Jump to content

Talk:Indianapolis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Masamunecyrus (talk | contribs) at 06:51, 29 September 2013 (→Indianapolis demonym: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Montage Needed

Indianapolis needs a montage showcasing areas like the Conseco Fieldhouse, Lucas Oil Stadium, The Indiana Statehouse, The Soldiers and Sailors Monument and the General Downtown Skyline. Other similar-sized cities, like Jacksonville, Florida have montages fot their infobox pictures and its high time Indy had one too. Rhatsa26X (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I agree completely. Any of the top 20 largest cities should have a montage. I beleive this page used to have one actually. Anyone know what happened to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.141.181.3 (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Indianapolis Daredevils"

I deleted this "The Indianapolis Daredevils were a professional soccer team based in the city from 1978-79 and played in the ASL, the second tier of American soccerm." becuase who cares about some soccer team from the 70's and if it really needs to be included we need to add other defunct sports teams from Indianapolis like the Indianapolis Racers, and the Indianapolis Clowns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.235.66.52 (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted, but you do have a point. We need to have a separate table with defunct teams, directly below a table with active teams. I will work on it when I get a chance. -- MeHolla! 16:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could just remove some of the section, as Sports in Indianapolis covers all of that. HoosierStateTalk 16:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Racing Capital of the World"

Registered trademark of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway itself, and the title is emblazoned on its Hall of Fame Museum. Indianapolis as a city would only be called that by association, not from technical accuracy. --Chr.K. (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the Indianapolis Motor Speedway is not in Indianapolis. —Random832 17:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but how many people go to the Speedway Indiana 500 every year? None. They go to the INDY 500. Still, good points~.Apwall21 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMS is, in fact, located in Indianapolis. Speedway is a township portion of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area, not a city in and of itself. Need proof? Just look at the address of the track itself: 4790 West 16th Street, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46222. --Kp.murphy (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naptown Debate

The following is an archived discussion of a vote on the use of "Naptown" as a nickname for Indianapolis.'. The result of the vote was for no distinction.Please do not modify it.

Alright, we've already had this debate once here, but since someone can't come to grips with "less commonly" or "formerly", I thought we'd just have a vote. Go back and read the link that links to Indy's talk archive page and read the debates. Then come back here and vote whether it should be less commonly, formerly, or no distinction at all. I'll leave this open for a bit, and we'll roll with the majority. Respond with your vote, and why. -- JTHolla! 14:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Distinction - It certainly shouldn't be "formerly", because the name is in use more now than probably ever. Less commonly would be a better choice if you're looking for official distinction, but then again, what is a nickname? "A nickname is a name of a person or thing other than its proper name." Naptown certainly fits that bill, and does not need a seperate classification for this article. -- JTHolla! 15:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Less Commonly - You never hear the Mayor call Indy "Naptown" but it is often referred to by everyone as Circle City and Indy. I don't think it's notable enough and should include less commonly. By the way sorry I reverted your edit earlier, I didn't see there was a discussion here until after I made the edit. HoosierState 18:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never hear the Mayor refer to the city as anything but "Indianapolis". That is the point of nicknames. They're non-formal names. I wouldn't expect the Mayor to use Circle City or anything else that would be considered a nickname. And no probs on the revert, we'll leave it however until we reach a settlement here. -- JTHolla! 23:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember hearing former Mayor Peterson call Indianapolis the Circle City many times. With the exception of Radio station 100.9 I never hear anyone refer to Indy as Naptown. HoosierStateTalk 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only 100.9, but 96.3, 99.5, and a few AM stations also have referred to the city as Naptown. That would qualify as being part of the city's lexicon. -- JTHolla! 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Distinction - Personally, I don't like the nickname because it was formerly derogatory, and is now only used in stupid rap songs. But we should either use it or not, and since that's already been settled, there's no point in muddying the waters with the "less commonly" distinction. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we do go that rout, I would like it do be removed. I don't like it for the same reasons as you, derogatory and rap songs. HoosierStateTalk 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like Pistachio said, we have already reached a consensus that Naptown should be included. Besides, Naptown has no current derogatory connotation. -- JTHolla! 23:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Less commonly I'm the one who put the "less commonly" tag in there to begin with. There was a huge dust-up over the term "Naptown" back before I added "less commonly". I noted the term that way to reflect the fact that, yes it is a nickname for Indianapolis and a notable one, but also reflecting the fact that it is not a common term for Indianapolis (i.e., the average person does not use this term). Whether we like or don't like the term doesn't matter at all, only whether a person who comes to this article to learn about Indianapolis needs to know about the term. (I say they do.) Also, remember that notable does not equal commonplace. "Crossroads of America" is not a commonly-heard expression in Indianapolis (except perhaps as part of the business name "Crossroads Lincoln Mercury"), but it's importance as a motto is unquestionable. Vadder (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with this line of thinking is that you are only using a small group of editors from one website to base the claim that it's not commonly held. It's obviously a valid part of pop culture, whether or not one agrees with the culture or not. -- JTHolla! 23:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Jasont82. Plus, as a 21 year old who grew up in Indianapolis, my peers called it Naptown all the time. Let's not get too snobby here on Wikipedia.Whateverlolawants (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so my vote is "no distinction." Whateverlolawants (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nickname stays if any of them stay. That was already decided, unless something has changed in the eight months since that discussion? There is no reason to believe that the nickname was formerly used as opposed to currently. Had one would completely read those discussions, one would find this. There is only derogatory usage to those who wish to use/hear it so. To others it demarks a home and is only used as a point of pride. If it must be changed, remove the extra label. Apwall21 (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your vote goes for "No Distinction"? -- JTHolla! 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Population

