Talk:Lexington, Kentucky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lexington, Kentucky article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
To-do list for Lexington, Kentucky: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Complete the Economy of Lexington. I plan on covering briefly IBM's inclusion and some afterwards. Seicer (talk) (contribs)
  • Expand Historical structures and museums from a list to full text and possibly move to a seperate sub-page. Seicer (talk) (contribs)
  • Expand the History of Lexington. Surely some things must have happened between 1850 and 1935, and since 1935! Cmadler
  • Replace city flag image. Kycowboyntv
  • Add a new subsection to the Culture section to encompass notable music, music venues, local genres, and notable musicians from Lexington. Team4Technologies (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Archive
Archives
  1. 2005-December 2006


Contents

[edit] Deletion

I just deleted a portion of the second sentence in the article, where the article said Lexington is the second largest city in the state after Louisville and then went on to say that Louisville was the home of the Kentucky Derby. The way this was sentence was structured one could easily read it and think Lexington was the home of the Kentucky Derby. This interjection was by no means clear or necessary as the fact that Louisville is the home of the Kentucky Derby is not even mentioned until the end of the opening paragraph in Louisville's own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.81.190.232 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Demographic photo redux

Looks like User talk:74.140.187.112 has been initating the same edits of User talk:74.140.204.192, User talk:74.131.74.181 and user:Klettern. I opened up a case here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the deleting account repeatedly asked for a reason why the picture was there. None was ever given, and no attempt was made to actually address his argument... --Starwed 06:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure there was, in numerous arguments here (look in archives) and in the case cited above. It's too bad the opposing party never bothered to make any follow-ups. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Pretend I'm stupid then, because I can't see the counterargument anywhere in either the archives or the case, and state it explicitly here.  :) --Starwed 06:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The image has been on the article for a very long time. Previous attempts to remove it by user:Klettern, a single purpose account, failed with a consensus non-consensus. However, other editors have stepped in to revert the changes...
There has been no valid reason indicated why the image must be removed.
Just because one user (who had various IPs that was removing the same image) did not think the image was approperiate, does not grant them access or the right to outright delete it and cry foul. I repeatably went out of my way to ensure that the process was handled fairly -- through discussion, warnings on the IPuser and user page, and finally the mediation cabal. It's funny that the IPuser/user never commented on the image and the discussion was dead in the water pretty much. The case is now closed and another would need to be opened, if you wish to have the image removed again. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Per the deleting account repeatedly asked for a reason why the picture was there from your statement: Why must a reason be added when a user adds an image, if it is not wholly inappropriate? There were no debates regarding the image until the single purpose account went on the reverting spree. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just curious. Maybe I'm wondering why, despite repeated requests for a rationale, none was forthcoming... as the deleter noted, being present on a page doesn't imply that an image should be present. It seemed odd, and I assumed that if I posted a query here, someone would resolve my curiosity on the matter. I guess that won't be the case? --Starwed 12:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by the comment I made in the mediation case (which was never really addressed). Klettern gave two reasons for removing the image. One, I find to be silly (that by including this picture, we must include a picture of every church in town), but the other has some merit. What information does this picture's inclusion convey? While this is not necessarily grounds to remove the photo, it should at least give us pause. It's great to have images in an article, but it's even better if the images illustrate a key point. This photo seems to be here just for the sake of having an image; it might as well be a waterfall, a butterfly, or a sunset, because it has little to do with the article. Can't we find something better to put here? Cmadler 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was open to suggestions on what could go there. What would really be approperiate? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The beginning of the section discusses the metro area (MSA and CSA), this might be illustrated by an aerial/satellite photo.
  • A photo of the largest church in town.
  • A photo representative of the largest religion/denomination/sect in town (might be the same).
  • A photo of a church with historical or cultural signifigance to Lexington.
  • A chart or graph illustrating Lexington's historical population growth.
  • A chart or graph illustrating MSA or CSA population.
  • A chart or graph illustrating racial makeup, age distribution, or religious distribution.
These are just some quick ideas off the top of my head, I'm sure we can think of more. Whatever the picture is, it should have a caption which not only identifies it but explains the signifigance. Cmadler 19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I added the College of the Bible image that was already existing on Wikipedia for the historical/cultural significance. A chart or graph regarding the population of Lexington might work as well, but I'm not the best in creating the charts. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raven Run Nature Sanctuary

Wanted to do a fact check on a recent edit and found various sizes among sources you'd expect to have their facts straight:

claimed size:    source:
374 acres         Fayette County Public Schools Website
734 acres         Lexington–Fayette Urban County Government Website
3470 acres       University of Kentucky Website
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ancjr (talk • contribs) 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Within the last year or soRaven Run acquired additional land, and the school website mention was last updated in 2004. So it's probably the second one... --Starwed 06:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Kentucky

Should this article not be a part of it as well? Louisville is included, I believe Lexington should be as well. I would do it, but I'm new at it and don't want to make someone angry.Kyfan92 05:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as Louisville is included, not directly, but through WP:Louisville, so Lexington is included through WP:WPBR Cmadler 15:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wikiproject Kentucky was replaced with one that is more specific a while back. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that..I thought I saw that Louisville had a WP Kentucky tack on it a few days agoKyfan92 00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry. Had you done it, I would have ripped your tongue out and went apeshit on you :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References?!?!?

...this article need them, bad. Anyone know of a good place to get some? I can to the W.T.Young Library at some point, they're bound to have a lot. A good website would nice for after-hours work though. -- John Reaves 03:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)