Talk:Louisville, Kentucky/Archive 7
 | 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Kentucky Kingdom
man I live in louisville, and their aint no kentucky kingdom anywhere in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolman1250 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- See Louisville, Kentucky#Parks and outdoor attractions. It's been listed there for quite a long time. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
it should be on the main pageCoolman1250 (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
IRONMAN
Someone absolutely positively MUST add information about the IRONMAN triathlon held in Louisville in late August. This event brings athletes from all over the world to compete in this test of physical endurance and resolve. It is much more important than some of the other silly sports listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.21.130 (talk • contribs)
Improving this article
I don't mean to make a threat, but this article would not survive a featured article review in its present state. Rather than do that, which I don't want to do, I'd like to improve the article. But bickering over my removal of unsourced boastful claims and refusing to add sources to back the claims up... that is not appropriate behavior on any article, let alone a featured article. WP:V is very clear that the burden is on people who want to restore challenged content to find sources... please don't make me make a federal case out of this. If I remove something that is accurate, just find a decent source and I'll be satisfied with restoring it. --Rividian (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- From WP:V: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may move material lacking a reliable source to the talk page. Use the edit summary to give an explanation of your edit." Nobody's refusing to provide sources, but it's not always possible to find a source right away, especially when the material's been there for a while and was added by someone else. Outright deletion isn't the proper course, even according to WP:V. Assuming the edit you're referring to is the one about the skate park, then the claim can be found on the Louisville Chamber of Commerce site: "According to Tony Hawk, Louisville's Extreme Park is one of the best in the nation." Admittedly, it's not a third-party source, since they obviously have an interest in promoting the city, but it is more than just some editor sticking the claim in there because he happens to like the park. And here's another source, although, not having the slightest interest in skateboarding (although I do know that Tony Hawk is one of the more famous names in the sport), I don't know anything about [magazine]: "Tony Hawk considers Louisville to be one of his top five favorite skate parks of all time. The park gained national recognition after the release of Tony Hawk's Secret Skatepark Tour, in which the park was featured." So there's two sources; whether they're reliable enough is something to discuss, or other editors can have time to find others. And ultimately, if a reliable source can't be found, then the claim gets deleted. But deletion isn't always the first step. PaulGS (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Rather than hold articles hostage with ugly tags, I choose to actually remove claims I doubt... WP:V has been modified to take a somewhat weaker position on this, no doubt by people shocked that unsourced content was removed from their pet articles... but it still does allow unsourced content to be removed. It really suggests adding all those tags more when people just want a citation for the heck of it, not for when they actually doubt the claims. If there are sources, find them... a featured article should not contain challenged claims no one can find a proper source for. As for the sources so far, as my whole problem is the civic boosterism, an official city site really isn't going to cut it. The other link redirects to [1] and doesn't verify the quote... but if the quote could be verified with a third party source (in this case an apparently the magazine of record for Skateboarding?) then I'd be fine with modifying the article to say that Tony Hawk likes the park. --Rividian (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- The tags exist for a reason, and this sort of thing is why. Yes, the policy says uncited stuff can be removed, but also notes that other editors may object to this without time to verify it. I prefer the tags to deleting material, and I choose to use them, and read the policy - "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the fact template" - to indicate this is perfectly okay. The magazine link doesn't redirect for me, and while a quote would be better, it's not required as a source. But I've rewritten the sentence to reflect the sources available. PaulGS (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- It says only to "consider" it, but even then it makes it clear that unsourced content can be removed. I would use a {{fact}} tag in some situations, but this is a claim I really don't think is true... and the evidence so far isn't that great. It amounts to secondhand and possibly user-edited claims about what Tony Hawk might have said at some unspecified date. Read Jimbo's quote... just adding fact tags to incorrect stuff is a very dubious way to manage an encyclopedia. Just find a decent source... --Rividian (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- The tags exist for a reason, and this sort of thing is why. Yes, the policy says uncited stuff can be removed, but also notes that other editors may object to this without time to verify it. I prefer the tags to deleting material, and I choose to use them, and read the policy - "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the fact template" - to indicate this is perfectly okay. The magazine link doesn't redirect for me, and while a quote would be better, it's not required as a source. But I've rewritten the sentence to reflect the sources available. PaulGS (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Rather than hold articles hostage with ugly tags, I choose to actually remove claims I doubt... WP:V has been modified to take a somewhat weaker position on this, no doubt by people shocked that unsourced content was removed from their pet articles... but it still does allow unsourced content to be removed. It really suggests adding all those tags more when people just want a citation for the heck of it, not for when they actually doubt the claims. If there are sources, find them... a featured article should not contain challenged claims no one can find a proper source for. As for the sources so far, as my whole problem is the civic boosterism, an official city site really isn't going to cut it. The other link redirects to [1] and doesn't verify the quote... but if the quote could be verified with a third party source (in this case an apparently the magazine of record for Skateboarding?) then I'd be fine with modifying the article to say that Tony Hawk likes the park. --Rividian (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The source is still very weak... it says "Google" beside the text and "google earth" is in the URL... I suspect this is just a mirror of some user-editted description of the park. It would be nice to know when Hawk said this and in what context... if he just said it while addressing a crowd there, it has about as much meaning as a rock band saying Akron Ohio is the best rocking city in the world... --Rividian (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)