Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Flags on sister cities sections[edit]

See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#International_relations_and_twin_cities_-_use_of_flag_icons.

Boldness in the notability section[edit]

Greetings all... I've been WP:BOLD and several sentences in the Notable people section. In some articles, there is a tendency to list obscure folks who may have a local reputation, and insist on including them in the Notable people list, because they can provide a citation or two. However, I believe that to be included in the list they still should meet the notability requirements per WP:PEOPLE. A fast and easy way to establish this is if they already have an article written about them on Wikipedia, since it would have never been approved, or would have been deleted, if they did not meet notability requirements. I've added two sentences to reflect this. Onel5969 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Just now, I expanded the section for college students. • SbmeirowTalk • 16:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you, I think these additions are helpful. --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It is a very rare exception where I leave a red linked person on a notable person list. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Heading question[edit]

There's an interesting edit war (actually consisting of two parts) on one of the pages I follow: Phoenix, Arizona. In the infobox, right below the name of the city, is what type of settlement it is. In the template, it gives examples of town, city, etc. However, when a city is also a state capital there are several state pages (at least one of which is FA status, Boston), which have State Capitol listed instead of city. The secondary issue is, if we do use State Capitol, should it be State Capitol or State capitol.

Honestly, I see both sides of both issues. There are no state capitols which are not cities, so putting State Capitol there is more specific; however, city is the particular type of entity.

Thoughts? If we can reach a consensus, I'll go through the 50 pages and standardize them.

If the decision is for State Capitol, should the second word be capitalized? In section headers we wouldn't, but this is more like a title, so perhaps we should? Onel5969 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"State capital" would be the most fitting, in my opinion. As you say, the fact that it is a city is implied. "Capital" is not a proper noun, so I wouldn't capitalize it, even though the word capital can mean an "uppercase letter" (har har). Thanks for helping standardize this. Once consensus is met, perhaps we should document it in our guideline or even at {{Infobox settlement}}. — MusikAnimal talk 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MusikAnimal. I had intended to edit the guidelines and infobox info once consensus was met. Onel5969 (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I strongly agree that "State capitol" is a description, not a proper noun. It makes sense to me to give the type of settlement as "state capitol" as that often better describes the specific type of city, though I would accept "city" as well. What about county seats? Do those deserve special mention? (Doesn't seem like it to me.) —EncMstr (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The Template:Infobox settlement doesn't list capital or county seat for "settlement_type". The following looks reasonable, as long as "official_name" is removed. • SbmeirowTalk • 19:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
name = Phoenix, Arizona
other_name = State capital
settlement_type = City
Sbmeirow, I think Template:Infobox settlement pretty clearly doesn't limit settlement type to those listed: "Any type can be entered, such as City, Town, Village, Hamlet, Municipality, Reservation, etc." The words "Any type" and "etc." seem to encourage a broad undefined list. I think "State capitol" works as it is the most specific possible definition of the settlement type and State capitols are distinctly different jurisdictions within US law from other cities. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Fictional notability[edit]

I want to clarify or establish a policy regarding fictional people in the notability section(s). What is the guideline? User:Dkriegls deleted an entry that I added and I want to know the official rules regarding the subject. Fictional characters from a film series, video game, novel, or television show are no less important than living people in certain communities (i.e Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn to Hannibal, Missouri). This is by no means a personal attack to any user; i merely want clarification and if necessary, include some guidelines to adding them to the section. Not many fictional characters have Wikipedia articles and for good reason, because Wikipedia is not Memory Alpha or Wookiepedia. Is there some other check to establishing notability for inclusion? (Tigerghost (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC))

