffersontown, Prospect and others have "desired" and "voted" to have their respective cities remain intact and not disincorporate; as long as they are incorporated cities, their populations should not be double-counted and attributed to Louisville's as well - hence the need to report a "(balance)" population.

Denvoran 06:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

mu·nic·i·pal·i·ty is the word

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)

article size

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)

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)

Kentucky Derby nominated for USCOTW

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)

Link to list of wikipedians

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is a rather ridiculous event here, I must say. This innocuous entry, despite the guidelines, should be of general interest. It's an article about Louisville, so why not link to a list of Louisvillian Wikipedians? Must we always be so uber-strict with regards to the guidelines? Is there no elbow-room here?

I do believe that what's going on here is really somebody getting their kicks with throwing the book down on a very small matter. That's all there is to it.

Oh well, moving on. I will continue to work on serious article development, while those who were so insistent about this little item continue to play petty games. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 03:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Protected

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)

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)

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)

I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 06:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Maps of Louisville

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)

Edge city

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: [1]. 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)

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)

WikiProject Louisville

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)

Population

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Confusion between city and balance

There seems to be much confusion in this article concerning the difference between the considatidated city of Louisville-Jefferson County and the Louisville-Jefferson County balance. The Census lists population estimates for both the consolidated city and the balance, however this article uses the balance figures throughout the article. The consolidated city of Louisville is indeed the 16th largest city in the United States and its population is 699,827 according to the Census.[2] A separate article for Louisville-Jefferson County (balance), Kentucky needs to be created similar to the articles for Indianapolis (balance), Indiana and Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee. Kaldari 21:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think you're on thin ice, but I'm going to back out of this controversy related to rank and population. Why? Because this is going to be the start of an unending edit war, and I have no time for it. There are other editors very interested in this population topic (and who are defending their city's rank) who are going to keep coming in here and reverting any changes you make on this topic unless and until we see produced an actual official ranking of cities by population. By the way, Louisville is the 26th largest city in the U.S. and that's just the way it is, until the Census Bureau says otherwise. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 22:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources out there that say Louisville is the 16th largest city in the US. The Census Bureau does not contradict this. They simply say that the Louisville-Jefferson County (balance) (which is not the same thing as the city) is the 26th largest "incorporated place" in the United States, and by "incorporated place" they mean geographic level code 162.[3] Unfortunately, they have nothing to say on the matter of which city is the 16th largest in the country. Maybe we should ask them. Kaldari 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also you should know that the Census Bureau just recently changed their definition of "incorpated places" to not include consolidated cities. View, for example, their ranking of incorporated places from the 2000 census which uses the full consolidated populations. [4] They do not however offer a definition of "city". Kaldari 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Louisville Metro government says "16th" on their website, but they are clearly biased; in fact, there was a Courier-Journal article a while back that described the controversy and that officially, Louisville is 26th, not 16th. If you can show documentation from the U.S. Census Bureau that backs up your positions with regards to ranking, then that is fair. By the way, the Census Bureau has their own set of definitions for what makes a city, and they correlate that to their statistics. Since we obviously have to go by their population statistics, then we also have to go by what they call a city, even if they don't use the exact word "city" by itself. Certainly everyone realizes or should realize that "incorporated place" is a phrase that means "city".

At any rate, if you are going to update this article with your approach, you may as well fully update it. Don't leave it lop-sided with two different points of view. But again, be prepared for an edit war with the statistics nuts. I'm out of this one. I've had enough. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 22:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of avoiding a protracted edit war, I have come up with a compromise explanation for the article that hopefully both sides can agree is accurate. Kaldari 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I am relieved with the approach you took. It is an honorable compromise. As you could tell, I was extremely worried as this is probably the most sensitive part of the article. I hope that these fair changes are defendable (the other side of my worry). I see no reason to challenge them any longer. The changes will probably even make revert-war Randella happy. :) —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 02:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

