Talk:St. Louis

skyline=

I'm surprised by how small a skyline (ie how few tall buildings) there are with a city with such a large metropolitan area. Is it really spread out? Did it take in a lot of smaller towns? Why the low density?

Crime statistics

I've noticed that there is very very little to speak of regarding crime in St. Louis and the section itself seems to be intentionally and systematically downplaying crime statistics in St. Louis by referring to repeated reports and studies about St. Louis as being "the most dangerous city in America" as unsubstantiated. It is very clear that someone with strong bias in favor of St. Louis is trying to make the city look better than it really is in this Wikipedia article by pushing any crime statistics of the city to the separate wiki page about crime in St. Louis.

I feel that as crime is such a significant problem in St. Louis, it ought best be addressed objectively and with a decent-sized section within the St. Louis page itself. Violent crime and murder statistics are NOT subjective and anyone downplaying them on here is covering up the truth. http://urbantitan.com/10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-in-2011/ 134.48.241.189 (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal on St. Louis vs. Greater St. Louis scope

Several years ago and from time to time in recent years, there was discussion about the scope of this article and the inclusion of information that relates to the Greater St. Louis area (ranging from corporations in St. Louis County to highways in the region to the Delmar Loop). No resolution of this dispute on what to include was accomplished. Here is a proposal to solve it, open to comment, suggestion or outright rejection:

1. Information pertaining specifically to the city of St. Louis (companies located in the city, the St. Louis Public Schools, the St. Louis Public Library, the roads, bridges, and interstates in the city, crime, parks, etc.) should be summarized in this article, and, if necessary, placed in subarticles with the nomenclature -- "*Topic* in/of St. Louis, Missouri". Such pages should be linked using the "Main article" template. Again, the only information in these articles should be about things located within the city limits; e.g. "Transportation in St. Louis" would NOT include information about the entire regional rail system, only its locations in the city. "Education in St. Louis, Missouri" would NOT include information about libraries in St. Louis County. "Culture of St. Louis, Missouri" would NOT include information about the Loop. The only overlapping article likely would be the History of St. Louis, Missouri article, but even then, it is mostly about the city of St. Louis already.

Other individual municipalities and counties in Greater St. Louis should be treated the same way as above; if the St. Louis County article needed to break out its parks section, it could have a "Parks in St. Louis County, Missouri" article. That parks article should NOT include information about regional parks, city parks, etc.

2. When it would be appropriate, the summaries in municipal/county articles also should link to a broader treatment of the subject, which would be titled "*Topic* in/of Greater St. Louis". These pages should not merely rehash the information from several other pages, but instead present a regional approach to the situation. In some cases, a regional subarticle might not be necessary, and a link to the section on the Greater St. Louis page would do the trick. In other cases, a subarticle for the specific municipality might not be necessary, but a regional approach would be best. Sometimes, there could be both a regional view of the topic and a local view of the topic. Such pages should be linked using the "See also" template at the top of the relevant section in this page.

For example: Page-St. Louis, Missouri Section-Transportation

Main article: Transportation in St. Louis, Missouri

(this article would contain only info about city transportation)

See also: Transportation in Greater St. Louis

(this article would contain info about regional transportation)

Include the summary of info about city limits stuff here: Transportation in the city of St. Louis is great, we have lots of trains, planes and automobiles.

Another example: Page-St. Louis County, Missouri Section-Culture

See also: Culture of Greater St. Louis

(this article would contain info about regional culture)

Include the summary of info about culture in the county here: Culture in the county of St. Louis is great, we have lots of music, food, and theaters. However, there is not enough cultural stuff to warrant a "Culture of St. Louis County, Missouri" article, so go look at the Greater St. Louis article if you want the details.

3. While this proposal will not be easy to implement (lots of cleanup and movement), it will clarify the issue tremendously for readers. I am certainly open for comment, suggestion, or outright rejection. poroubalous (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To Poroubalous

Thank you for your openness and interest in editing St. Louis. You have really spent much time in providing clear information to this article. Your input is more than welcome!

However, as with all major renovations to articles, there should be some discussion and perhaps a little critique. Although I am not at all trying to change what you have edited, I am just suggesting that we be careful to take away some things that are essential to the identity of St. Louis.

St. Louis has changed drastically in the last three centuries. Certainly, what the first settlers thought about it and what people think about this city today is entirely different.

My concern is that perhaps the French heritage that founded St. Louis is not taken seriously enough. I find it important to leave the French pronunciation in the first paragraph not out of nostalgia, but because the international community still pronounces it this way. Also, it's important not to forget its Catholic past...and even present. It was once called "the Rome of the West" and still is by some people.

Also, did you know that St. Louis at its founding was usually referred to as "Pancur". If you look at old maps you will see that the British did not refer to St. Louis by its real name but by this name which meant in French, "short loaf." The British shorted the real French words for this and it stuck as "Pancur." It was named short loaf because of the influx of traders into the area. The city did not have very many farmers at this time and so it had to import food from the other French villages such as Ste. Genevieve.

Another thing that we forget is that the inhabitants of St. Louis did not appreciate the Americans at all. They didn't wanted their own independence and they felt "bought" and in fact they were. Right when America took over, the French identity was suppressed and the French heritage of the city was quieted as much as possible.

I know we do not live in the past, but it's important that not just one person does a major edit to an important historic city. What might be famous for St. Louisans is not always what makes it famous abroad. For example, in Europe St. Louis is very famous for it's Blues music. Here maybe not so much any more as it used to be. A mention of its musical heritage should perhaps be made in the first paragraph.