  • Also!!! the folowing statement:
"As of the 2010 United States Census, the city's population is 829,718.[1] It is Indiana's largest city and, as of the 2010 U.S. Census, is the 12th largest city in the U.S., the second largest city in the Midwest (behind Chicago), the second most populous state capital (after Phoenix, Arizona), and the most populous state capital east of the Mississippi River"
Have we forgotten Atlanta? it is bigger than Phoenix AND Indianapolis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsgladden (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we haven't forgotten Atlanta. The city of Atlanta's population is 420,003 according to the 2010 census. The city of Indianapolis has a population of over 830,000 and the city of Phoenix has a population of over 1.4 million. City boy77 (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very disingenuous to say that Indianapolis is bigger than Atlanta. You should use Metropolitan or Urban Populations when considering city size, not simply municipal populations. In the United States, most population centers are made up of several municipalities, particularly older, denser cities. If you use urban populations, Boston, Atlanta, Denver, St. Paul, Phoenix and Sacramento are all larger capital cities than Indianapolis. If you used Metropolitan populations, Austin and Columbus are also bigger capitals than Indianapolis. - Ntyler01mil —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
All other municipal articles use the population inside the actual city limits when referring to the city population. There is quite a difference between a city and a metropolitan area, as metropolitan areas cover huge areas of land and can even encompass many large cities. If we started using metro populations where would one city end and another begin? Extermino (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New State House Image

Hey, I have taken a new picture of the State House, and thought it would go better than the bottom picture here, but didn't want to put my own image in. Check out Image:Indiana_State_House_2.jpg , and edit it in if you deem worthy! Thanks! -- JTHolla! 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What bottom picture? Great picture by the way, don't worry about putting in your own pictures (see here)! HoosierStateTalk 01:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I wouldn't have a problem inserting my own pics, but when replacing a pic, I just wanted a neutral viewpoint.  :) -- JTHolla! 12:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Festivals, Events, Conventions, Organizations

Reposting for discussion.

"The current title is too grab bag. There is no logical reason that organizations and festivals should be in the same place, unless these organizations are hosting these events. Again, I protest the use of Ethnic (too easy to offend and too hard to define) and add a protest of the use Cultural. It's all cultural. That's the title of section 7, so why repeat ourselves? Perhaps we could subsection this list into:

Conventions - Obviously Conventions are Conventions. Black Expo, GenCon, etc. Events - Those events centered for-profit in foundation as well as those events centered on a singular event such as the 500Festival and Circle City Classic. Festivals - Festival would be anything that was not centered around a single event, such as the Greek Fest etc. As for Organizations, this becomes hairy. Many organizations, though not claiming political affiliation, are political in nature. Many organizations, though not operating as businesses, are just as interested in maintaining income as many businesses. We should talk on this further..." Apwall21 (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Apwall21 (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, you seem to know what to do so by all means tackle that task. Organizations could always have a sub section in Companies maybe? HoosierStateTalk 05:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and organized the sections into Conventions, Organizations, and Festivals and Events. Likewise, I got rid of Cultural Events and the Athenaeum picture that went with it. Now, Festivals and Events are really the same thing, as long as something revolved around one singular idea I put it there. I put all organizations and businesses already included in the Organizations category. I also put items in Conventions if it was specifically specified as a convention before I changed it. If you feel like something needs changing, go ahead and do it. And I am always welcome to help out. Jman 01:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Morning Miss Bliss

Is there a source on this show being set in Indy? I remember it being set in Indiana, but don't recall them saying it was in Indianapolis. -- JTHolla! 02:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apprently Wikipedia has blacklisted the site I was going to show you. Just go to google and type in "Good Morning Miss Bliss" and the site is the last one listed on the first page. HoosierStateTalk 03:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation

Under Airports - the sentence containing "easing passenger access" needs attribution - it has been reported that although plane taxi times will improve with the new setup, actual delays will not be improved.

