Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Louisville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

Contents 1 Let's come together and finish article assessments 2 Concerning an Ivy Tech campus 3 Classification of non-Louisville Proper articles under Louisville 4 Muhammad Ali -- let's go to GA! 5 Requested Articles department redesigned for clarity 6 Muhammad Ali nominated for U.S. Collaboration of the Week 7 Adding Louisville images to the project 8 Going on partial wikibreak 9 publication 10 case closure 11 Courier-Journal phone interview re: Essjay 12 Our project isn't welcome to cover Essjay controversy 13 Kentuckiana Blues Society

Archives
Discussions from 2006

[edit] Let's come together and finish article assessments

Please, everyone, if you have a little time, please squeeze in some article assessments. We still have over 400 left to do. (and almost 800 don't have importance set)

Check out the list of unassessed articles and have at it.

If anyone has any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning an Ivy Tech campus

My apologies about removing the Louisville-related tag from the Ivy Tech article without discussing it here first. I was not aware that it was a matter of decorum to do so. However, my reasoning for the removal of the tag was that while the Ivy Tech campus is in the Louisville area, it's not actually in Louisville itself. Since the campus isn't actually in the Louisville city limits, I felt that it shouldn't be considered as apart of it. A lot of people from Louisville may drive to the campus and take courses there, but the campus' legal address is still in Sellersburg, Indiana. The same applies to the Indiana University Southeast campus - while it's in the Louisville metropolitan area, it's still technically in New Albany, Indiana. Ibm2431 08:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why IUS is considered as being apart of the metropolitan area. However, should the entire Ivy Tech article be flagged in the same manner? Does Ivy Tech - Sellersburg consider itself as a part of the Louisville metropolitan area? I don't know the answer, thus why I ask. The Kentuckiana Metroversity site makes no mention of it. Why is the Ivy Tech campus in Sellersburg considered as a part of Louisville other than being near it? Ibm2431 08:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Louisville covers the entire Louisville Metropolitan Statistical Area, of which Sellersburg is a part. Anything inside it is subject to coverage by the project. Consider that there's no inherent damage to the article if this project covers it; on the contrary, more project coverage will ultimately mean more attention to the article. Also, this is an encyclopedia, so inclusion is based on the fact that IUS is in the metropolitan area, not whether IUS thinks it should be included. There are probably many entities in the metropolitan area that balk at the idea they are in the Louisville metro area, but the facts are in opposition to them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classification of non-Louisville Proper articles under Louisville

I've noticed that Charlestown State Park has been included in Louisville-related articles. Someone recently changed a category on this article from "Louisville parks" to "Parks in Louisville". Both of these are misleading, however, as Charlestown State Park is not even bordering Louisville; it's merely in the greater metropolitan area. Is there a category, for things in the Louisville are, as opposed to incorrectly labeling it as something IN Louisville?

Thanks for your time,
Married to a Charlestown Girl,
CobaltBlueTony 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't currently have a category for that. However, if we were to do that, we would have to do that across the board, and it would make categorization a lot more complicated with respect to Louisville vs. Louisville metro area things. Perhaps we should just put a description in "Parks in Louisville" and other similar categories that the category applies to things in the entire metro area. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't one just edit the project template to say that the project covers things that are in the Louisville metropolitan area as well? I think it'd be the easiest solution. Have the project tag say something to the effect of "This article is within the scope of WikiProject:Louisville, which concerns subjects related to or in Louisville or its metropolitan area". Obviously, the wording could use a bit of work, but I think that it would be the simplest, most effective solution to clear up the confusion. Ibm2431 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, now the template says "metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky". The template is already rather thick, so I'd rather not add that many extra words. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad Ali -- let's go to GA!

Who's with me to push this very good article of a great man to GA? It's already a strong B. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Articles department redesigned for clarity

Check out the newly refurbished Requested Articles department. Hopefully, the page will now appear a lot less cluttered and easier to edit. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad Ali nominated for U.S. Collaboration of the Week

Please vote for Muhammad Ali at Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Louisville images to the project

I've come to the conclusion recently, after having an image description vandalized, and noticing the sheer volume of Louisville related images that need to be tracked somehow, that we need to add all Louisville-related images (as class=NA) to the project. But to save us the work of doing it manually, I'm going to enlist a bot that has helped us before: WatchlistBot. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Going on partial wikibreak

Hey all, I'm going on a "partial wikibreak" for the forseeable future so I can put more time into other projects. That means I will just do two check-in's a day to review and respond to changes in my watchlist and talk page. I have to be honest and say I won't be able to participate in any major efforts or discussions during this time.