I will make no changes to the article, but these are just my thoughts as one who has lived in St. Louis for 22 years but currently living abroad. And one last thing if I may, I think its very important that a picture of the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis is kept on this page. With the arch it is one of the most aesthetically beautiful structures in this city and has a collection of mosaics unrivalled in the western hemisphere. It's like if an article on Rome did not have a picture of the Colosseum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ustriestina (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ustriestina,

I agree wholeheartedly with you about the idea that St. Louis's French heritage is important, which is why I asked before removing the pronunciation instead of just following Wikipedia: Be Bold. However, the guideline in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline about pronunciation states: "Names of the city should be given in each of the city's official languages. Pronunciation of the city name should be in IPA as per Help:IPA for English, though can also be in the main local language(s) if thought helpful." The city has no official language, and the main local language spoken is English. I lean toward moving the French pronunciation to one of the history of St. Louis articles for that reason, although I will not do so until I can find a source for that particular pronunciation.

As for more detailed history of the French heritage or the relationship between the French and the early Americans, I agree with you that it is an important facet of St. Louis "identity". However, it best belongs in History of St. Louis, Missouri or History of St. Louis, Missouri (1763–1803) (or in subsequent articles in the series), with a summary of that information included in the main article, and a brief note about the city's founding in the lead section (again, see the US Guideline for cities as to what should be included). I was aware of the nickname of St. Louis as "pain court"; in the main history article you will find a reference to Stella Drumm's "The British-Indian Attack on Pain Court (St. Louis)", which recounts the information you mentioned about the nickname of St. Louis as "pain court" or "pancur". I also was aware of the sometimes fractious relationship among early settlers; the French settlers in particular were hesitant to see their status in the society lowered by an influx of Americans.

As to the issue of Catholicism or other cultural issues such as music that make St. Louis significant, I think they are all worthwhile content additions, though the Wikipedia:Lead section is not necessarily the place to put them (see Wikipedia:Lead fixation) The lead section is not for including every significant fact, and when I rewrote the lead, I again followed Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. According to it, lead sections about cities should include (among other things) "Notable unique characteristics and characteristics commonly associated with it". A quick search of Google shows that common terms associated with St. Louis include "cardinals", "rams", "arch", "zoo" and "blues" (of the ice hockey variety). Thus, I included the sports teams and the Arch, but I did not mention St. Louis as "one of the largest centers of Roman Catholicism in the United States". Without a verifiable source to support that significant claim in the lead section, I will tag it as needing citation and remove it if no citation is provided. Reviewing recent demographic studies of the region shows that only roughly 1 in 5 St. Louisans is identified as Catholic, which is about the same proportion as the United States as a whole. Please see Culture of St. Louis, Missouri for the citation and direct link to the study showing the proportion of people identified as Catholic.

That being said and in reference to your last statement, an image of the Cathedral Basilica is embedded in the photo montage as the first photograph on the page, and I removed the second image of the building because of that. I agree with you that the city article should have a photo of the building, if only because it is the largest place of worship in the city. I also agree that the nickname of the city as the "Rome of the West" should be included, which is why I left that in the Infobox when I edited the Infobox nicknames section. Although it does not have a source, I thought it sounded reasonable enough that I or someone else would find one shortly. I did remove "STL" from that section as it seemed more an abbreviation than an actual nickname.

I agree with most of your sentiments, but one statement you made I'm not so comfortable with -- "It's important that not just one person does a major edit to an important historic city." I agree it's important that many people are involved in the writing of articles, and that's exactly what Wikipedia is built on. What concerns me is that you seem to be suggesting that my editing is stifling the ability of others to include verifiable information, which it is not. Much of what I removed were unverifiable claims written several years ago; this article was and to a great degree still is full of Wikipedia:Peacock terms and claims, and it does the Wikipedia project no good to include that. I will continue to make "major edits" that remove these unverifiable claims, while supplying sources when I can. If you have sources for much of the information I removed, please, reinsert the material with appropriate citations. But in the meanwhile, puffery, unsupported attributions, and editorializing are not appropriate for the encyclopedia. Thanks for your thoughts! poroubalous (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo Montage

The photo montage at the top of the page features two images of the Arch. While the Arch is undoubtedly the single most recognizable feature of St. Louis, does it really need to be shown twice? The image taken during the day seems less important than the larger night scene. St. Louis has so much amazing French-heritage architecture and some part of that could fit in nicely among images of the Arch, the Cathedral, etc. If you will, consider a picture of some of the great rows of homes and shops from Soulard or Gaslight Square. Aheimos (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Article title and the AP Stylebook

As noted at Wikipedia:Place#USA,

"Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may or may not have their articles named City provided they are the primary topic for that name. The cities listed by the AP are Atlanta,... St. Louis,... and Washington....Primary topic should be judged against all encyclopedic usages of a name; thus, for example, discussions of Phoenix should consider the mythological Phoenix, and discussions of St. Louis should consider Louis IX of France."

I assume this explains why the article is currently named St. Louis, Missouri, joining the three other cities (Phoenix, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Washington, D.C.) that don't follow the AP Stylebook. 72.244.200.190 (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The article's title has been hashed out likely several times in the past (along with Phoenix and Las Vegas, I'm sure), and this is the current compromise, to keep it consistent with other cities. You can probably find plenty on it with a little digging in the talk page archives. umrguy42 15:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Talk:St. Louis, Missouri/Archive 4 alone has 3 failed move requests to change St. Louis, Missouri to just St. Louis. umrguy42 15:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're living there.. must see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vos0xvXg1A0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.66.131 (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)