Talk:Cincinnati, Ohio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cincinnati, Ohio article.
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. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

Cincinnati, Ohio is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

February 18, 2008

Featured article candidate

Not promoted

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Ohio (Rated B-Class)

Ohio Portal

Cincinnati, Ohio is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Neighborhoods

There is a List_of_Cincinnati_neighborhoods, with appropriate wiki links, as well as a category for Cincinnati_neighborhoods. Surely we don't need to list every neighborhoor in this article as well. Please let me know if I am mistaken. Pzavon 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This section is no longer in existance. Borg Sphere (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

Deleted flags as per this diff, this article WP:FLAGS, this debate, and this admin. One down, umpteen thousand to go. Pedro | Talk 21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law Enforcement and Crime?

As a visitor to Cincinnati several times over the years to visit family and friends, I wonder if this topic is necessary. Having lived in a few of the country's largest cities (San Antonio, St. Louis, Oakland, and Atlanta), surely race relations cannot be that much more escalated than other comperably-sized towns. Race relations of any ethnicity can appear particularly strained with unfortunate incidents, especially by those who choose to incite the anxiety or violence (i.e.: L.A. riots). Don't get me wrong - there's plenty of blame to go around with how we relate to each other - That's the general ambience around the entire United States. It's something we all need to keep working on (inside AND outside of the U.S.). But when it comes to Cincinnati, I'm just not hearing, reading, or witnessing any of the difficuties stressed in the tone of this article. Civil disorder can erupt everywhere there is injustice...and is sometimes necessary. It's simply unfortunate to cast a shadow over an entire city and its rich history because of concerns and problems that occur in most every major city.

As a lifelong resident, I must agree... it's not great here, but there's also a lot more intermingling than people think, especially outside downtown. It's just the 2001 riots downtown that skewed everything.--kubfann 03:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. This article seems unnecessary. This is a snapshot critique. Many factors lead to actions that both citizens and police take. It's terribly unfortunate, but really, a nationwide problem.

[edit] Top picture

Is there anyone else how thinks the opening picture needs to be replaced or at least cropped? Angry Aspie 18:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with it. Pzavon 02:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I believe it should include the few buildings in Northern Kentucky-- as it is part of the urban core. Lanskeith17 05:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel that the picture is particularly ugly and doesn't represent the beauty of the River or region. Also, some of the development in Covington, Ky SHOULD be included in the photograph, as one day there will be twin cities sitting on the Ohio River. Hell, Covington and Kentucky development is partially-responsible for the breath of new life Cincinnati is experiencing and could at least been seen. TomFitzGerald 22:00, 16 August 2007

[edit] Census Data

When I go to the cited links for census data I don't find the numbers on the page. The numbers need to be fixed. pw 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, this is kind of messed up here because it says "As of 2007, Cincinnati's population was 368,868?" Where did this information come from. If you take a look on the census list for 2006 at the web link here[1], It shows that Cincinnati's population is 332,252.--OHWiki 23:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I updated the census data for 2006 along with references.--OHWiki 02:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. pw 02:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The population density doesn't match up at all with the square miles and population of the city. With the numbers that are currently listed, the population density would be 4174 people/sq. mi. After looking at the other comments for this section I'm quickly losing faith in the data provided here. 74.128.151.154 (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enquirer cites / links

The enquirer archives older articles to this website. A few of the links on here didn't work anymore, and the cites did not contain the article titles or any way of finding them. I'm going to try the Wayback Machine to see if I can find more info on them. But please, in the future, use proper citation methods for enquirer articles and include titles and other info to be able to find the article (see Template:Cite news or Template:Cite web). pw 14:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

One other thing on the archived enquirer articles, they are not free to view. I'm not sure how this is typically handled, but if you use a proper news cite it would be easy enough to get them at the library, so thats probably the best method. pw 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Enquirer has a robots.txt file that excludes the site from the Wayback Machine. Articles from before their latest redesign are generally still online. For anything newer than that, PLCH patrons have free access to NewsBank. [2] NewsBank usually lists a direct-access URL at the end of each article, so you can replace the enquirer.com URL with that. This assumes the citation here included the title and date of the article; otherwise you won't be able to find the article on NewsBank. If you're not a member of NewsBank, just send me a list of the citations you need updates for, and I'll try to figure them out. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 22:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niknames (again)

User 199.173.226.236 seems to insist that both "Queen City" and "City of Seven Hills" be included as niknames in the infobox for this article. I disagree and will be reverting that change again. The Seven Hills nikname is "controversial" because the city now has many more than seven hills (see the voluminous discussion on that point on the discussion page). I would also suggest that "Queen City" has the highest profile among the niknames. Therefore it should be the one listed in the infobox. If we list two there, why not three, four or twenty? Seven Hills and others are addressed in the Niknames section, so it is not being ignored. Pzavon 00:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MAJOR CHANGES

