Talk:Asheville, North Carolina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click [show] for further details
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Carolina, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve North Carolina-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Celebrities 2 Editing 'bands' section 3 This reads like a press release. 4 Founded city? 5 External Links 6 Outline? 7 Music & Film 8 This discussion page 9 Meanwhile, this is also amusing 10 Suggestion re: magazine articles

[edit] Celebrities

The information about famous people with ties to Asheville seems a bit abrupt. I think that this portion of the article needs to be edited to make a distinct paragraph, perhaps adding a topic sentence and transitions to pull it together and make it flow with the rest of the article.

Noted. The article as a whole needs work, however. So, it may be some time before that particular portion receives attention. (Unless of course you want to jump in there and handle it yourself. (Clumsy hint.)) - Zeno Izen 15:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

When the current editing block is removed, I hope someone links to Wilma Dykeman (an article I started following her recent death). --orlady 00:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Famous residents" is getting long, I removed a few entries that I could find little information on. I'm starting to think it should be removed outright. Any suggestions?? -- BreezyB 06:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing 'bands' section

Alphajerk, et al, ... You may be right! However, all of these issues have been discussed and a concensus has been reached. It is important to familiarize yourself with the manners of editing Wikipedia and the histories of any pages that you would like to make major edits to. Please read this discussion page (as you may have already) and look at these items:

• Wikipedia:Notability (music)
• Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages
• Wikipedia:Verifiability

allmusic.com is not the end-all be-all verification for entries on the list of bands here, it's just a first-line source. Speaking only for myself, if there's a reasonable source supporting the notability of a band or performer, I'll leave it alone. But it's very important to discuss at least, or better yet cite (^{[citation needed]}), before you make changes, otherwise other editors will make additional changes that you may not like. (Actually, editors will make changes you don't like regardless of your best efforts. But if you've got Wikipedia policies and guideliness on your side, in addition to editor concensus, your own edits will eventually prevail.)

Good luck -Zeno Izen 21:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

allmusic is basically a database for whomever send in material to be put in... and even then they tend to get the information wrong in a lot of crediting cases (and sometimes bios). basically my point is, the title for the section IS "local bands" which denotes bands from the asheville area, and i dont think the ones that ARE listed are a good representation of the area (actually fairly poor), when the list was long, it was a much better representation despite complaints of it being too long. it wasnt self-promotional even with its length but the list made it look long. i think the list is a poor idea regardless of the consensus and doesnt tie in well with the film section and the film section isnt held to the same accountability as the music section.

i also happen to think right now wiki is quite shortsighted in their placement of music in society. local scenes are what used to make areas thrive with originality, although it seems homoginization is spreading even into places such as this. now i dont think pages should be made as advertisements but if kept to biographical forms like a lot of pages of music i have seen here it is so worth the effort of people to propogate the information. music is called the bastard child of the entertainment industry and it seems its illegitimacy is continuing on at wiki. thats fairly sad because the way this place actually works would make a great data base of bands, music and the formations that have occured in society.

i added back the band i was referring to after it was reverted, please leave them in place. allmusic takes submissions from ANYONE (and you can be sure they are getting a submission now, despite the band adhering to the already stated regulations of notability... bands like stephanies ID has NEVER played outside asheville as far as i know, although a nice band... but hardly adheres to the rules set forth yet remains].

im not trying to really argue but only debate my side and hope for a better representation of what ashevilles music scene really has to offer since it was included as a sub for the city here and is usually a pretty unique thing to here as well.... just because a consensus was reasched previously doesnt mean it is correct. i did notice the deletion of quite a few others that were most notable from this area, more than any currently on the list. it looks like the editing is done by people who might not be as aware of the music scene here. maybe you should trust peoples opinion who are more involved in it.

Alphajerk 04:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, just because a concensus was reached, doesn't mean it is correct. Sometimes concensus is the best we can do, though. More importantly, just because a concensus was reached, doesn't mean that the discussion is closed, either.

You bring up a lot of complicated issues and questions. I don't have all the answers. I'm going to try to address a few points here, though.