I don't know of anything which supports such information being in a factual article. It makes sense for fictional people to be mentioned in an article about the fictional work. The guideline which comes to mind which would contraindicate such information is WP:TRIVIA. —EncMstr (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer some flexibility in fictional people. Extremely well-known fictional characters like Tom Sawyer should not be treated the same way as some lesser known character from a minor book / tv series / game where only a small subset of the population might be aware of them or even care. I'd say all the other fictional characters in Hannibal, MO could be removed since I never heard of them or didn't know that Sherm from Mash was from that town, and would guess most people don't know it either. More people need to get involved before a final decision is made. • SbmeirowTalk • 05:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Is your clarification about fictional people in the "Notable" section, or notability in general for a city article? In the case of Tom Sawyer, I would say it's ok to roll him into the Mark Twain text for Hannibal, MO but not include him in the Notable section. • SbmeirowTalk • 05:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Fictional characters should be discussed in the article body by way of prose, if they are vitally important to the city. They should never be listed under notable people. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Fictional characters are fictional, and therefore not notable by definition, since they are not real people. If a fictional character is vitally important to the city, they might be mentioned, as Binksternet suggested, in the body of the city article, most likely under the Culture section. But I can't truly think of a single example where I would a fictional character merits that. In the Hannibal MO, example, the notable person is Samuel Clemens, and in mentioning him in the notable person section, the note could read, "creator of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer" But other than that, EncMstr's point is that they belong in the article about the fictional creation, not the city. I would vote for a clarification in the guidelines to the effect that fictional characters should NEVER be listed. I looked at the Hannibal, MO article, and their section is absurd, and in that instance, the fictional characters aren't even from Hannibal, they are from a fictional town. The other entries there are even more absurd, since they have nothing to do with the city's identity.Onel5969 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, your premise is false. Darth Vader, James T. Kirk, Gollum, and Nancy Botwin are all fictional characters, but apparently notable due to their established articles.
However, I agree that fictional characters associated with a real city are unlikely to be worthy of mention, unless such a character has a notable impact on said city. Henry Huggins is one I know of, but is only mentioned in the Portland-related article Klickitat Street which seems fairly reasonable since there are real statues there and so forth. Also Riverside, Iowa seems reasonable as the town seems to have adopted Captain Kirk. —EncMstr (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Never said fictional characters cannot be notable, but they cannot be notable people (since they aren't real people). Of course, notable fictional characters can have their own articles. Again, if a fictional character has an impact on a city, it can almost always be construed solely through a cultural impact. Have a great day.Onel5969 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Lists of Notable People[edit]

The guidelines for lists of "Notable People from City X" need clarification. This issue has arisen because of the list List_of_people_from_Eureka,_California, which includes Ulysses_S._Grant. I am not proposing to discuss the merits of this particular case here, but rather it provides a good case study as it raises several important questions about these lists. Summary - Grant was stationed at Fort Humboldt by the U.S. Army for 5 months - around 0.6% of his lifetime. During his time there, Eureka, CA was not an incorporated city.

Does this imply that he is "from" the city of Eureka, California? I would say no, but nothing in the guidelines helps to clarify this issue. I understand that ideally there would be some historical consensus on whether an individual is "from" a place, but I've spent months trying to correct (in my mind) a clear mistake, and if it is going to be this much trouble to take someone off a list, I think it would be much better to form a consensus on when someone is considered "from" a place in general.

Currently the guidelines read that "any famous or notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time" may be included on such a list, but "significant amount of time" is a nebulous term at best, and even being born in a place does not make one "from" that place. Ideally, a person on such a list, if asked "where are you from?" would respond "I am from City X". Sometimes X changes over a lifetime, maybe that person would respond "I am originally from X, but I consider Y my home", or something to that effect. Clearly if that person is dead, then this becomes a more challenging question.

I would suggest that if you want to say a person is "from" a place based on the amount of time spent there (as is currently proposed), the time should be something like ~20% or greater of one's lifetime. This would easily account for being born and raised in a place, as well as most chosen places of residence.

However, I personally don't think quantifying this term in such a way is a very good idea. After all, not everybody has to be "from" somewhere. Kids with parents in the military may move to a different city, state, or country every 1-2 years as they grow up. If you ask these people where they are from, often they respond that they moved around a lot, and that they aren't from any one place. I think for a given person, if "city X" is the answer they would give to the question "where are you from?", then they belong on the list of "people from X".