I was going to make major changes on the page by updating the words used in the articles to be more up to date and appealing, and add and change picturtes of buildings. I also was going to combine such pages as fountain square and create a chart listing all the sports.The last time I tried this it was all set back the way it was before I did it,is there a way to make a major change permanet. Please tell me and if possible email me. comment added by Meckstroth.Jm 07 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said before I am going to make the page more appealing. Please see Boston's page I want it to kind of resemble that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meckstroth.jm (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to take out the nicknames section and eventually(very soon) create a seperate page for it- (Meckstroth.jm 12:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

In response to all of Meckstroth's changes: I'm concerned about the vast scope of the changes, made without prior discussion on the talk page. I'm not trying to say that I own the page, or that these changes are altogether unacceptable: it's simply that there are so many of them, and they are so significant, that they should be discussed here and have time for discussion first. Nyttend 15:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the changes included removal of cited statements, the inclusion of possible copyright-vio images, and the mass mergings of the article. I would appreciate for a discussion on the proposed changes to occur first, so that there is ample time to comment and/or review the changes. Meckstroth, your contributions are very much welcome but please slow down :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Discuss changing something back before doing so I worked hard to condese it making it easier to read!!!!!!!!!!(Meckstroth.jm 17:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You also removed much sourced information. What is "RRR"? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You should discuss changes before you make them. You took out the bulk of the article. The parts you took out were the needed parts. Cincinnati is not Boston (citing something you said above) so they shouldn't have identical pages.--Cincydude55 18:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing Meckstroth's edits, he split off Sister Cities into its own separate page -- which by itself is not notable and the seperate page only adds a click that is not needed. He also removed the entire Nicknames section because Boston does not have one. He also removed data on Race Relations and some crime statistics, replaced images with ones he thought he saw fit, uploaded a possible image vio, and made other cosmetic changes. Drastic edits like this are not always welcome -- especially when they involve mass content deletions that feature citations that are linked elsewhere in the page. It's always nice to be bold, but let's not go overboard. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to make it identical to boston's. I just saw boston(and others, new york city to name one) was a featured article so I wanted to make some things like it.I took away the nicknames part to eventually after I finish a rough draft make an extended nickname page and put the link in "see also". This would make the article smaller. I agree it was stupid to tae out the sister cities. Yet I didn't put in images that I saw fit I updated them. The fountain image is of the new square and its more colorful. I am just trying to make the article more appealing so that one day it can be a featured article! Somethings you guys never did is make revisions, in many sections of the article you had the same thing twice. In Demographics with the charts, and in media you have a list of movies but you also had another section for movies. Many sections were the same or similar and should havce been combined. It was boring to read,I added colorful pictures to make it more fun. Sorry if I am only being mean I just love cincy I love, everything about it.Meckstroth.jm 00:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments, as described by others on your Talk page. I also support the idea that you should discuss major changes here before making them. That's probably why you work was reverted before. Pzavon 00:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry from now on I will discuis(spelled wrong) major changes just read the whole article please and see that I didn't take anything ot I combined articles. What are major changes' exactly? does it include changing a few words or a picture'?Meckstroth.jm 00:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it is a photograph, generally a comment in the edit summary can be left why the image needs to be replaced. For most times, however, a second image can be added with no consequence. If it is major shifts, such as moving Crime elsewhere, and etc., then a discussion should be started on the proposed changes so that it can be agreed upon or tweaked a bit. Since you were moving the nicknames to another section later on, it might be best to leave it on for the time being, and move it when it is appropriate (rather than have the lag, where some might assume (such as myself initially) that you deleted it outright). Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can change the weather table back to the more colorful one I had made? Meckstroth.jm 20:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You could, but it's not as precise. If your source gives information no more precise than what your table has, it would be better to have the current, less colourful version. Nyttend 22:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Meckstroth.jm, one thing you could try is to create a draft version of your changes at User:Meckstroth.jm/Cincinnati, Ohio. That way you can solicit opinions before making merging it with the main copy. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

It seems to me the "external links" section is getting a bit carried away. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago#External_links This section should probably be heavily pruned or at least sorted into sub-categories. What is the policy regarding the purpose of an external links section of an article for a city? DaveMenninger 19:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Culled the links that violate WP:EL or were more appropriate for the sub-pages (e.g. a link regarding race relations should really be cited as a source, rather than as an external link; a link about the Cincinnati Enquirer should be on the Cincinnati Enquirer page). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] infobox nicknames