I agree with a few things that you say (that the 'bands' list is not representative of Asheville, that the standards are not the same for the bands list and the films list). I'm not sure that I like the paragraph format for listing anything at all. But the list format isn't maybe not all that appropriate either.

Personally, all I really care about is that the section does not become a depository of shout-outs from various fly-by-night musical outfits. Bands come and go. And in this day and age, it's possible for a single individual to produce lots of music under multiple names. A local-music subsection could go on for pages, really, for any town the size of Asheville.

(I'm writing all this off the cuff. Let me try to wind things up for now...)

I'll concede your point regarding allmusic.com. I don't know anything about the website. It was offered as a tool for making decisions. Seemed okay to me. With that said, I'll leave your additions to the list. I can't control what anyone else does. Politely, though, I'd like to ask that you offer some alternatives for deciding the 'notability' of any band added to this article.

Also, I think the issue needs more discussion. Plus also, someone ought to look at how other articles about similar-sized American towns deal with this. -Zeno Izen 09:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I first suggested that www.allmusic.com be used as a source. I want to clear a few things up. Allmusic is not basically a database which is just made up of submissions made by readers/users. Wikipedia better fits that description. Allmusic is a database which is an authoritative source of information. Libraries carry the print versions, such as Allmusic Guide to Rock (and Jazz, etc.). The reviews are well-written and often quoted elsewhere. Of course there are errors. No source is error-free.

Secondly, the list of bands looked like a list of bands who play local clubs. One person even mentioned that he had heard of most of these bands, so they should remain on the list. That's somewhat subjective. Anybody who visits Asheville clubs regularly would have heard of these bands. That doesn't make the bands notable.

I don't know much about Stephanie's ID, and I have no personal stake in the success of that band (or any of these bands), but 30 seconds of research on the web indicated to me that they do play outside of Asheville, and they do have an entry, however meager, at allmusic.com--

It's just important to be civil and open-minded. I hope we can continue to make the page better. Mr Frosty 15:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted a bunch of band names that were added by an anonymous editor. My apologies to anyone who's legitimate edits may have been collatorally damaged. (Though I think I managed to delete only what I was aiming for.) You'll have to add it back it, I guess.

I refrained from deleting "By Morning," or even checking up on the notability of the band. I'm feeling less aggressive about the band list issue than I was earlier. That Film & TV section, however, is beginning to get on my last nerve.

Hopefully I'll get some time in the next few weeks to add more to the history section. If I do, I'll make a special effort to add in some of those interesting things that you mentioned earlier, Alphajerk. Hopefully. yayaya -Zeno Izen 08:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been following the music/band list debate with some interest here; I would suggest a look at the Chapel Hill page as an example of a potential reorganization of the music, film and culture-related sections of this article. I'd make the suggestion as Chapel Hill has a similar history as a culture-heavy town in NC, with a lot of grassroots activity, some of which has risen to regional or national prominence, and some of which hasn't. On that page, the idea was to simply provide an encyclopedia-standard overview written effectively enough (NO POV) to lead any interested parties toward further research on their own: of hundreds of bands, artists, writers in the area, I don't think more than 5-10 of each are mentioned specifically, while the overall article makes clear that an abundance of activity is going on, just unmentioned in the interest of keeping the page/article organized, readable, and within the evolving standards of what all NC city articles look like.

As for those standards, I've done a tiny bit of mostly grammatical work on most of the major city NC pages (I've lived in Charlotte, Boone, Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and have spent a lot of time in Asheville, Wilmington and Greenville); I'd love to see one organizational standard for all the "top 20" NC city articles. The Asheville article is one of the better ones. Davidals 10:26, 2 October 2006 (EDT)

[edit] This reads like a press release.

Asheville is my hometown, but this article seems gushy and canned. It's like the Chamber of Commerce wrote it. I don't think it neccesarily violates NPOV or encyclopedic tone, but it certainly feels wrong to me.

