Talk:Louisville, Kentucky/archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Nickname

"Satan's Foyer" 'is' an actual Louisville nickname in some circles. Evn ashe 01:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's really just hearsay and we could generate an infinite number of supposed actual nicknames that way. See our policy on verifiability, you'll need to cite a reliably published source saying that nickname is of some meaningful level of usage. --W.marsh 04:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Edit war: IP dude and Stevietheman, knock it off please. You keep changing the spelling of one of the nicknames back and forth, and I really can't see that it's making much of a difference. You're both way past the three-revert rule and might be at risk of getting blocked if you keep it up. Chill! Hersfold 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, hadn't you noticed this anon's vandalizing history? OK, instead of reverting, I will put a cite requirement on it, so it can be proved either way. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, it's strange that Hersfold did not bother to look up the IPusers vandalising history early-on. As a new user, I would suggest checking up on the user contributions for this vandal and 76.177.18.83. The latter has been blocked for a short time. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a Google search, and the Urban dictionary shows it as "Da Ville" without the apostrophe. Also, the vast majority of Google results using "da ville" Louisville -wikipedia don't include the apostrophe in the nickname. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seicer, for your information, I did notice the vandal templates on the IP's talk page; they were rather hard to miss. However, I find it strange that an experienced user such as yourself doesn't realize that an edit war is just as damaging to Wikipedia as simple vandalism. Stevie and IP going back and forth took up half a page in the history log, and all over a single apostrophe. All we have to show for our efforts now is a semi-protected article. Wikipedia has been criticized in the past for it's protection policies, and edit wars such as this one don't help that at all. I'm glad that this is over now, however, and hopefully we can all go back to making useful contributions. Hersfold 23:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If this was the first change by the anon, I would agree with you. I'm sad to say that, on this, you're off base. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. The IP user simply changed to a different address when blocked and continued to vandalise. I give no sympathy to vandals or those who support it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tallest buildings

Why doesn't Louisville's aritcle have a tallest buildings section like other similar sized cities.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.200.135 (talk • contribs)

  • Well, we do, it's just located on Downtown Louisville (I think it was originally here?) I didn't do the move but maybe it should be mentioned here, in abbreviated form. I have added a link to the downtown article in the sentence about tallest buildings, for the time being. Thanks for the comment. --W.marsh 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

12/01/2007

In light of the frequent reverts today I have (semi)protected this article. Please discuss the changes here first, thanks/wangi 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'Ville and Da Ville

I thought I'd open this up as a new discussion. I had thought that "The 'Ville" refers to U of L more than the city of Louisville. And I thought that "Da Ville" was the urban/rap slang used for the city. Hopefully, we can wring this out somehow. We could also decide not to place any slang nicknames in the infobox. Any thoughts? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, as I recall there were 69 print references for "The 'Ville" (some referring specifically to rap artists), just 2 for "Da Ville" (and one was a misspelling of Cadillac Coupe de Ville). Maybe the CJ just doens't like printing "Da" but I dunno, that's why I went with "The 'Ville". There just doesn't seem to be a tremendous deal in print at this point... no one's really done a study of the usage of the term as far as I know. --W.marsh 21:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

From 1974 to 1988, Jefferson County had a net loss of over 50,000 people.

Louisville's metro area is outgrowing Lexington's by a significant margin (about 4,100 a year, or 41,000 per census), and is growing nearly as fast as Cincinnati's metro area.

Both of these statements of fact need citations... and I fail to find any fact to back them up. Anyone?76.177.18.83 02:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I added a citation for the first... the second I couldn't find anything for in a cursory search. I'd support removing it if no one else can find one... re-add when we have a source. --W.marsh 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope we will give this several days before removal. It takes a while to do research on some of these things. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Be careful with statements such as "Most long-time residents pronounce the city's name as..." this is very subjective. I replaced "most" with "many"(maybe even "some" would be more appropriate). Statements of fact need citations.

