Talk:Spillville, Iowa

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

United States: Iowa

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa (assessed as Low-importance).

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Iowa may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

mayor[edit]

is there a mayor to this town? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.4.139 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that information is available on our city webpage - https://www.spillville.org 207.199.212.2 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 'demographic' figures are so funny!

(1) They aren't at all clear - the percentages add up to 101.55% with no indication of the overlap / double-counting of 'non-white' residents (2) One single person is defined as '0.26%' of the population, twice; 3 people as '0.78%' and 6 people, already counted elsewhere(!), as '1.55%'.

(It almost makes the 'town' sound big enough to notice to anyone who doesn't do the sums).

This comes across as semi-numerate and showing mid-western America at its most primitive. But, it does give the rest of the world something to smile about and bring a note of humour to the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.41.19 (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.10.220 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.10.220 (talk) [reply]

Deletion of previous discussion reverted as inappropriate / non-constructive / bordering on vandalism. The point of discussion is to improve the quality of Wikipedia, not to suppress useful observation made during discussions.

Observations upon previous poster's comments:

(1) It could be construed that there are some light-hearted aspects to the presentation. Equally, it could be construed that these are to maintain a good-natured discussion about some important points.

(2) Important point: the percentages do not, indeed, add up to 100%. The poster had taken the trouble to point out some basic numeric errors and seek correction.

(3) Such errors, in an encyclopedia, do, indeed, come across as 'semi-numerate'. Any competent 12-year-old in most of the educated world could discern that the percentages do not add up to 100%. They should, certainly be corrected.

(4) From a more advanced level of numeracy, the use of percentages quoted to two decimal places to categorize a single person, or three people, or six people, is an entirely inappropriate use of percentages. Individual people do not exist 'to two decimal places'. Whilst, strictly, correct from an arithmetic point of view it is an unsuitable use of precision from a statistical point of view.

To dismiss such a discussion as 'silliness' is not in keeping with the ideal of improving the quality of the article. It would be better to incorporate an improvement from someone more practiced in the use of statistical categorisation of a population that the originator of the percentages. In particular, the 2 d.p. precision is not appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.11.129 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]