Ultimately Wikipedia needs to be right. If someone reads a list, say, and learns that "Abraham Lincoln is from Washington D.C." (he isn't on this list nor should he be - but current guidelines suggest he could be), they would be wrong to relay that information.Laundrybox (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

In a related example, for people who lived temporarily in a college town should be listed in the notable section of the college article instead of the town, unless they actually grew up in the town or stayed a long time after graduating. This helps filter out people who live there ONLY during their college years. • SbmeirowTalk • 20:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
We should be talking about where a person was or is a "notable resident", not where they are "from". A person can be a notable resident of more than one place. "From" is a loose term, not really suitable for what we are talking about, and not the wording we should use here - partly because you can only be "from" one place, and partly because "from" sounds like origin rather than long-term or current residence. If Joe Blow was born in city A, grew up in city B, spent most of his working life in city C, and now lives in city D, he is "from" either city A or city B, but he is a "notable resident of" all four places. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
If this is the case, then these lists should be called "List of notable residents of X", which is certainly understood differently than "List of people from X". If something like this is done, then some lists would become unwieldy and possibly lose meaning - large cities with many notable residents on Wikipedia (New York, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C.) would have tens of thousands of entries (not to mention, someone like Ulysses_S._Grant would have dozens of "Notable Resident of ___" links at the bottom of his page). Also while it is no doubt easier to qualify residency, I think it takes away from the purpose of these lists, which is to give some insight into the type of people that define, or are defined by, a certain place.Laundrybox (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@Laundrybox, so let me understand you: Do you think there is only one place that a person is "from", or what is your definition or limit? In my example above of Joe Blow (who was born in city A, grew up in city B, spent most of his working life in city C, and now lives in city D) - which cities do you think should be able to list him under "people from" that city? --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@MelanieN, In response to your question - In my opinion Joe Blow is from wherever he says he's from. If he says "I was influenced by the local culture in B during my formative years, but I was inspired by the majestic River of Letters in C and did my best work there, so I consider myself as being from both B and C," then there's your answer. Clearly there's no lack of edge cases to consider, but it's the vagueness of the heading on these lists makes this a problem, and is the reason I brought it up for discussion. If I read the List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physics, I better be able to say for certain: "Lev_Landau is a Nobel laureate in Physics" by virtue of his being on said list. Similarly if I read "List of People from D", I should be able to confidently and accurately state, "Joe Blow is a person from D".Laundrybox (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "Joe Blow is from wherever he says he's from" is not a formula that has any usefulness at Wikipedia - unless you are suggesting we should try to contact every subject (living or dead) and ask them. Do you have a way to determine this question that does not involve the person's own subjective preference? --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
That's the whole point of this topic. This is a subjective measure that's been made into lists for virtually every city listed on Wikipedia. There is no consistency or clarity among these lists which renders them effectively pointless. Do you think the lists should be renamed "Current and Former Residents of City X"? That would be a much more concise title regarding a quality much easier to define.Laundrybox (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The suggested 20% time frame may filter out useful people who became famous in a city, or are closely associated with it, but did not live there long. For instance, nobody would say that Joseph Smith was not notably associated with Nauvoo, Illinois, even though he lived there just 5 of his 38 years.
The problem is that some editors want a very inclusive and comprehensive list of people barely associated with a city, while other editors want a tailored list of select people, ones that are most closely associated. This project has to choose some position on that continuum of editor preferences. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
You've put your finger on the problem, Bink. Can you think of any way to make that choice? Frankly, I can't. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The answer is obviously notability. If someone was notably associated with a city, then they deserve a mention in that city's article. If there is no coverage, even if they lived there for 80% of their life, there is no basis for a note in the article.