Do you live in Louisville? If you did, you would know it's "most". Some facts are experiential in nature. Perhaps a reference will ultimately be found, but we cannot leave key information out when everyone who experiences Louisville knows it's true. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are many satements of fact throughout this entire article that seems to serve little purpose but to "puff up" this particular city for whatever reason... not very encyclopediac76.177.18.83 07:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on your prior vandalism and nonsense edits using two separate IP accounts, you really don't have much of a leg to stand on with regards to lecturing anyone as to what is encyclopedic. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks as if the IPvandal continues to strike; today at urban exploration, the IPvandal continued. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"I hope we will give this several days before removal. It takes a while to do research on some of these things." Isn't this backwards... shouldn't research be done BEFORE it's presented as fact in an article???76.177.18.83 08:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what the fact tag is there for. We assume good faith with reasonable-sounding content. It is fair to let it sit for a while to give editors time to find a reference. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Primate City?

"Many geographers consider Louisville to be Kentucky's primate city" again, uncited... can anyone cite this? "Many geographers"? Who? Where? Firstmost, the term primate city normally refers to cities within a country, not a state and secondly with Lexington being a hub of the state in many capacities one can certainly not view Louisville as "unrivaled"(per the wiki Primate City entry).76.177.18.83 08:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a typo in the Article, Louisville is the 26th largest city not the 27th.

See List of United States cities by population. According to the latest Census estimate, Louisville is #27. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pop Growth

"Between the 1990 Census and 2000 Census, Louisville's metro area population outgrew Lexington's by 149,415, and Cincinnati's by 23,278" I can't find this data anywhere... is there a cite? 76.177.18.83

The stats that these figures are based on are included in the metro area articles, and those stats are sourced. Simple math is allowable and is not original research.
Also, I would ask you to please stop this pattern of trying to de-feature this article via fact tag placement. It is not a welcome behavior. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steve 74.128.200.135 20:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steve 76.177.18.83 22:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steve M-BMor 03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

References

"Influenced by both Midwestern and Southern culture, Louisville is often referred to as the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city in the United States[citation needed]."

Actually, I'll agree with 76.177.18.83, there needs to be a citation for that. The wording, "often referred," needs to be verified. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I definently think this general issue should be addressed in the article... most non-Kentuckians I talk to eventually ask something along the lines of "So is Louisville in part of the south or the midwest or the north or what?" Personally I think it's history has a good deal in common with rust belt cities, although with some elements of southern culture, or at least emulation of it. At any rate, I did find this: "Louisville is one of the oldest river ports in the country, and also the northernmost Southern city of any size" (Seattle Times). Not sure if Seattle newspaper writers are really that great of a source for opinions on Louisville culture though. I would almost say scrap the disputed claim until we get it cited... the intro of an FA shouldn't have sentences with a {{fact}} tag. --W.marsh 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The closest I came to was in a Falcon guide but it was vague at best. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not opposed to finding a good reference for this, but I think it should be acknowledged that, based on the edit history of 76.177.18.83, he/she is performing Chinese water torture on this particular article.

Anyway, the Encyclopedia of Louisville says "Located at the top of the South, [Louisville] is separated by only one mile of water from the Midwest". I'm sure other references can easily be found for this. For Louisvillians, the sentence is obvious, and I would keep it as experiential fact, perhaps with slight rewording. But again, it shouldn't be that difficult to find references. I'd do it if I wasn't on wikibreak. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think that Louisville's mixed culture shouldn't be acknowledged just because the census bureau considers Kentucky Southern and thusly making Louisville a Southern city. The Northern most Southern city and the Southernmost Northern city is a commonly used term to describe Louisville (though I think of it as the Northern most Southern city) that doesn't really need a source when you think about it. Atanta is called magic city what fact are you going to use to prove that. Again I think it's just a silly citation. 74.128.200.135 01:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just provided two citations for the article - one from an article in the Journal of Economic History that explicitly acknowledges Louisville not just as "influenced by the Midwest" but as a Midwestern city, and another from Emporis.com that includes the whole "northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city" phrase.

