Talk:Cumberland, Maryland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. Collaboration of the Week

These two weeks, United States is the US Collaboration of the Week.  (Shortcut: WP:USCOTW  +/-)

Help select the next USCOTW now! Nominate an article you think needs improvement or vote for one of the candidates here.

All Welcome to comment!! Place your Comments About The Cumberland, MD Wiki by click the edit tab above and typing your message below:

/archives

/archive 1


Contents

[edit] Radio Stations

To help with the links, I am going to make pages for the area radio stations. If you would like to help, please PM me on talk page.

Rock on....SVRTVDude 13:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neighborhood section content

Ok, I think the best way to solve the debate about the lists is to simply expand the sections by adding content. I have started by adding content about the city's neighborhoods. I am going to try to do a couple of them a day and then move on to other sections. Everyone is encouraged to expand and edit this content as they see fit. A couple of things to consider.

1. I am not sure whether to include the areas of Rolling Mill and Little Egypt in the South End section, or to give them their own section.

2. I don't know how to cite sources using wiki-code. The sources I am getting my information from include the City's 2005 Comprehensive Plan, and a survey of Cumberland's neighborhoods I got back in the late 1990s (I think I have a copy at home, I will find it and add the name here soon). Can anyone teach me how to cite the sources properly?


Lasersnake 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work! - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just added the last of the 4 major neighborhoods. I am now going to go back and start citing my sources. For reference they are the city's Comprehensive Plan and the 1999 Canal Place Historic Survey.
Lasersnake 18:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to Cite References

find the place in the document where you want to add a reference and insert these special tags:

  • first reference to a source: <ref name="your_tag_name">insert citation test here here</ref>
  • second reference, same source: <ref name="your_tag_name"/>

Example:

Imagine that this wiki paragraph needs a citation to appease the wiki gods. in order to add a citation to this text of information you need to add the above tags to the end of this wiki paragraph. <ref name="john_smith"> John Smith, ''How to Cite References'', Acme Publishers, Copyright 2007, pages 101-102</ref>

now suppose later you need to insert the same reference, but don't want to repeat the same long citation again. in this same you do the following, noting the end '/' character. [1].

Alleganywiki 10:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cumberland Portal

try out the new portal: Portal:Cumberland, Maryland

Potomacbase 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks great!Lasersnake 12:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the banner advertising the portal at the top of the article does not look good. I don't recall seeing a banner like that at the top of another article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't either, but I think it looks good and makes the portal banner easier to see. - NeutralHomer T:C 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with CambridgeBayWeather, it is a little excessive to have them in both locations, especially at the top like that. Metros 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, originally it was just at the top. User:CambridgeBayWeather moved it to the bottom, I added it back at the top (and left it at the bottom) so everyone would be happy and a new portal would be seen better. I think, perhaps, it should remain at the top, just until the portal gets some visibility then moved to the bottom. - NeutralHomer T:C 16:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Neutralhomer...looks good for now.

[edit] Population stablization

I don't think it can be said that the population of the county has stablized in the last 17 years. The only reason the county population did not drop several thousand people from 1990-2000 was the "in-migration" of state and federal prisoners to NBCI and WMCI. These folks are counted in the census stats, check the demographic info for Cresaptown for evidence of this. Also, Cumberland has not gained any significant "sprawl" in the last 17 years. Sure, there are some luxary lots here and there on the mountain tops, but the total amount of them doesn't explain the continuing drop in population. If you have any references to back up your ideas, feel free to repost the data. Lasersnake 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find out... the average is a lost of about 15 people a month from 1990 to 2005...