Someone is using Wikipedia to try to promote the use of the name Nati as a nickname for Cincinnati. Attempts to delete this false information has been unsuccessful. Attempts to clarify have not been successful. The term 'Nati is not used in Cincinnati. Not by the media, not by businesses nor residents. Indeed, a Google search finds no reference to the term Nati as a Cincinnati nickname [3]

Please allow a deletion of this non-existent reference to Cincinnati. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piedmontatl (talk • contribs) 17:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Que-Can asserts that "Cincy" is a nickname while I assert that it is an abbreviation. I believe it to be an abbreviation followoing a vatiaito of the rule for abbreviating that calls for retention of beginning and ending letters, while removing the center. The beginning of the name is "Cinc" the endy of the name is "i" not "y" but the sound of "y" in "cincy" is the same as the sound of an "i" and the net result is readilly pronouncable.

In any case, I don't thing this article needs a list of nicknames in the infobox. If Cincy, why not others? The "Queen City" is probably the primary nickname for Cincinnati and is NOT derived form it. I think the fact that it is not derived from the name makes it more clearly a nickname.

I invite discussion here, but will again remove 'Cincy" as a nickname in the meantime. Pzavon 02:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please indent your replies, condense them (to the OP).

In reply: Using a general Google query does not constitute a reliable source nor one that can be verified. Citation has been given regarding the nicknames that link to credible sources. Perhaps Piedmontatl was doing a poor Google query, because my results produced plenty of newspapers, blogs, web-sites, etc. using the term "Nati" as a nickname to Cincinnati. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the text, the "nati" is not credibly sourced, unlike the other citations. I'll do an Access World News search tonight and plug one in. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at your Google inquiry, using the search term Cincinnati Nati, and most of the results are simply a duplication a of the word CincinNATI. As far as blogs and other websites are concerned, there is a blog called "the Nati," but that hardly gives credence to the term as an emerging nickname for the city. Indeed, Technorati does not even recognize the blog in its top searches, if at all.

No business, no retailer and the mainstream media does not use the term either. The term "The Nati" as a nickname is not used in Cincinnati, and is the product of a little-known blog, and should be removed from Wikipedia page. Piedmontatl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piedmontatl (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

At least in the Greater Cincinnati area, "the 'Nati" is primarily known in association with the Don't Trash the 'Nati anti-litter campaign, which was advertised extensively a few years back. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I made some sections;sub-sections its own section to make the box at the top a little smaller so it was not taking up unneeded & unwanted room. This also made it easier to navigate. --Meckstroth.jm 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Like the new page setup it is alot easier to navigate,but I think we still need to add some newer pictures the city seal picture looks bad you can harly see it.I added a new picture for the skyline, it makes it look nicer and shows off the river,which is a big part of cincinnati's heritage--208.102.116.51 10:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I took off the nicknames section and made it is own page, putting the link in see also.I did this because it could be greatley expanded but because we already ave a nickname area in the infobox this section is really just taking up room in the form it is now in --Meckstroth.jm 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Octoberfest

We need to find a new Oktoberfest picture the one that is in use know shows the old fountain square so its extremely out dated and its to dark we need a brighter more colorful picture. --Meckstroth.jm 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:120px-Cincinnatiseal.jpg

Image:120px-Cincinnatiseal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:235647213 58b30f0ff2 m.jpg

Image:235647213 58b30f0ff2 m.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move suggestion

Move to Cincinnati. The link to Cincinnati (disambiguation) will remain. Reason for move.

This is commonly done with other large cities with relatively unique names see Chicago or York.
It's less wordy.

--T. Anthony (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not that long ago that this article was moved TO the current title from the simpler one being suggested. Personally, I prefer the stability and pattern consistency of leaving it the way it is. Exceptions only lead to confusion, in my opinion. Pzavon (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not advised under Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities#Article naming conventions, whereas article names shall be the common name of the city, followed by the state. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There use to be a nice looking photo of cincinnati at the top of this page. Who replaced it with the current hideous one and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.6.182 (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanksgiving Day Race

67.176.169.78 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I am no expert at editing Wikipedia, so I put this on the table for someone else to edit and correct. Under the initial heading of Cincinnati, the third paragraph states that the Thanksgiving Day Race is the "second oldest race in the country". Under the "Culture" heading, first paragraph, the race is listed as the sixth oldest. Not from Cincinnati, so I leave it to someone else to determine which is correct, and to edit.