By the way, WikiProject Louisville doesn't have that many initial assessments left to do. Somebody please be a sport and finish it up for the team. I frankly got burned out on it a few days ago. It's one of those boring drudgery tasks, but yet it needs to get done. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] publication

Apparently, a free newspaper called "The Highlander" (mailed to every house in the Highlands) is printing our articles (with attribution). This is of course part of what our copyrights allow for, but at any rate, they are printing one of the neighborhood summaries every month. Irish Hill will be next, and they are going in the order listed in The Highlands (Louisville). Just thought people would like to know, make some quick edits to tidy them up before publication. --W.marsh 00:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds cool. Maybe that will bring new members to the project, or at least more people editing Louisville articles. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] case closure

Regarding Inclusion Advice on archive page:

Inclusion advice

I can't decide whether we should mention the recent murder in Cherokee Triangle in our article on the neighborhood. I have a hard time judging these things. Any thoughts? I'm mentioning it here because discussion on the talk page there would probably be minimal or nonexistant. CJ article here --W.marsh 21:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC) I do not have a strong opinion either way. Unfortunately, the murder will be forgotten by most people in a few days and will only be mentioned again if the shooter is caught and during a trial. On October 12, 2003, Zachary Scarpellini was killed in the 1200 block of Cherokee Road, but even with this recent murder just a block away from the 2003 murder it is hardly mentioned, if mentioned at all. If you decide to include the recent murder, I would consider mentioning the 2003 murder as well. CJ 2003 murder article --Chris24 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Yeah, you're probably right, and thanks for the link to the 203 story. I just suffer from recentism sometimes. I'll reconsider adding it if anything new and substantial comes out, but for now I don't think I will. --W.marsh 23:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is my first posting but submit regarding the murder of 20 yr old Zachary Scarpellini in October 2003. Today's Courier Journal (2/22/2007) mentions the indictment of Adam Barker for the murder of Mr. Scarpellini on October 13, 2003 in the cherokee triangle area of the highlands. Barker has been found guilty of homicide, several counts of asssault and tampering with physical evidence and has agreed to a 40 - year prison sentence. May noble Scarpellini, for confronting the man suspected of breaking into vehicles in our neighborhood, finally rest in peace. 74.131.33.168 02:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)m.hardesty 21:06 February 23, 2007 CJ article: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070223/NEWS01/702230452/1008/NEWS01

[edit] Courier-Journal phone interview re: Essjay

Just wanted to let everyone know I was interviewed by The Courier-Journal today regarding the goings-on with user Essjay from the Louisville area. I haven't been following this story very closely, but I tried to defend the Wikipedia by saying that any possible damage by Essjay using false credentials to influence content is easily mitigated by anybody being able to change any content at any time. I also said basically that any negative public image of the Wikipedia because of Essjay's actions would be understandable for those who don't understand the Wikipedia, but that it would also be undeserved. And I said that pretending to be something one is not is not limited to the Internet or in particular, the Wikipedia, and thus the onus should be on Essjay regarding his actions. I realize that this is in conflict with Essjay's many defenders here, but that is my position. Using false authority to get ahead is just plain wrong. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our project isn't welcome to cover Essjay controversy

This is the first time I've encountered this, but apparently, WikiProject Louisville isn't welcome to cover Essjay controversy, despite Essjay being from the Louisville area. At least two editors are acting in an unusual zealous manner to keep us out. Just thought I'd let everyone know. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll post the same response here that I did on the talk page of the Essjay article:

It's nothing personal, it's just that just because a person is from or living in Louisville doesn't make it particularly relevant / unique to Louisville. Let me put it this way, Essjay could have lived almost anywhere and this would likely have all still happened. Being in Louisville isn't a significant factor for this article.

Normally I don't take such strong positions on such minor issues, but lately the problem of overtagging is reaching critical mass. For example, see Template talk:WikiProjectBanners and Wikipedia:WikiProject reform. There is a misconception about projects as well as banners and when to use them, and although no one means any harm, there's still a problem.

So, again, it's nothing personal, and nothing to be offended about, but being willy-nilly with project scopes and tagging everything in sight doesn't help centralized collaboration. It's gotten to the point where it is harming how the community sees the concept of WikiProjects. -- Ned Scott 11:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that there are very few articles that have an issue with banners on their talk page. And this particular article didn't have a problem compared to, let's say, Abraham Lincoln. That article solved the "too many banners problem" by wrapping up the project banners into another tag so it didn't take up much real estate. There's no need for "reform", just smart technology.

