Talk:Boardman, Ohio

Important Tips Before Editing This Article

webcomic xkcd 285

Please review the following to get a better idea of what you should add to this article:

1. Please follow the Wikipedia USCITY guideline for layout and content.
2. Please examine these great articles for ideas: Lock Haven, Pennsylvania / Stephens City, Virginia / Kent, Ohio / Tulsa, Oklahoma / Grand Forks, North Dakota.
3. Please ensure a person meets Wikipedia Notability requirements before adding to the "Notable People" section.

Please review the following before editing:

1. Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable<False>APPLE_RAİNE>ioKİNG><iDeclare>
2. Please add text that has a neutral point of view instead of sounding like an advertisement.
3. Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, ISBN 9780596515164.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There's no need to have articles at both Boardman, Ohio and Boardman Township, Mahoning County, Ohio. While the US Census Bureau uses distinct criteria for the two topics, sociologically speaking they are the same. Moreover, Boardman's status as an urban township in Ohio gives the entire township municipality-like features that, in my opinion, render the Census Bureau's CDP designation moot. Most of what could be said about one can be said about the other, and what remains isn't a distinction of sufficient notability to have a separate article. (Compare to the overlap problem of "flammable" vs. "non-flammable" mentioned in WP:MERGE.) Proposal withdrawn, see below -- SwissCelt 06:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose for several reasons:

• Boardman is a census-designated place, and Boardman Township is a township. Yes, the Census Bureau says that they're different places — it's a reliable source, and Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. If they're different entities, both of which are notable (see that we have articles on all CDPs and all townships in Ohio), we shouldn't merge them: it's effectively telling the Census Bureau that they're wrong. Plus, if we merge the two, what would we say for Springfield Township: judging by the map on the township article, it borders the township, but not the CDP. Could we say that it borders the CDP? Either we'd logically have to say that it does border it, since the two are similar enough to warrant merger (thus having an inaccuracy), or we'd have to say that it bordered only the township, thus making it even more obvious that the two are different, and potentially confusing readers more.
• SwissCelt's reasoning for one point is wrong: a census-designated place by definition is an unincorporated area and cannot be in a municipality; even though Boardman Township is an urban township, it's not a municipality.
• Lastly: check the map — Boardman Township is a square, and Boardman is a somewhat circular area inside only a part of that square. It's not as if we had separate articles on McCandless, Pennsylvania and McCandless Township, Pennsylvania, which is both a CDP and a township — the two areas are noticeably different. The sociology may well be the same, but there's some consultation with local officials to determine the boundary of the CDP,see here so locals must think that there's something distinct about Boardman. I'm sure that there are plenty of other areas of CDPs that are similar to the surrounding areas; when are we going to stop merging distinct entities? Nyttend 12:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Per WP:OUTCOMES all inhabited places that are verifiable are notable and deserve separate articles. Wikipedia has articles on every CDP that is not contiguous with another political division of a county (that I am aware of). CDPs are notable and clearly defined with a wealth of statistical data (WP also has articles on much less well defined and measured inhabited places, see State Line, Pennsylvania). In some states (Pennsylvania) for example, all areas are incorporated, even townships, so CDPs there are parts of incorporated municipalities (townships). There can also be confusion with names - see for example Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, for a CDP that is smaller than the postal designation "Bryn Mawr" - but that does not mean a merge is appropriate here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The CDP Boardman and Boardman Township are obviously not synonymous even if they do have the same name. The Boardman CDP is only a portion of the township, combining the article would be confusing when it comes to statistical information like population, demographics, and geography. If we were to combine the statistically- and demographically- important CDP with the rest of the township, we might as well do it for all the CDPs in the state. The fact that they have the same name is irrelevant when it comes to statistics, urban vs. rural setting, local identity, and geography. prinzwilhelm 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"If we were to combine the statistically- and demographically- important CDP with the rest of the township, we might as well do it for all the CDPs in the state." And this would be a problem because...? I think we're losing sight of the fact that just because something is sourced doesn't necessarily make it notable. We don't have articles on every single USDA field office, for example. I agree that CDP data should be included in an article about Boardman, but the "Boardman CDP" isn't really notable enough of a topic to warrant its own article.

Plus, how do we determine what to mention in an article about the CDP, and what to mention in an article about the township? Right now, the CDP article has the bulk of info about Boardman, leaving the township article as not much more than a stub-- if even that. That's not a good state to leave the latter article, and I don't think we want a lot of duplicate info on both articles. Remember, my proposal is simply to merge the two, not taking sides on which should be merged into the other. If the unwieldly-named Boardman Township, Mahoning County, Ohio were to be merged into Boardman, Ohio, I wouldn't be shedding a tear. -- SwissCelt 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it would be rather odd for you to be sad that your proposal was fulfilled :-) To my understanding, it is recognised that places (assuming that their existence is proven) are considered notable. If it's okay to have an article on a place such as Litchfield Township, Medina County, Ohio and also on Litchfield, Ohio, an unincorporated community inside the township, I don't see why we can't have an article on a much more significant community such as Boardman, one officially recognised by the Census Bureau — unlike Litchfield, which appears on maps but isn't a CDP. Nyttend 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES has this to say:

• Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size
• Larger neighborhoods are notable, but its name must have verifiable widespread usage
• Smaller suburbs should generally be listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments)

It's a judgment call, I suppose... The Boardman CDP is neither a city nor a village. It could arguably be called a "suburb" or a "larger neighborhood", but then does that mean that the US Census Bureau alone constitutes "verifiable widespread usage"? Even at that, though, that still does not answer the question of what to do with the article that does not talk about the area that most people call "Boardman"; whether that would be the township or the CDP. I can't see that this "non-Boardman", if you will, would ever be anything more than a stub. That to my mind is the more germane question, and not whether Boardman as a whole is notable (which surely it is). -- SwissCelt 02:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn. There appears to be a strong (and quick!) community consensus to keep separate articles for Boardman, Ohio and Boardman Township, Mahoning County, Ohio. While I still don't see how both articles can be sufficiently improved and maintained (that is to say, I think there's material for one good article, not two), I'm willing to follow the lead of the consensus, and would delight in being proven wrong on this one. Moreover, my original proposal wasn't very well-worded, and gave questions of notability to the topic as a whole where really there never should have been any question. (I also made the cardinal mistake of doubting a trustworthy source.) So thanks, everyone; let's see what we can do with the articles from here on out. Oh, and I'll let an admin take down the merge templates from the articles, as I'm not sure it would be proper for me to do so within the customary seven day voting time. -- SwissCelt 03:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - since the township is older and legally recognized, I assume most of the Boardman history and other data not specifically on the CDP is actually about the twp. I have no objection to transferring that material from the CDP article to the twp article and adding a see also to each. In other words, I think the CDP makes more sense as a stub / start, and the Twp makes more sense as the bigger article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boardman, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.towncrieronline.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—2600:1:9515:9622:2DAE:8733:6AF7:C511 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I've tweaked the coordinates to correspond to those given in the relevant GNIS entry. Deor (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)