[edit] Nearby cities and towns

The nearby cities and towns is excessive in my opinion. Is there any suggestions on how to pare this down? Is it really necessary to list all the towns like it does now? My suggestion is this: leave anything within 10 or 15 miles and then particularly notable cities like Frederick, Hagerstown, Baltimore, etc. Any thoughts? Metros 03:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The change to 3 columns seems like a good compromise. If you consider that the area is very spread out, I would set the bounds closer to 30 miles given the area's lower urban population density and excellent roads. Also, the area is geographically isolated by mountains and valleys from the rest of the state which is relatively flat, for this reason I am inclined to include these towns, many of them occupying the same valley as Cumberland and Frostburg.
I agree that this should be shorter - I'll follow the above recommendation and removed everything over 30 miles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cumberland browser bar

Why is the template:Cumberland browser bar shown at the top of the article when it's already included at the bottom? The dark blue bar is distracting and I've never seen anything like it in other articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It was originally only at the top, not the bottom. Another user added it to both top and bottom and since the Cumberland Portal is a very new portal and the Cumberland article is as big as it is, putting the browser bar all the way at the bottom would cause no one to see the Cumberland Portal and with it at the top, it lets the user see it immediately. I don't think the everyday user makes it to the bottom of the Cumberland page.
So, a comprimise was made and the portal bar was added to both the top and bottom. - NeutralHomer T:C 21:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles are long. For example, World War II or Los Angeles, California. But we don't make exceptions for those by placing the templates at the top. Can you find another article that serves as a precedent? If the article is too long for folks to read perhaps the best solution would be to split off some material to new articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess a few thought to do that before my Wikipedia time, but it was decided not to (I am not sure of the whole story, again before my WikiTime). I wouldn't know where to find another article, but the best way to set a precedent, is to start one. Personally, I think the bar at the top does it's job quite well. I would have used a less bold color, but User:Potomacbase (who made the Cumberland Portal and updates the page regularly) did a pretty good job.
But, I digress, I think we should start a precedent by leaving it as is, as it has been since mid-May of this year. - NeutralHomer T:C 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Six weeks is hardly enough time to set in stone an unusual formatting choice. If the portal bar has to be at the top because the article is too long, then let's address that root problem. Looking over the article, I see it has a very long history section. The article would be more readable if we split that out and left only a short summary. Tourism is an odd section that might be better split out to something like "Landmarks of Cumberland, Maryland" (note that WP is not a travel guide). It appears that a few editors who are passionate about this topic have created a very large amount of material on this small city. That's great, but we should still follow Wikipedia norms. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say Cumberland is a small city. I live in a city which is about the same size and with the same population, trust me, it ain't small. But, I am not ready to move any sections or remove any parts of the Cumberland page. People worked REALLY hard on it and I think it is one of the more well written articles on Wikipedia and not just because I helped write a small section of it (the media section).
That reason and the portal bar situation, is why we reached a "happy medium" and left two portal bars on the page. I personally think it works well and no one gets huffy if any sections are wiped out or moved. - NeutralHomer T:C 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking back earlier on this page to #Cumberland Portal I see that there has been at least one other comment about the bar being at top, and you proposed leaving it there temporarily, "just until the portal gets some visibility". There's no way of knowing whether the portal has gained any visibility, but it's been there long enough to gain another complaint (my own). There's no guideline and no precedent for having such a bar at the top of the article.
Regarding the population of the city and the length of the article, we say that the city has a population of fewer than 22,000 people. The article is 96k in length. By comparison, Los Angeles has a population of over 3.8 million people, and its article is only 72k in length. The history of that city was split out to keep the main article short enough to be readable. Since you've admitted the article is too long to be readable by the average reader (and I agree), we should fix that. The history and torism sections are over half of the entire article, so they seems like good candidates for splitting out. Can you suggest a better way of shortening the article? Remember, splitting out doesn't delete any material from Wikipedia, it just serves to keep the individual articles compact and readable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't suggest a better way, but I could suggest that you talk to User:Potomacbase. The Cumberland article is his "baby", and he would have better ideas for it than I would (I think he lives in Cumberland or near there).
If it could be divided like User:Potomacbase did with Portal, like a page for Tourism, a page for History, a page for this, a page for that...and all the sections hold all their currect information, I think that would work. The media section (the part I updated) is fairly small, so that could stay within (I guess:)). But, I would talk with User:Potomacbase and see if he has any ideas and thoughts on it since he puts in alot of time on the article and may have better suggestions than mine. Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 00:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I've left a note on that user's talk page asking for his input. The history section already has an intro that would be sufficient for a summary, so we can just leave that part in. The tourism section is more ocmplicated, because it's made up of long descriptions of events and places. The nearby events and places should be removed outright, or moved to one of the regional articles, like Cumberland, MD-WV MSA, and replaced with only the briefest of mentions. I realize that Cumberland is part of a region, but this article is just about the city. Some of the events seem trivial, like a regular jam session at a bar. I'm sure with a bit of regular editing sense we can make this article readable again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If we can mention the events with like a sentence on this page and then on Cumberland, MD-WV MSA have a full discription as they are here, with a WikiLink to connect them, then that would be great.
The only problem with Cumberland is that some events and some places are in nearby La Vale, Maryland, which is literally 1/2 a mile from Cumberland, if that. So, that might be a little tricky, but if we can use the Cumberland, MD-WV MSA page for full discriptions and slight mentions on the Cumberland page with a WikiLink connection, then I don't see many problems. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The exact same issue comes up with every city article, especially those with significant suburbs. Some things are so important regionally that it's natural to list them with the largest city, even if not quite contained there. The Cumberland Bone Cave might qualify. However there's no legitimate reason to say here who the cable provider is in neighboring communities, especially since that information isn't even in the articles on those towns. Now that I've done some looking around I can also report that the history section has some problems with copyvios or plagiarism. I'd suggest those be deferred until the material is transferred, but we could handle it now. It may be shorter after it's been reviewed carefully. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It's been a while, with no response from Potomacbase or other accounts that have edited this article. Our options are to delete the entire history on account of it being copied and replace it with a short synopsis and a link, or to only delete the portion which is a copyright violation and then to move the remaining material to a history article. I'm inclined towards the former, but it's a shame to see the article decimated like that. Is anyone up for writing a new history from scratch? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I can fix it. which parts do you think need to be rewritten? much of this information is from copyright expired books written in the 1800's or is public domain information published by the government.
splitting the article sounds ok to me. However, its more work than I'm interested in at the moment. So I leave it to somebody else. Probably the browser bar should be updated to point to the split peices of the main article rather than categories, then the new articles for each split peice should point to the corresponding sub-category. Potomacbase 15:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I realize this article is more of an article on the Cumberland Metropolian Area. It started out as an article on Cumberland, Maryland and then it slowly evolved into an article on the Cumberland Metropolian Area. The reason for doing this was because I wanted to put the information together to more accurately reflect the city. If you split the information up into smaller regions, there just isn't enough population in those regions for it to make sense. For instance, there's an airport directly next to Cumberland in Wiley Ford, WV, that isn't technically in Cumberland, but it would be an error not to mention it in an article on Cumberland. Wiley Ford is a small community of only 1,000 people that is directly adjacent to Cumberland. La Vale is a similar community with a population of 4,613 that is also directly adjacent to the city. Its a little bit silly to say is 1/2 mile away (really its 1/2 mile from center-to-center)