I spent some time in Middletown, New Jersey (which, incidentally, has an extensive Notable people section). One day I was walking around and came across a permanent sign in front of some woods there. It said "on blah date, George Washington and his men spent blah days camped here. 12 of them died." Ever since I saw that 25+ years ago, I have wondered how they knew the particular spot seeing as how there seemed to be no landmarks whatsoever. —EncMstr (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This debate is probably one of the most discussed topics on this project. You can read the first one here, second one here, third one here which continued here and here, fourth one here, fifth one here, and one last one here about placement, less about inclusion. The consensus from those discussions has been for these lists to include WP:Notable people who have Wikipedia:Reliable sources discussing their connection to the place. Any ambiguity of the connection should be mentioned and presented to the reader. Unless there is a BLP issue, including well cited information is better than not. Any attempt to reduce inclusiveness of these lists will only result in a plethora of tedious reverts by seasoned editors trying to enforce a less inclusive policy on all other editors. Not to mention the tedium of trying to explain to less veteran editors why their Wikipedia:Reliable sources isn't good enough to get their favorite local celebrity mentioned in connection with the town because they only lived there for 5 years. Easier for everyone one to stick to well established Wikipedia guidelines: inclusion is for Notable people with Reliable Sources linking them to the list. Ambiguity is removed, inclusion criterion is clear. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, this definitely provides some insight. The conversations you link boil down to this: Editors mostly agree that these lists are trivia and don't belong on Wikipedia. User:Dkriegls shows up, spends a lot of time editing these lists and declares "I for one think deletion is wrong". There are only two clear consensuses reached that I see - one that these lists should be called "Notable People" and two that college alumni should not be included.
If we want to maintain consistency with the current guidelines, I'll make a small initial proposal based on the consensus reached regarding college alumni that 'No notable college people "reside" in town. Or "notable" professors either,' because "unless an alum decided to make their home in that town or was already from there, you'd never say they were from that town or even connect them with it without first mentioning the school."
It follows that no notable military people "reside" in the town of the military base at which they are stationed. They are first and foremost connected to the base, not the town, and unless they go on make their home there post-military, they should not be mentioned. This is a direct corollary and it is inconsistent to have one without the other. If consensus can be reached on this I think it will provide a small stepping stone to laying down some meaningful guidelines regarding these lists.Laundrybox (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The WP:Consensus was not "trivia", it was to keep; as evidenced by the fact that they still exist and were not deleted per WP:Trivia. The consensus on college students was easily reached because the information could be moved and linked to another "list of people" associated with the town. So deletion of the information from Wikipedia was not necessary because it was simply nested differently. If there were a "List of Notable Military People Stationed at XXX", you might have a strong case for deletion. If this is a project you are interested in taking up here at Wikipedia, I would encourage it and suggest you start by making some friends over at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. They would have the best insight on the feasibility of such a task. I think this would a great addition to Wikipedia and it would help you learn to navigate some of our tedious bureaucracy. I would be happy to help. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
For reference, here is a discussion about the specific edit that has started this discussion: Talk:List of people from Eureka, California#U.S. Grant
Making trivia lists is highly discouraged and so your proposed action would be incorrect and unnecessary. Clearly if some notable person is associated with a military base, they would be included in the prose of that article and so no list is necessary. My proposal was about residency guidelines. Your counterproposal simply sidesteps the clear equivalency I cite.Laundrybox (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you are taking this opportunity to read our guidelines. That was a good reference, but as I've explained to you, lists of Notable people associated with places have been determined not to be trivia. I was not trying to sidestep anything. I was WP:assuming good faith that you were here to improve Wikipedia and so I was offering a compromise I thought would meet your desired outcome. This is how Wikipedia works. We often find solutions through working with other editors to reach a compromise that works best. I encourage you to reconsider your dismissal of my proposal. The effort you now continue to put into this conversation could instead be used to improve Wikipedia. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you please clearly state how spending 4-5 years living and going to college in a city is "not residency", but being stationed at a military base for 3 weeks or greater "is residency"? If so I will cede that your point is valid. However, if you could have done that I think you would have already. Not all information is good information, and I think that even you realize adding extra lists of notable people for all military bases would be redundant.Laundrybox (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It is residency, we just have a more specific list to add the name to. On Wikipedia were prefer maximum specificity. The consensus was not that they were not residents, it was that they were better described as residence of the specific school. Hence "People from x town" lists include "See also" links to "Notable Alumni of" lists. It's called nesting lists and is what I encourage you to do if you want to remove information that is supported by a wp:reliable sources. For instance, inclusion on the List of musicians from Chicago does not mean these people do not also meet criterion for List of people from Chicago. We simply add the name to the most specific nested list. I'm sorry this point is so frustrating for you. But your personal attacks and mischaracterizations of other editors' positions have not furthered your position. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a grouping of related things issue. If numerous notable people all have something in common, like a college, then they should be put in a notable list article for that college. This list will be included in both the school and city articles, using the {{Main|ListArticleName}} and {{See also|ListArticleName}}. There are multiple benefits to do it like this: you don't flood the college article with names, you don't flood the city article with names, you make it obvious these people are primarily associated with the college instead of the city. • SbmeirowTalk • 23:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks you so much for that extremely intuitive introduction to set theory. Meanwhile, you already clearly established that the original basis for providing an exception for colleges is that No notable college people "reside" in town. Or "notable" professors either. This is a direct quote in context - not a "mischaracterization" - and I resent your claims to the contrary. I believe you've taken this off topic enough. The original point of the topic was to come to a consensus and improve Wikipedia, and your belligerent defense of the indefensible is not at all helping.Laundrybox (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Laundrybox, I encourage you to read the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. It is rare that you will convince other editors of your position by simply stating over and over again that something else like your position exists. As for mischaracterization: You said of me: "You already clearly established"; no i did not, you are quoting User:Studen7, not me. Also, using words like "belligerent" are not in sticking with WP:Assume Good Faith. I assure you I am engaging with you in an effort to jointly and constructively edit Wikipedia and not to enforce my opinion on you. Hence my offer a compromise and extensive efforts to like relevant information for you to read. With which you are starting to do and I applaud you for it. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Laundrybox, please calm down; you are taking this way too personally. I actually think your point is well taken about military assignments being similar to college students. I also think Dkriegls makes a good point that the college decision was easy precisely because there was already another list where notable people could be mentioned. In some military cases that list already exists; see for example Fort Ord#Notable Fort Ordians. If there isn't already such a list in a base's article, one could be started there. If that seems inappropriate for some reason, we could make a subsection - "Notable people associated with Fort Whatever" - on the "List of notable people from the nearest town." These are several ways of dealing with the military assignment situation within existing guidelines - and without making a federal case out of it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC) P. S. I also agree with EncMstr that the person has to be NOTABLY associated with the base, not merely assigned there briefly. For example, many base articles already have a list of the base commanders. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you MelanieN for a very sensible suggestion that there could be a subsection within these lists that qualifies a person's association with a place. That would represent a meaningful change that I absolutely support. I still think there is merit in removing persons from these lists, and, as you say, that notability with respect to the location should supersede simply existing there, but I think that a subsection could provide some of the clarification that is needed.Laundrybox (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Subsections are actually fairly common on long lists of "notable people". Commonly they are categorized by their profession or claim to fame (Sports, Academics, Performing Arts, etc.); in fact that's how it is already done on List of people from Eureka, California. There is already a subsection there for "Military". People who were at Fort Humboldt could be inserted there, or there could be a further subsection of the military section called "Fort Humboldt", or there could be a whole new section "Notable people associated with Fort Humboldt" explaining why having been at Fort Humboldt is not necessarily the same thing as being from Eureka. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have today added citations to the list in question here, including this link to the History of Humboldt County which discusses at length Grant's service in Eureka and why he left. The experience was formative, he quit his military career because of it. I think that he's included on the list within the guidelines of this WikiProject and I don't understand any vested interest in taking just this one person off this list. I do know that some Grant scholars deny Grant's stay here because they don't want his apparent lack of control while drinking to be added to the biographical information - but "Grant's drinking" is a topic that comes and goes over history with the poor man and is needfully included as is his time in the West and his spectacular failure as an officer and gentleman (according to his commander at that time). As for how people are considered "notable" in an area, I think being several pages in the history book, having schools, streets and fairs named after them, being one of the only exhibits at Fort Humboldt and so on, only adds to his notability in the area. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz, Hi Ellin, this topic is about the general purpose of Lists of "People from X", not about any specific person or city. Please try to stay on topic.