I agree. Most Ashevillians are rather proud of their city; This article does display bias. Perhaps specific sections/sentances can be cited before a re-vamp of the article commences? Arx Fortis 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Another agreement. I added the "metropolitan area" section a while back, and have otherwise refrained from making changes. The lists should be rethought - it's common to city articles on WikiPedia in general, but lengthy lists really make articles look silly and amateurish. If there's enough material to throw a list together, the entire section could be spun off into a more thorough article. --Davidals 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Founded city?

Someone added "who founded the city" to the end of the second paragraph. Can a source be provided? Arx Fortis 06:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Has this been fixed? I don't see it. Zeno Izen 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I pruned the external links section. There were several links that were obviously links to specific businesses that just happen to be in Asheville (an inn, a club, etc.). Some were superfluous and/or already had parent pages linked. Others had excessive advertisements and were removed as per WP:EL. Please discuss here before reverting any of those sites removed. ++ Arx Fortis 03:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

++ I hardly think either Asheville.com or Ashevillenc.com's ads are excessive and as a resident of Asheville I know that both pages I added are certainly more frequently updated and also that explore Asheville is run by the chamber of commerce and the site only lists chamber of commerce members. The whole site is one big advertisement, "official" or not. Neither site employs pop ups and both are a directory of all bussinesses and attractions, not just those that are chamber of commerce members. I really doubt that you are is informed enough on this subject to make any kind of call. Rlph wiggins 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rlph wiggins, Conspireagainst, Clarke187. Using aliases does not hide your attempts to subvert the Wikipedia Guidelines. Stop adding those links back. Wikipedia is not a search engine, it's an encyclopedia. ++ Arx Fortis 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've protected this article due to the revert war going on. Find another way to deal with your disagreements, please. --Golbez 07:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, thanks for stepping in here. It is difficult to believe that the edits of this user are in good faith insomuch that he/she uses numerous sockpuppets to add them back; Indeed, some of the accounts used to add these spamlinks have Asheville as their only edit (see [1] and [2] and [3]). Such subversive behavior is, at best, suspicious and brings into question whether there is a conflict of interests involved. Two of the spamlinks exceed WP:EL's Links to normally be avoided guideline Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. One of the pages (www.ashevillenc.com) contains 17 ads, the other (www.asheville.com) contains 27 ads and simply copies press releases from other sites verbatim (see [4] and [5]). ++ Arx Fortis 13:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you use Template:Dmoz to create a link to the ODP category for Asheville, which lists 933 links. This ought to go a long way toward satisfying the appetite for continually increasing the number of external links in the article. [Disclosure: I am an editor at ODP, but I have had only limited involvement with the Asheville category.]--orlady 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, Orlady. I agree and await/hope for a response from Conspireagainst/Rlph Wiggins/Clarke187/etc. ++ Arx Fortis 19:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Arx Fortis, I cannot admit agreement, but I will admit that you are certainly very dedicated to this page. I, Conspireagainst, am not the same as Clarke187 or Rlph Wiggins. This person is a friend of mine, but not one and the same and I would appreciate if you would not make assumptions that you do not know to be true. In fact, I agree with Wiggins' statement about the "Asheville Area Chamber" and the "Explore Asheville" site. You may not know this, but both of these sites aim to specifically exclude businesses that do not wish to play ball with the city, truly making it difficult for many area businesses to be seen. The other sites that were there were intended to make sure that the area businesses can have fair and equal representation on the Internet. You should reconsider your stance, given the facts. I will be happy to discuss this with you further in a more personal manner, if you wish.

Umm, this should not be resolved in a one-on-one personal conversation, Conspireagainst. The idea is to have an open discussion of the best way to document Asheville in an encyclopedia article.

Since Wikipedia is not intended to promote businesses (nor to give them "fair and equal representation on the Internet"; see WP:NOT), your rationale for adding external links is not convincing. --orlady 15:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Conspireagainst, if you are not the same as Rlph Wiggins or the other accounts then I do apologize for my assumption. However, when you look at this edit to my user page [6] and the "reason" for this edit to the Asheville article [7], and consider the fact that the only edits ever made by Rlph Wiggins were reverting my edit three times [8], it shows, at a minimum, that your actions were in concert.