Cumberland is really a much larger metropolitian area that is split and divided into smaller communities by mountain ridges, valley, creeks, and rivers and that's what i was trying to reflect. I suppose it would be more accurate to call that a Metropolian Area and I was attempting to move the content to that page, but it seemed like it would unnecessarily duplicate information and would be harder to maintain.

This is very muddled. Every large city has the same problem but there's no easy answer and individual topics have to be handled case-by-case. In some topics, there's severe duplication. For example, there are descriptions of Lover's Leap in many articles. In other areas, it isn't clear why distant topics are being included, for example the Avalon's Annual Music and Arts Festival isn't mentioned in our article on its host city of Paw Paw, which itself isn't even in the Cumberland MSA. I propose that we move the bulk of non-City of Cumberland material to a regional article, or to the articles on the places themselves. We can supplement that by simply listing tourist attractions, etc., that have their own articles.
Also, I went ahead and moved the "history " and "Timeline" sections to a new article, History of Cumberland, Maryland. We should write a paragraph or two summarizing the material. Some references may need to be adjusted too. We still need to decide how to handle the copyvio material. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the history material, an editor asked for it to remain intact. For it to remain intact we'd need to get a free use license from the copyright holder of the city report. That would either be the city, or the consultant who prepared it. We have a standard letter requesting a release of copyright, which would have to then be handled by the Wikimedia foundation. I can look up a link to the procedure, it's not as hard as it sounds. Or we can re-write the material. The status quo is not acceptable though. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the regional issues, we should define what "Cumberland, MD-WV-PA" is. It appears to be larger than the Cumberland, MD-WV MSA, but I don't see where it is defined. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spammy portal bar