Further, I absolutely disagree that Essjay controversy isn't Louisville-related. It doesn't matter one whit whether this person or controversy is unique to Louisville -- the fact is that the subject of the article is from Louisville. That is enough for inclusion in this project.

Last, I don't take any of this personally. But this does constitute a brutal attack on WikiProject coverage. And I think it's dead wrong. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"The reality is that there are very few articles that have an issue with banners on their talk page" You may wish to read Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 19#Template:WikiProjectBanners.

It is not a brutal attack, at all. There's nothing stopping anyone from editing the article, and it certainly has a lot of coverage. Unlike many other projects, there's nothing about this one that particularly helps the article other than throwing in yet another talk page. Some WikiProjects cover common formatting styles, templates, or include an area of expertise. Ask yourself, how does this project and it's article scope help other than breaking articles down in yet another possible grouping. I could see the logic for more Louisville specific things, but not for anyone and everyone who was born or lives in Louisville.

You're forgetting the core reasons we have WikiProjects and why we tag talk pages. This is not about making claims to articles, this is about improving articles. Is it Louisville-related? Maybe. Does this WikiProject bring anything to the table of Essjay controversy? No. Overtagging is giving many Wikipedians the wrong idea about our projects, and that needs to stop. -- Ned Scott 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten anything. Your characterization of my position is exactly wrong -- it's not about claiming, it's about coverage, and you have no basis to conclude that this project cannot contribute positively to the article's development. We obviously have different viewpoints on what projects should be doing. It is not your position, nor anybody else's outside of the membership of this project, to reject this project's coverage of any article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"It is not your position, nor anybody else's outside of the membership of this project, to reject this project's coverage of any article." OK, that is a big red flag right there. WikiProjects are open to everyone, and no one gets excluded just because they don't list themselves as a "member". I have just as much say in the matter as you do. The last thing WikiProjects should be used as is an "us vs them" argument. -- Ned Scott 20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProjects are open to everyone who joins them. Nobody is excluded. If you join, then you get a say. Please don't play this "red flag" game. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No.. that's incorrect. You do not have to "join" a project in order to join in discussion or be involved. A list of participants is more to show the activity of a project as well as helping participants find each other (for news, collaboration efforts, notices, etc). In the past we've used the word "membership" a lot, but if you look we've been trying to switch projects over to saying "participants" to help avoid this very misconception. -- Ned Scott 20:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no distinction between 'member' and 'participant'. Of course, anyone is welcome to edit any article covered (not claimed) by this project. But to have a say in project matters one needs to join. If you want to disagree with this, fine, but I'm not the only person in the Wikipedia who will take this position. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"But to have a say in project matters one needs to join." That is not how Wikipedia works, and couldn't be more wrong. -- Ned Scott 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Kicking out coverage by a project couldn't be more wrong. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets say I come in and say "hey, this project shouldn't cover articles about toasters", would that be wrong? There's nothing wrong about not covering an article that doesn't need to be categorized in this way, especially by a project that will not likely be of any use to it. Nothing is stopping you from editing the article or talking about it on the WikiProject. You do not own this WikiProject, you do not get any more say in it that anyone else does. Stop being so offended and actually think about the situation. Don't jump to conclusions and get so defensive right away. -- Ned Scott 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, now this is drifting into nonsense. It's clear that this project should _cover_ Essjay controversy, but individuals with ownership issues regarding this article is preventing that. There's no basis for excluding this project. None. Very simple. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall others on Talk:Essjay controversy coming to the same or similar conclusions as I did. I don't have any article ownership issues with that article, as I have yet to edit any of the article content (I've moved the page and joined in talk page discussion, that's about it).

I'm probably going about this as a real asshole, and I'm sorry if I am, but I can't find any other way to explain it to you. You do not need to join a WikiProject, first, just to discuss changes to the project itself. You do not need to include all possible people born or raised in a place for a geographical WikiProject. There is a big problem with over-tagging and needless tagging. (Not all projects even use banners, or use them but not on all articles.)

The article is about the situation that happened, and it's pretty clear that this is no longer a normal bio article. A city-defined WikiProject scope should be about places, people, and things with strong connections to that city. Essjay simply being there is not enough. The actual "controversy" was on the Internet, for crying out loud. -- Ned Scott 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kentuckiana Blues Society

Thanks to all for the comments and suggestions to our Wikipedia page. I'm new so give me some time to get this right. Any suggestions are welcomed. Samstudebaker 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)