And I agree that this whole "controversy" regarding that statement is just about as silly as the "controversy" about whether or not putting spaghetti in chili is a Midwestern thing. I also agree that (most) people from the city or who have lived there at some time know that it's common sense. But a few editors (well, just one actually) have been using obstructionist tactics to strike down any statements that even remotely suggest that Kentucky has a thing in common with the Midwest. Just check here. --70.168.88.158 23:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW Spaghetti in the Chili is NOT a Midwestern thing this day in age. This variation along with the Texas Southwest (uses steak like meat) are the two main ways preapre the dish (though the spaghetti is more widely used). Louisvillian 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali

I feel that the current Wikipedia entry (14 Feb 2007) on Louisville, KY does not give sufficient coverage to the city's most illustrous son and the greatest sportsperson on Earth, Muhammad Ali. More on Ali, please. 82.44.184.208 22:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a separate article on him. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it would be a good idea to add a blurb about Ali, but it would necessarily link to Muhammad Ali. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Direct statement about where Louisville is geographically placed

Saying "Louisville is a Southern city" takes the content out of the balance of what it already was saying, where the reader can make the judgment. It's also redundant, as the content already places the city inside a Southern state. It doesn't matter at all that the addition is referenced. That there are contradictory references I'm confident the author of this addition is aware of; therefore, a statement of 100% certainty is inappropriate. The current content expresses fully well the conflict of where Louisville is positioned, and that's where it needs to be left.

Also, I highly suspect the author of the direct statement is seeking conflict for the sake of conflict. Why? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, 1) That it could be Midwestern is already referenced, and 2) the text already says "the northernmost Southern city". Why create a needless redundancy and cry about a lack of reference that's actually there if the author wasn't merely interested in the same conflict he has brought up many times before in this article and the Southern United States article? Enough is enough. This was already settled, and it needs to stay settled. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I wrote up a compromise that makes an irrefutable statement, that Louisville is situated in a Southern state. Yes, Kentucky has Midwestern influences, and it covers that in the state article, but it is largely Southern. This compromise completes the shades of grey that are necessary for readers to make up their own minds. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well to start Steve the Article is not specifically addressing the Geography of Louisville, for one to make such a judgement call. Another thing is FACT... The U.S. Government has assigned the state of Kentucky into a designated region of the U.S. and thusly Louisville is officially a city of that region. If you can think of a higher authority than our Gov. to make such a call than do tell. Not to mention encyclopedia references refer to Louisville as a Southern city (worldbook, Britannica). The main problem I had with the original content of this section were the non referenced statements that were being made. While Louisville undoubtibly has Midwestern influence it is (according to our Gov.) a Southern city. PS. I'm not seeking conflict I'm just sick of certain acting as if their word is law. Louisvillian 17:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, do we have a problem with the sentence like this: "Although situated in a Southern state, Louisville is influenced by both Midwestern and Southern culture, and is sometimes referred to as the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city in the United States"?

That seems okay to me, except we might want to mention that it's a "southern state" because it is so grouped by the Federal Gov. (administrative division, census, etc.) --W.marsh 19:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The current text is all right, although I would suggest that the federal government information reference should be applied to the Kentucky article rather than this one.