The bar violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and Wikipedia:Spam and needs to go now. It is nothing more than an advertisng banner and should not be at the top of the page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be if it actually violated any of those rules. But what bothers me more is that people are more concerned over a bar for a portal than actually editing or improving the article. The bar remains as it is not referencing a person (ie: self) and is not "spam" of any kind. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out on your talk page you said that it would be there for a while. Also if you look at Wikipedia:Avoid self-references#Community and website feature references you will see whaat I mean about self-references. The removal of the bar will improve the article and that's also why I want it off. It distracts the reader. This is supposed to be about "Cumberland" and not a link to the portal. This article should be like others and have the portal link near the bottom. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the portal is about Cumberland, which is what the article is about, it is not spam nor advertising. As I said on your talk page, your link has nothing to do with the bar. It is not distracting. Take it up with User:Potomacbase as both the Cumberland article and the Cumberland portal are his "baby" and get his opinion. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you read this sentence "Unless substantially part of the article topic, do not refer to the fact that the page can be edited or any Wikipedia project page or process, specialized Wikipedia jargon (e.g. "POV" in place of "biased"), or any MediaWiki interface link in the sidebar or along the top of the screen." As to having User:Potomacbase comment that's fine but any editor can comment and the fact that they created the portal does not give them ownership rights over an article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The portal bar is a topic of repeated complaints because it is the first thing a reader sees, and because it is a non-standard placement. I asked Potomacbase weeks ago to respond to my concerns and he's never responded. These articles are not "his babies", they belong to all of Wikipedia. In the discussion that Neutralhomer and I had previously we both agreed the article is too long, and we can see above the discussion about how to shorten it. I expect that once we move the history material out we'll have a short enough article that readers will be able to find the portal bar at the bottom of the page, where it belongs. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is about Cumberland, Maryland. The portal is about Cumberland, Maryland. That means, according the quoted sentence, this would be "substantially part of the article topic". Hence, making your quoted link moot. Also, I never said anything about User:Potomacbase having "ownership rights" over anything. You are putting words "in my mouth" and that is not what I said at all. I said the articles where his "baby"....meaning he puts ALOT of time into them and would have more of an opinion than I would. But since your link is moot, the point is moot. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
--edit-- OK, now, if you are going to do that, than that works. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Question, wouldn't this cut the history article off from it's references? - NeutralHomer T:C 00:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
No because any references could be copied accross as well. It's been done before. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

When you use the phrase "his babies" it sets up a particular thought process that leads to the impression of ownership. You would be better off using a more neutral phrase. A portal is not "substantially part of the article topic" It's a way to "promote content and encourage contribution", see Wikipedia:Portal thus it violates the "self-reference". As to moving stuff out please look at Wikipedia:Article size, it's standard to move stuff into their own article and in no way is it saying that the information is not valid. In fct it's saying that the information is of a quality and length to warrent it's own article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding length, the history section was over 32k, the size at which the length warning used to appear. So it's a long article all by itself. Many cities, large and small, have history articles, see Category:Histories of cities in the United States. We may want to split out other long material. The typical kinds of topics that get standalone articles are in Category:Categories by city.
Regarding "babies", see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I could have phrased "babies" better and but I said nothing about ownership, so Will please don't quote me WP:OWN again. I said nothing about ownership, meant nothing about ownership...you took it that way, you put those words there, not me.
Breaking some of the sections off is fine, as long as they stay intact. That is what I am worried most about. - NeutralHomer T:C 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't seen it, forgive me the ownership guideline was already linked. Regarding intactness, see my comments on that under#Cumberland browser bar. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. I used that term because he works ALOT on these articles (I think he is from the area, since he knows so much about Cumberland, but I could be wrong). I always ask User:Potomacbase before making changes, because I am not sure what information he has on them or letters of permission he might have.
As for rewriting the history section, that would fine, but ask User:Potomacbase first, he may already have that letter of permission on file with Wikimedia. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I've now split out Media in Cumberland, MD-WV-PA, Tourism in Cumberland, Maryland, and History of Cumberland, Maryland, as well as moving some regional material to Cumberland, MD-WV MSA. The article is now a relatively compact 42k. Per below, I expect the neighborhood info to be shortened as well. By that point we'll have a nice, compact, readable article. Even without that I think we've shortened the article enough that we don't need the second copy of the portal template anymore. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
moved comment