i think everyone can be pleased that a deliberately misleading and reaching claim as "one of the largest" can now be put to rest for a while -- until some defensive editor looking to restore 'longstanding' content pops up :) Randella 03:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You were well informed many times that the text "one of the largest" was in fact not "deliberately misleading" but used to paper over the 16th vs. 26th dispute. On top of that, "one of the largest" is factual. 16th out of thousands of cities makes Louisville one of the largest in the U.S. (i.e., your perspective is quite narrow). At any rate, this "defensive editor" stuck around and worked with others to arrive at a very good solution. Where were you? —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 05:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

first, it was my idea to bring this to talk... so i more than did my part. frankly, i think it was best to let other more objective voices be heard on the subject rather than turn this into a public debate that you would try to dominate post after post. you can argue the point all you want about the numbers, but the issue has been resolved. Randella 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Argh! City still No. 26"

While this article doesn't necessarily affect our recent understandings on population and ranking, I do think it gave me justification to bring back information that says that "26th" is the official Census ranking while "16th" is what city leaders and local signs say. Hopefully, this reemerged material can coexist with earlier changes.

By the way, I didn't reference the C-J article in this article because they tend to archive articles out of reach once they reach a certain age. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 22:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For posterity purposes, in case the C-J article goes away, here is the pertinent text:

Louisville's ego was bruised this week by the U.S. Census Bureau, which for the second straight year ranked the city as the nation's 26th largest -- not 16th as city leaders say it deserves.

Although local officials say they were told that Louisville could count everyone within its borders, the federal government left out the roughly 144,000 residents in Jefferson County's 83 suburban cities. The Census Bureau says it can't count those people as part of Louisville because they live in incorporated cities.

As a result, Louisville's official population is 556,429, not the nearly 700,000 touted by city officials, the chamber of commerce and even the head of the Kentucky State Data Center.

Officials were surprised last summer when they learned that Louisville was ranked 26th instead of 16th, but they thought it would be fixed in time for the release of the 2005 population estimates.

"We thought that had been resolved last year," said Ron Crouch, director of the state data center.

...

But Greg Harper, a Census Bureau demographer, said local officials were told that Louisville's ranking would not include suburban city residents.

And that won't change, Harper said, unless those small cities are dissolved.

Metro officials seem resigned to the decision, even while they insist that Louisville deserves to be ranked 16th.

And they say they won't take down the welcome signs proclaiming metro Louisville the 16th-largest city in America -- no matter what the Census Bureau says.

—  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 23:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well regardless, there are still 700,000 people within the city limits of Louisville. Just because the Census Bureau chooses to rank things one way, doesn't mean it's the only way to do it. Personally I think the Census Bureau is more worried about maintaining their convoluted 11-level geographic code system than providing practically useful information. It is the government, after all :P Kaldari 23:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds right. The population we should use is what you say, and I see no reason to dispute that. At the same time, ranking should be presented as a kind of messy dispute between the Census Bureau and city leaders. Ahhh, this is one of those areas where being factual is near-painful. Heh. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 23:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I also looked at this article in the C-J when they compare Jefferson County cities growth rate between 2000 and 2005 and I found it strange that Louisville (it's largest city) wasn't listed, unless I'm overlooking something --Moreau36; 0024, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not there. I guess they didn't notice the elephant in the living room. :) —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 00:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A government who's taking census figures since 1790, in which although confusing, can be a very useful tool. Almost all of the world atlases and gazateers use the U.S. Census Bureau is it's tool. --Moreau36 12:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for taken it out of order --Moreau36 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits and Movements

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

To add my two cents in (as a native Louisvillian), I think you guys are doing a wonderful job on this Louisville page. I personally don't care rather Louisville is 16th largest city or 26th. I've learned that you can no longer judge a city's size solely on it's population in the city proper. Louisville is one of the most treasured Southern city's and has an extensive history as the one of the South's premier cities (second largest Southern city after New Orleans). I think this should be emphasized.

This page also can use a ranking of the city's skyscrapers, like other city's our size, and please PLEASE give a better picture of the Louisville skyline (not on a cloudy day from the worst angle). All and All though if those problems (at least to me and a few others who have referenced me to this site) were addressed this would be the perfect page.

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)

Nominated for Portal:United States selected article

Please go here to support the nomination. Thanks! —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 00:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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)