Louisvillian: The article is completely addressing the geographical issue. But to say "Louisville is a Southern city" is absolutist, misleading and designed for unnecessary conflict. It would be like me adding my opinion that "Louisville is a Midwestern city". Each statement has their own set of connotations that would unnecessarily mislead the reader. Note also that I have striven to compromise with your position, and this is clear with the compromise text I authored. It says that Louisville is situated in a Southern state. To say "Louisville is a Southern city" will make people think that Louisville is 100% Southern in terms of culture, and we both know this is not true. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should have been over with long ago, but user 74/Louisvillian continues to attempt to rewrite history and place Louisville as a twin sister of New Orleans, and Kentucky as a twin of Alabama, when both of those positions are completely insupportable. Hopefully it's settled with that compromise. The Census Bureau is most definitely an excellent source for geographical delineations, but it is by *no* means the final, definitive arbiter in these issues (and in addition, other gov't agenices such as the USGS sometimes conflict with its definitions - for example, [1].) Census definitions are created as a matter of geopolitical convenience and sometimes have little to do with modern day connotatively accepted definitions. For a reality check, just remember that Maryland and Delaware are both clearly in the South region per Census definitions. It is entirely relevant to include/cite other sources. --Gator87 05:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Gator I find it funny that you are attempting to denounce my argument inspite of it obviously overcoming yours. Oh and I would anxiously like to know what it is that I've rewritten or blantly lied about as your making it out to see. Better yet when have I stated that Kentucky was a Deep Southern state or more specifically "the twin of Alabama" or Louisville "being the twin of New Orleans", when have I? Does it get under skin that I was able find striking similarities between the South's two largest river cities of the 19th century. Or maybe it's the fact that the similarities were between a city located in the heart of the South and one located on the edge of the South. It might even be the fact that I've provided enough evidence to convince 90% of the editors on the Wiki South ARticle that Kentucky is indeed a Southern state, and that they embraced it by creating the new 3 tone map, while the Midwestern article is quirling even over the mentioning of Kentucky on their map. If I were really truely out to make Kentucky the long lost twin of Alabama than explain why I'm more than pleased with the three tone map that differientiates between Deep Southern and Upper SOuthern states (along with Texas). While I haven't even supported the removable of Kentucky from the Wiki Midwestern map. On the other hand you are the only one on that talk page arguing more Kentucky's inclusion in the Midwest, and you seem to be the only quirling over Kentucky's indicated elevation from a typical "border state" to a generally Southern state.

As for this article yes Steve I'm fine with your edit to the article it includes Gov. Fact along with a widely (by myself also) used observation. However Gator I find it amusing that you are actually trying to refute a Gov reference (LOl that actually refers to people) with a map refering to amphibians. While it is quite interesting to note I don't think it should be held to merrit with our GOv. source. As a matter of fact I believe a while ago someone deleted that source from the Midwestern map after you attempted to cite the map with it. 74.128.200.135 02:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll kindly check the Midwest page, you'll see that the USGS cite is still there - as is the map that includes Kentucky. That was the consensus map for over a year, created by a Wikipedia project, until one editor decided to attempt to remove it, with the support of a few others. And the last time that I checked, the USGS was an agency of the US government (specializing in geography and geology), but please correct me if it has since been privatized. Kentucky is also still featured as a marginal state on the page for the Northern United States. In all of your cursing, ranting and raving, you've managed to argue for a color scheme change for a map on one Wiki page, but nothing else has changed. Furthermore, the information that I added on the Southern page clearly explains the state's unique position as a multi-faceted border state. Please read the paragraph at the top of this category page: [2]. And last of all, the Wiki page for the state of Kentucky clearly states, in the opening sentence, that the state is sometimes considered to be a part of the Midwest, complete with a peer-reviewed citation that you attempted to remove because, naturally, you disagree with it. So congratulations, I suppose, for the whole paradigm shift on how Kentucky is viewed on Wikipedia, but enough is enough. More cursing and CAPITAL LETTER SCREAMING here is not going to place Louisville in the Solid South - or KY either, for that matter.

Now, the point out of all of this is that the Census Bureau is not the end of the line for regional identities, and no sensible Wiki editor is bowing down before the "definition" drawn together by a group of government bureaucrats when we are all well aware that the culture in two bordering counties can be quite different. Furthermore, the Census definition has been largely rejected on the South page because of its inclusion of Maryland and Delaware. If you are going to continue to argue that "Kentucky is Southern because the Census says so", I would suggest that, in the name of consistency, you go to the Delaware page and argue that "Delaware is Southern because the Census Bureau says so." That's a nonsensical argument and you're well aware of it, which is why you never respond when presented with the Delaware/Maryland problem. Your "government fact" is the "fact" of one agency. The Census definition is good to take into consideration, but the Census Bureau does not dictate cultural divisions from some lofty ivory tower. In creating pages for both cities and regions, we cannot acknowledge only one source, regardless of how good you may think that the source is; we have to take multiple, equally-credible sources into account, as we have done here and elsewhere. And that's precisely why the new map system on the Southern page was decided on - taking multiple sources into account, instead of monopolizing our focus on one source. That same protocol is generally reflected on the other regional pages as well. And I applaud Stevietheman for his patience and ability to compromise in the midst of this ridiculous edit-warring. --Gator87 06:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Believe me Gator I've checked the Midwestern page,