OK, this is what I was worried about. You are getting a little delete happy. If you are going to delete entire sections (moving them not included), I am going to have to ask that you discuss it first on the talk page and wait for a response. I don't mind moving articles or changing things around, but deleting entire articles and not adding anything in it's place, that is not improving the article. - NeutralHomer T:C 10:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've deleted anything (except for a few little things here and there). We've been talking about moving this out for weeks. You suggested splitting the media material. This is a work in progress. Let's just keep the overall length down, and try to focus on the city itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

[edit] Neighborhoods and surrounding areas

Am I correct that the "Neighborhoods and surrounding areas" section is all original research? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it original research, no. It is a detailed discription of neighborhoods in Cumberland. - NeutralHomer T:C 10:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Based on what sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't and I looked. Ask User:Potomacbase, since he added those entries, he could probably tell you where he got it from. But since you haven't asked him at all on anything, I doubt you will. - NeutralHomer T:C 10:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection. I posted a question asking for sources for this material, and you seem to be saying that I need to post a question asking for sources. I also posted a "sources needed" tag on the material. Aside from firing off a flare gun I don't know what else to do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Aha, looking back up the page, to "#Neighborhood section content", apparently at least some of the material was added by "user:Lasersnake. I'm not sure if that's different from user:Potomacbase; they may be the same. Anyway, he says that he got the info from city sources.[1] (He also said he was going to add the refs, but he never did.) Lasersnake's city report may be the same one we got the history material from. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I searched the city website and found the 2004 comprehenisve plan, but couldn't find any desscriptions of neighborhoods. I couldn't find the 1999 Canal Place plan. Until someone figures out the sources for these descriptions they're unsourced. If they remain unsourced the best thing may be to cut them down to just the boundaries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah guys, this is my fault. I got the neighborhood information from city's Comprehensive Plan and the 1999 Canal Place Historic Survey. The Comprehensive plan gives the details on such things as land use and the focus on rehabbing certain locations with intiatives like building condemnation and rehab tax credits. The Canal Plan lists some of the specific boundaries and history and arcitecture of the neighborhoods. I keep intending to come back and cite the sections properly, but to be honest it is more fun to create content than meticulously cite it. The instructions where given to me on how to do it and I will, I promise just don't take the content down a week or two to give me some time to do it right :) Then we can get rid of that ugly tagLasersnake 19:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'd almost given up hope. Sure we can wait a bit. BTW, there are simpler ways of citing references. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copying

I'll post this here, because it's come up repeatedly in articles related to Cumberland. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from other websites, except in the rare circumstance when the material is released explicitly into the public domain. Copyrighteed material will be deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What a mess!

  • sheeesssh, I really wish wikipedians would stick to areas they know well instead of hacking up articles they know nothing about.


[edit] "American" ancestry?

The fact that, under the Demographics header, 12.3 percent of Cumberland residents are listed as having American ancestry seems strange to me, borderline embarrassing. It's not sourced and so I have to wonder, what does having "American" ancestry mean? I can only assume it is synonymous with "Native American"? But that doesn't seem right to me. So, OK, some people identify themselves as Dutch and some as German, and so on, but what does "American" mean? Can we delete that? It looks pretty foolish. That said, if "American" ancestry is something identified from, say, the U.S. census, then I'll keep quiet and silence my objection. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.86.220 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)