@MelanieN Good point, and I noted that there are already those subsections on most of these pages. I also saw that those sections typically categorize the people within them by their general notability, but these lists are supposed to be about the town, so wouldn't it make sense to have "List of people from town X" subdivided by the person's connection to X? This is already done to some extent with the sections for college towns. Basically I'm proposing these subsection titles be something like "People born and raised in X", "People stationed at Fort X", "Longtime residents of X", etc. This would immediately clarify to any reader how and why the person listed is connected to the town. Laundrybox (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any article or list that currently does it that way, and I'm not sure it's a good idea. Most such lists are alphabetical; a few city lists and many alumni lists break it down by profession. I think I've seen one or two (usually within the city article rather than a freestanding list article) that have separate categories, such as "born and raised" and "significantly associated", but the difference seemed rather arbitrary. I don't believe your suggestion would be helpful or easy to implement; for example, if a person was born in the city AND a longtime resident AND a current resident, do you list them in all three places? Or do you edit-war over whether "born here" is more important than "longtime resident"? I think the current system is the best: they are listed if they had a significant, documented association with the town, in whatever capacity. I have seen a few alphabetical lists that specify, after the person's name, what their association with the town is - for example "Joe Blow, born here 1948", "Jimmy Brown, resident and business owner", etc. - but that system has not caught on widely. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I like the idea that there should be some association listed. The original problem - and the reason for this topic and all previous topics on this subject - is that these lists are much too ambiguous (bordering on trivial), and that appealing to the lowest common denominator for when a person belongs only exacerbates the problem. If a person is worthy of being listed as "from" a city, it should be easy to concisely state how and why they are notably connected.Laundrybox (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Laundrybox I am on topic, you wrote in the very first part of this over long thread, "Does this imply that he is "from" the city of Eureka, California?" and I replied to your question. I believe he belongs on this list and that is my answer to your question. If you don't want questions answered, don't ask. And if you really are so very interested in these lists but have no vested interest in U.S. Grant, why aren't you making similar arguments for Lt. Whipple? Otherwise these arguments are most hollow and seems time for you to WP:DTS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Laundrybox, I think I can address your most recent concern about having their "Association" with the town made more apparent. The article we have been debating (Eureka), is not what I would call a "finished" list; one worthy of "Featured List" status. Now, the List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois on the other hand is closer to a fully developed list of notable people (though it also has not been a Featured List). If you take a look, it has a separate column that is specifically for clarifying what each persons' association is with the town. Then they are grouped based by profession or shared notability (sometimes it's just that they are involved in a notable crime). Turning these lists into tables is a lot of work and only a small fraction of the stand alone notable people lists are even close to this developed. The style and format came out of several peer review efforts, and a few of us have been slowly converting as many as we can. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Impressive list - nice work! Not many "people from" lists are in that kind of shape or are ever likely to be - must have been an enormous amount of work! --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! It was a lot of work. I've tried to get it to Featured List, but they are so overworked that it never got reviewed one way or the other. Just fell off their ToDo list. The nice thing about that format is I find a lot less red linked names get added, which means a lot less reverts. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow Dkriegls, that's incredible! I have to admit it, you've certainly change my mind with your amazing table! Considering also your bulletproof arguments and mastery of the English language, I definitely have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works now! I mean, I'm not going to waste my time turning lists of things into tables of things, but I'll definitely appropriately contribute wherever I can! WikiLove!!!Laundrybox (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Dkriegls needs to be complimented on that list. Perhaps we can reference that list as an example (although I'm not sure of where to exactly do that?). Onel5969 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit cut[edit]

Laundrybox, you argued so eloquently above that military personnel's association to a place should be clearly identified; and now you're just going through lists adding names without any such mention of association (here, here, here, here, and here). Are you attempting to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as User:MelanieN had previously suggested? If you are sincere in your editing, I encourage you to add some text about the association that you successfully argued for above. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)