the inclusion of West Virginia and Kentucky as peripherally Midwestern in cultural character seems like stretching the definitions a bit, even if there may be a great deal of commuting and other economic ties across the Ohio River. Kentucky I would have to agree with. It may be on the edge of the South, but historically and culturally it most certainly *is* part of the South. Northern Kentucky on the Ohio River near Cincinnati is quite Midwestern, but the other 95% of the state is very clearly Southern. So in that case I would have to agree that Kentucky should not be included in this defintion West Virgina on the other hand is a more difficult issue. Culturally it's a mix of Southern, Midwestern and Northeastern -- particularly in terms of it's industrial culture that has many similarities to neighboring Pennsylvania (which is unquestionably Northeastern). Unlike Kentucky, however, West Virgina is historically not part of the South. On the other hand it doesn't fit very well under the definition of Midwestern nor Northeastern either. The point being, West Virginia is literally the location where the three major regions east of the Mississippi come together and this makes it very different to identify it with one region or another. As a result I would consider it a border state -- particularly between the Midwest and the South. { stereoisomer 4:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC) }

All these people are claiming parts of Kentucky and West Virginia as "Midwest". Personally, I don't see it... not at all. I think the -- SwissCelt 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Out of respect of for this page and shear laziest on my part I'm not going to bombart this talk page with quotes from Midwesterner's disowning Kentucky.

"specializing in geography and geology" Yes of AMPHIBIANS (yes I'm yelling). Again you merrit sources to fit your view or to go along with your own agenda. For anyone to actually sugguest that a map revolving around indiginous Amphibian habitat (which is most likely due to the Ohio River) hold's just as much merrit as the U.S. Census Bureau's lableing of the regions, is just downright silly and YOU KNOW THAT. As far as the Delware crap goes, I mean to make it short and sweet (or to summarize our old debate) Kentucky just has to many reliable sources labeling it as Southern, whereas the Census Bureau and the Department of Labor are the only CREDIBLE sources labeling Delaware as such. While it is one of a handfull of reliable sources labling it as such the U.S. census bureau is what obviously convinced the "die hard" Southerners to atleast stripe the state on the Wiki map. Any attempt to prove otherwise on your part Gator will ultimately leed to same result as on the Southern Page.

You're right again Kentucky is featured as a marginally Northern state on that Article and on the Midwest, as is Virginia marginally featured on the Northeastern and Northern articles, WHAT"S YOUR POINT?

Oh Please Gator before you found that predated study you were denoucing the signifigance of 80% of Kentuckians identifing with the South (from the Southern Focus Study) and attempted to argue that the other 20% was just as signifigant as the vast majority. From "your" logic you attempted to conclude that Kentucky was a "border state" and can't be considered Southern, without it just as equally being tied the North. Again I can only recall maybe one editor throughout our debate that did not call Kentucky a Southern state, Not "border" but a Southern State.[3]. However I'm pretty sure you know you're intitled to your own opinion, despite it being in the minority. I would like to know what you have contributed to the Kentucky section of that page that explains it's current position as a border state (unless you're referring to Civil War times). Interestingly enough while you're attmepting to denounce Kentucky's position as a Southern state into a "border state" by your predated study, you don't even compare Kentucky's findings to the to findings in the border state's you're attempting to group us in with. While slightly less than half of the population identifed with the South in Kentucky (which was the largest chunk of the pie), Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri all had less than 5%" of their populations identify with the South. Yet you fell our Southerness should be labeled on par with those state's. Again that's just your logic, and if I have misinterpreted your argument please call me out on it. As you have ignorantly continued to make me out to be asserting Louisville or Kentucky as the "Solid South", when I have always acknowledged that there is a Midwestern presenece in both city and state, to what degree is an another argument that I apparently got across on the Southern Article. Louisvillian 21:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Louisville or Kentucky for that matter is a border state- We can choose to be Southern, Northern or Midwestern. I CHOOSE to believe we are a northern state with southern and midwestern influences!