Regardless, in all fairness, perhaps the Chamber of Commerce site should be removed as well. I didn't include it in my pruning because the link has only one unobtrusive ad (a banner at the bottom). But, as Wiggins says, because the only businesses contained on the Chamber's site are those who pay a membership fee to the Chamber, the site is just one big advertisement.

In addition to the previously mentioned reason for removing the links (WP:EL), both Explore Asheville and Asheville.com come up 1 and 2 when searching "Asheville" on Google and Yahoo. It's not as if these sites are rare gems. Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT#DIR); Google and Yahoo are. ++ Arx Fortis 16:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, I find this conversation very interesting as I am somewhat new (extremely new) to the Wikipedia game. But, on the other hand I do have some valuable input on the Asheville front. I basically have to agree with both sides of the argument. If Asheville.com, AshevilleNC.com and the not before mentioned AshevilleNow.com are to be removed then I see no value in leaving ExploreAsheville.com or the Chamber site. It is my very biased opinion that AshevilleNC.com and AshevilleNow.com, my website, are the two best representations of Asheville as a whole from both the local and visitors perspective, as most other sites are simple for tourists. My site is still has some work to be done, but we have been working 35 hours a week on it for several months, and it will be more complete shortly. I hope my input is valuable in your decision making process and not seen as simply a plug for my site, as it is our mission at AshevilleNow to offer an accurate representation of Asheville in all its bright colors. Thanks. ++ User: Anow 11:24, 20 December 2006

To anyone that is a dmoz editor, then you know better than anyone that dmoz is the least accurate representation of the internet, Dmoz hasn't updated anything in well over a year. Not that that has anything to do with anything

Clarke187 00:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that bit of intelligence, Clarke187. For your future edification, the "Last update" date that appears on dmoz pages is the date when the content of that particular page last changed. Changes in subcategories (child pages) are not reflected. Since there are no websites listed on the main page for Asheville (all 900+ links for Asheville are in subcategories), the page should not be expected to change frequently, but the subcategories are updated often. --orlady 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The "External Links" section is not the only part of this article that has suffered from linkspam. Under "General information" I find the following advertisement for a commercial venture: "The local employment job board is http://www.localjobs.com which serves Asheville/WNC and several other local markets." This nonencyclopedic link should be deleted. --orlady 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, orlady, the entire article could use a good combing. Zeno Izen and I have tried to trim certain sections (such as the Music section, which had gotten to be ridiculously long). Ashevillians are generally very proud of their city - and rightly so. I live in the Asheville area and worked as a manager in tourism for seven years. This city has a lot to offer compared to similarly sized cities.

However, this is an encyclopedia. I have still not read a valid reason why the sites that obviously exceed Wikipedia guidelines WP:EL and WP:NOT#DIR should be included in this page. The excuse, "People might want to see...", doesn't cut it. Use a search engine. Wikipedia is not a www search engine. ++ Arx Fortis 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah even the founder of DMOZ says it's done, though I did just look at their page page said they just started editing again...after 6 weeks. It remains to be seen for how long, because they haven't accepted new submissions in the last year. Its not their fault it's happening because AOL is going to hell in a handbasket. Anyway, thats beside the point. I agree that this is an encyclopedia and I would be perfectly happy to stop this little link war we're having if exploreasheville and ashevillechamber are likewise removed because those sites are the biggest advertisements of the lot, at least the other sites will let anyone list pretty much anything for free.Clarke187 20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page, please edit with caution and stop the link warring. feydey 07:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

From the discussion in this section, it appears the consensus is to remove exploreasheville and ashevillechamber from the existling list and to add no others back. This leaves the official City of Asheville and Buncombe County sites, and the existing maps links. I have edited accordingly. ++ Arx Fortis 00:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outline?

Errm... It's gotten quiet here.