[edit] Reds

As explained in the Cincinnati Reds article, the current club is not the 1860s Red Stockings. That club disbanded after 1870. Its best players regrouped in Boston in 1871, calling themselves the Boston Red Stockings. Another Reds team joined the National League in 1876 and was dropped after 1880. Still another Reds team joined the American Association in 1882, and rejoined the National League in 1890. That 1882 team is the origin of the current team. The Reds' team history on MLB.com refers to the original Red Stockings as part of the Cincinnati heritage, but does not explicitly state that they are the same actual team; which they can't, because they aren't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Yes it is; No it isn't" won't work here.

The absence of entries for a period in a timeline, such as you describe, does not support or refute your assertion. It is merely a timeline with no entry for that period. Your claim is contrary to broad popular understanding and therefore it is your responsibility to provide relevant, verifiable citations to support your position, not simply to tell others to "read history."

I see the timeline at MLB.com (not an easy thing to find when starting from the home page) reports the Reds expelled from the National League in 1880, but elsewhere the MLB.com site lists their "First Year" as 1882. That does not compute. Something certainly needs more explanation than has been available from the references you've provided so far. Pzavon (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The MLB.com site is not to be taken as a scholarly work. The current Reds first year was 1882. Cincinnati baseball had several false starts. Meanwhile, if you check the Braves history page on MLB.com, you'll see that they start by talking about their beginnings as the Boston Red Stockings, from the remnants of the Cincinnati Red Stockings, in 1871. Yet their timeline page on MLB.com doesn't begin until 1876, just because that's the year the National League was founded, replacing the National Association - but it was the same Boston team, just transferred to a different league (as with the Cubs, for example). Those remnants of the Cincinnati Red Stockings won the NA pennant for Boston in 1872-73-74-75 and were strong in the National League also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are still making assertions, when what you need to do is provide verifiable citations to references that will support your assertions. It is my understanding that scholarly works are not the only acceptable sources for citations in the Wikipedia, but you do need something that directly supports your asssertions. Pzavon (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted some new info on your page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As we had discussed, the fuller history of the Reds, as described in these links[4] [5][6][7] make it clear that the current Reds date from 1882, after several false starts. Also, Lee Allen's 1947 book about the Reds (of whom he was a lifelong fan) confirms that there were several separate teams prior to the current Reds' founding in 1882. Meanwhile, User:Cincydude55 has stated that the exhibits at the Reds own Hall of Fame confirm that the current team began in 1882. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've personally seen the exhibits myself and can verify that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Us-oh-ci.gif

Image:Us-oh-ci.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan Area Controversy

Despite how DESPERATE people in Cincinnati are to show that the city may have outlying suburbs that will be within a number of miles of Dayton's, the result will NOT be a metro area. At best, it will be a megalopolis. Not even a Combined Statistical Area, because it were, then Cleveland could not only claim Canton, but also Youngstown. If Cleveland adopted those cities (by utilizing the same standards that are being used by the DESPERATE people in Southwest Ohio who constantly edit the main article), then the metro area for Cleveland would be over five million people! You guys in Cincinnati need to realize that your region is FAR smaller than Northeast Ohio is. Stop desperately trying to claim Dayton as your own. It's not even close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.232.98 (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would highly agree with that and I am a Cincinnatian. For those of us who live down by the river, Dayton may as well be Columbus, Cleveland... whatever else up north. It's not a part of this town geographically or culturally. Truth be told you are right about the areas size- greater metro area stats that include counties outside Hamilton, Campbell, Kenton and Boone counties are an inaccurate representation of the cities size. In no ones mind who lives here are those counties part of Cincinnati as the actual city comes no where near them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.71.201.201 (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And, truth be told, Cincinnati has more in common (climatically, geolically, culturally, historically, etc) with Kentucky (and the extreme Upper South) than it does with Dayton, Ohio (mind you, there is a Dayton, Kentucky just across the Ohio River) or much of the rest of Ohio for that matter. I also am a Cincinnatian. Anyone who has spent time here or lives here would surely know what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.118 (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would very much agree with that. --KY6 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Those inside the beltways may feel distinctly "Cincinnatian" or "Daytonian" but those outside -- say in Warren County -- don't feel so DESPERATE about their identity. And certainly the Census Bureau doesn't; it looks at urbanization regardless of byzantine political boundaries and self-proclaimed identities. That's why Indiana and Kentucky counties are included. I also note that not a few of my co-workers make the hour drive from Montgomery County to Clermont County daily. Without any noticeable culture shock. Duke Ganote (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] advertisement for WCPO TV?

What is the value of having an image for WCPO TV? Why not another TV station? Why not Deja Vue strip clubs as it also provides entertainment to Cincinnati, I think?

My first impression would be to remove the image from the article. It is more suited to an article "Cincinnati Television Stations". BVande (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)