Could we at least agree that this sentence needs to be changed... "Although situated in a Southern state, Louisville is influenced by both Midwestern and Southern culture.." Alright- we get the point- the rest of the country thinks we are a southern state and a certain portion of our Kentucky population wants to be lumped into the Southern population as well- the statement above should read however... "Although situated in a southern state, Louisville is influenced by both MIDWESTERN and NORTHERN culture."

The problem with that is that Midwestern, in the form of Ohio of Indiana, is equivalent to Northern, so that would be introducing a redundancy. Further, we can't just add text that has no backup in references. If you have references that distinguish between Midwestern and Northern, and demonstrate that Louisville is influenced by both, that would be a different story. But again, Midwestern is equivalent to Northern. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk about redundant- "Although situated in a SOUTHERN state, Louisville is influenced by both midwestern and SOUTHERN culture." Can you place the word "southern" in one more time? Are you serious about midwestern and northern being one in the same? So you consider New York to be Midwestern? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisronay (talk • contribs)

It's not redundant at all -- it's saying what it means to say, that even though positioned inside an overall southern state, the culture is a mix of both midwestern and southern. Also, in the context of what's "north", Indiana and Ohio, which are in the Midwest, are the influencing regions, not the Northeastern areas of the country like New York. Again, if you have references to support your position, please bring them here. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Standard pronunciation

I don't think it's appropriate to use the local pronunciation in the lead of an encyclopedic article. The notion that the local pronunciation of a state, county, city or town is somehow more correct than that of other speakers of the same language living in the same country doesn't have much merit. The poing of having IPA and a sound file in the lead in the first place is to instruct on the general pronunciation of the name by native speakers, which in this case is Americans in general, not to serve as a guide to the local language. What it all boils down to is that the name "Louisville" is something that is, so to speak, the property of all Americans, not just those living in Louisville.

Besides, the local pronunciation would still be in the article, so I don't see the point on insisting on it in the lead.

Peter Isotalo 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I don't agree. There are different variations of pronouncing Louisville, depending on which specific city you are referring to. The pronunciation is not the property of the entire country -- that's a new one on me. The local pronunciation is what people need to know first, due to the cultural relevance of that pronunciation over the King's English approach. At any rate, almost no Louisvillian will stand for showing anything other the regular pronunciation first. It's really not worth the back-and-forth. Also note that this pronunciation has been there unchallenged for two straight years until you decided to change it. What's there now is correct. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Louisville or Kentucky for that matter is a border state- We can choose to be Southern, Northern or Midwestern. I CHOOSE to believe we are a northern state with southern and midwestern influences! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisronay (talk • contribs)

It doesn't matter what anyone chooses to believe. This is an encyclopedia, and we only add factual content that can be backed up. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Population updates

What I've done so far is copy 2006 estimates from the metro area article, and the number updates are not complete yet. I am not sure where the U.S. Census Bureau keeps the 2006 info, so until that is figured out, some of the numbers may be askew. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Apparently, 2006 Census estimates for incorporated places won't be out until the end of June. I will go ahead and update the metropolitan and CSA information, and also show Louisville balance as ranked 28th, due to challenges to 2005 Census numbers. Of course, a lot of this could change again soon. Stay tuned -- I'm trying to keep this as accurate as possible. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Article. 17th or 27th? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to say, as Austin, Texas has surpassed Louisville in population. Either way, as said above, it is 17th or 27th. Ajwebb 13:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
At any rate, the 2006 numbers just came out, so it couldn't have been updated until today. And now they are. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats true, thanks for updating the information! Ajwebb 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Utilities

This section says that the only coal fired plant serving the city are Mill Creek. What about the power plants at Kosmosdale and the one accross from Shawnee Park in New Albany IN? Also, the eastern suburbs of the city get hydropower from Dix Dam on Lake Herrington, near Danville KY. If you notice those huge power lines on I-64 just east of the Synder- those originate from Dix Dam Angry Aspie 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, even though this article is featured, it is probably nowhere close to being "complete". Please feel free to add this info to the article or add a suggestion to the todo list at the top-right of this talk page. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)