It seems to me that the linking war is only a symptom of larger problems with this article. Much of the "writing" here consists of listing links and promotional factoids. For example, the following breathless passage is hardly "General Information" (where it is now):

"In the year 1900, author Thomas Wolfe was born in Asheville. Author F. Scott Fitzgerald lived and worked in Asheville during some of his literary career. His wife, Zelda, died in a fire in an Asheville sanitarium in 1948. In 1933, actress Eileen Fulton was born in Asheville. In 1939, singer Roberta Flack was born in the city.[10] In 2005 alleged bomber Eric Robert Rudolph was transported to Asheville from Murphy, North Carolina for arraignment in federal court. In September 2004, major flooding was reported in town, particularly at Biltmore Village, due to rains from the remnants of Hurricane Frances and Hurricane Ivan."

May I suggest that, after the article is unblocked, the article should be thoroughly reorganized according to an outline? I suggest including: Geography, History, Demographics, Metropolitan area, Government, Economy, Education, Media, Transportation, Arts and culture, Sports and recreation, Notable natives and residents (to include people like Thomas Wolfe who may be mentioned elsewhere in the article), Sister cities, References, and External links.
Some items will need to be moved. For example, the sentence "Asheville is home to University of North Carolina at Asheville, a liberal arts college of about 3500 students (part of the University of North Carolina System), and Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College" should be moved into Education. --orlady 00:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music & Film

I think that the best way to solve the bands problems is simply to say that the city has an active music scene, and leave it at that. When I originally added the section, I assumed that people would be willing to set aside their petty differences and get along, but that's very obviously not happening. Ditto with the films list, which was added largely because people around here are so invested in the idea that we're a movie-making community. It's a shame that the Wiki model doesn't work in these cases. — UnknownCity, 15:16, 29 December 2006

As I see it, the issue is not that there is a perceived problem with music and film as topics (in fact, they are potentially important topics), but rather that discussions of these topics have written in a manner more consistent with a promotional brochure (or perhaps weekly newspapers) than an encyclopedia article. Statements like "the city has an active music scene", "Asheville is a regional hotspot for live music", and "recent developments are cementing Asheville as a potential growth area for both film and TV" are not encyclopedia-like. It ought to be possible to present this information in an objective manner. For example (this example uses totally made-up data), say "As of 2006, about 30 local clubs presented live music on a regular basis" [insert reference citation to a newspaper article from which this information was taken]. Also, the list of films and TV shows produced locally could be converted to something like (again this is made-up): "The first movie filmed on location in Asheville was Bedtime for Bozo (1978). Film and video production activity increased in the years 1980 to 1985, when eight major movies were filmed locally (list them) and the ABC TV series Asheville is for Ashes was produced in the city." --orlady 05:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, I'd agree. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that there's any way around people chopping up the section and using it to promote their bands. Likewise, if you start posting links to articles about the subject, it's very likely that it'll get chopped out by someone accusing the editor of promoting whatever newspaper it's linking to. I could be wrong, but it seems very lose-lose to be anything other than very vague. After all, it's not like there's going to be census data on the number of bands around here. You could cite, say, MySpace for the number of active local bands, but I'm not sure any of this information would be considered truly viable in the sense you're talking about. --Unknowncity

As I see it, and since previous criteria were met with resistance, I agree that the section should mention the active scene and be done with it. In that light I propose it be written thus:

Live music is a significant element in the tourism-based economy of Asheville and the surrounding area. Seasonal festivals and numerous nightclubs offer opportunities for visitors and locals to attend a wide variety of live entertainment events, to the point that the town has been compared to both New Orleans, Louisiana and Nashville, Tennessee.^[1]

Asheville is host to numerous clubs and performance venues. Outdoor festivals, such as Bele Chere and the Lexington Avenue Arts & Fun Festival, feature local music. One of the most popular annual events is "Shindig on the Green," which happens Saturday nights during July and August on City/County Plaza. By tradition, the Shindig starts "along about sundown" and features local bluegrass bands and dance teams on stage, and informal jam sessions under the trees surrounding the County Courthouse.

DJ music, as well as a small, but active, dance community are also components of the downtown musical landscape. The town is also home to the Asheville Symphony and the Asheville Lyric Opera and there are a number of bluegrass, country, and traditional mountain musicians in the Asheville area.

This removes any mention of specific bands and clubs. Any thoughts? ++ Arx Fortis 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Arx Fortis: Good work, although I do have some concerns. First -- and it's a minor point -- that Asheville's music scene hasn't been seriously compared to that of New Orleans or Nashville. Those are both huge cities, and their recording and music industries actually contribute a subtantial amount of revenue to the local economy. Asheville's music scene, by contrast, only just supports itself. In terms of size and commercial success, it's more on par with, say, the Chapel Hill music scene of two decades ago. We have only a handful of venues of any size (and no truly large venues), no major acts are based here (although a number of mid-level performers either have been, or have members who are), and there are no commercially significant recording studios in the area (although there are several good ones). That's not to say that the scene isn't important, I'm just trying to give it some scale for this discussion.

Secondly, what if Stella Blue or the Orange Peel suddenly put up a Wiki page? Shouldn't there be a method to refer to it? Would they then be wrong in editing the music section to include that internal link? Wouldn't it then start to get out of hand again? The more I think about it, the more I'm of the belief that the Asheville music scene either needs the barest mention -- even more spare than yours -- or that it needs its own page completely. -- UnknownCity

UnknownCity, thank you for your comments and you make some good points. I agree with your point about New Orleans/Nashville. Asheville's 'music scene' is not even close to that of those two cities and I doubt a credible source could be found that makes a fair comparison. (edit: To clarify, I do not consider the Asheville Citizen-Times a credible source on this point; it should be an outside source.) This should be removed (or edited if the comparison is cited/referenced).

To your second point, Stella Blue or Orange Peel shouldn't be putting up their own wiki article...that would be considered Original Research (WP:OR). Let's suppose, however, that someone did create an article for one of those local venues. The venue would need to be noteable enough (WP:NOTE and WP:LOCAL) to be considered encyclopedic. The guidelines would be compared against the article and its sources. ++ Arx Fortis 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Aside from removing the New Orleans/Nashville comparison, is there any more discussion on this? ++ Arx Fortis 15:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Section edited as shown above plus suggested editing. ++ Arx Fortis 06:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This discussion page

This discussion page is getting rather large. Because I'm not sure how to do it myself, and I don't have the time to look it up, I'd like to offer a motion to archive this discussion page and start fresh. Zeno Izen 21:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I archived most of 2006 discussions (except for those still ongoing). I will archive more later. ++ Arx Fortis 01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meanwhile, this is also amusing

I'm not really sure what this is referring to, but I'm sure some here will be interested.

["Asheville's wiki war"] Zeno Izen 06:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't see it so much on this page, but take a look at the "History" page to see the furious editing/re-editing/counter-editing that caused the page to be locked. -- UnknownCity

Yay, my day in the spotlight. :| --Golbez 10:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking at another Wikipedia page, and I had a thought. When "external links" are posted that seem to be spam, an editor might choose to remove said links outright. Another useful tactic to consider might be to edit the description of the link. Example: "adspammaddness.com - An ad-heavy commercial site with links to Asheville businesses."

It's just an idea, but if the tactic is used judiciously, it might be a means toward averting edit wars. Zeno Izen 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion re: magazine articles

The third pgraph of the General Information section, there is a list (in pgraph form) of magazine articles that mention Asheville. I think it would be more informative to include the publication years of the articles in the actual paragraph. The problem is that simply sticking the years in there will make the paragraph look very cluttered. There are already a lot of quotation marks and citation numerals in the paragraph, and the addition of four-digit years would probably take the text over the edge into serious eyesore territory. Yet, we surely don't need another bulleted list in the article.

Dilemma! Any suggestions? Zeno Izen 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would suffice to say that Asheville has received significant media coverage in the media, then simply use citations for the sentance to give some examples (no more than 3-4 of the most significant articles). ++Arx Fortis 05:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)