Under Highways, the summation into one sentence of the fiery issues around the extension of I-69 from Indianapolis to Evansville is worthy of further exploration, maybe another article, or maybe there's already an article that could be linked to.

The last few sentences in the second paragraph under Mass Transit are weak and unattributed - beginning with "However, an impressive collection...".

Under "People Mover" the impression is given that this is a widely used method for moving the public, whereas actually only 4 people are on it at any one time on average (personal obervation). The sole purpose of the People Mover was to give Clarian a cheaper way to run fiber optic communications thru downtown; the movement of people is secondary to this purpose. I confirmed this directly with the head of IT infrastructure of Clarian a few years ago.

Under "Transportation issues" - the header "Some complaints include" covers a panoply of items, all rolled up into a footnote to a search page on the local "alt" newspaper's website - this is a bit loose, and under-represents the battle of viewpoints - cars vs buses for the inner city vs buses out to the suburbs (which are overwhelmingly white) vs light rail out to surrounding towns (which are overwhelmingly white). The subsequent sentence that about "safe walking paths" is not attributed and as one who lives here, is generally incorrect...the major thoroughfares and shopping areas are truly hostile to foot traffic and bicycles, not the neighborhoods. My neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks and given the paucity of motor traffic, that was a good decision, assuming resources are finite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.39.31 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The subsequent sentence that about "safe walking paths" is not attributed and as one who lives here, is generally incorrect...the major thoroughfares and shopping areas are truly hostile to foot traffic and bicycles, not the neighborhoods. My neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks" Only in America would someone separate the place he gets his NECESSITIES as apart from his neighborhood. Sheesh. 76.252.184.181 (talk)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move per consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Indianapolis, Indiana → Indianapolis — Unnecessary dab per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#United_States, latter redirects to former. If "Indianapolis" redirects to "Indianapolis, Indiana," then the ", Indiana" is unnecessary. Note also that there are several cities - American and otherwise - that have no disambiguation like this (e.g. Chicago, Paris, and Rome.) — —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Strong Support I have long felt that major US Cities should not have to have the state attached to their names. Any of the top 30 most populous cities should be just "CITY", not" CITY, STATE".--Bedford Pray 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is not any other notable city named Indianapolis. HoosierStateTalk 00:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – it is much easier for those not in the USA to be given a clear convention without exceptions for naming US articles, namely " CITY, STATE" (I have no idea what the 30 most populous US cities might be). (Most Category:Chicago, Illinois subcategories include the state, per recent cfds.) Occuli (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. There has been a consensus to leave these alone. While the naming convention 'allows' this type of change, there has been a lack of consensus to make the change. In fact I thought that we were over this type of nomination since things have been quiet here. Let's spend our time on trying to rename ambiguous place name to ones that are not ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There never was a consensus to leave these alone. My understanding of the long-debated convention as it is now was that some names are significant enough to stand alone but there should be no automatic mass renames and that the editors of the city articles with names that may stand alone should make the determination of whether to do so or not. Please address the rename for this specific city. Is "Indianapolis" ambiguous or not? If so, you should be advocating for a dab page. --Polaron | Talk 15:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the previous discussions establish that we are leaving these alone. There is a reason that the naming convention does not say that the listed cities should be moved. Please note that the list excludes several cites that are on the AP list for various reasons. Also note that the justification behind this nomination may well be WP:POINT. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - notable cities in other countries are not listed by their provinces, either. CopaceticThought (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, there is no compelling reason to enact this move. The debate about these naming conventions is old and contentious and I do not want to revive it. It has been standard practice to leave US cities at the City, State title for some time, with a few exceptions. I see no real benefit in starting to enact new exceptions to this rule, and feel it is only likely to re-ignite circular debate regarding the conventions. Shereth 22:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Consistency for names of places within the country should carry a lot of weight. The only reason to move to Indianapolis is because we can; not that it makes the encyclopedia any better. Neier (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apathetic - "Indianapolis" forwards here, so really the only change would be to the address bar in your browser. It's not even worth worrying about. -- MeHolla! 20:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons I oppose the other similar requests that periodically trickle in. "City, State" works fine. — AjaxSmack 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

People may find the following useful:

There have been many discussions on this in the past. This is the current wording at Naming Conventions (settlements):

"The canonical form for cities in the United States is City, State (the "comma convention") ... Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may be listed at City if they are the primary topic for that name. Cities that meet these criteria are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle. No other city should be listed at City. As of January 2008, only three articles about U.S. cities do not use the "comma convention"—Chicago, New York City and Philadelphia. If you think any of the other articles listed above should be moved to City instead of City, State, please start a discussion via Wikipedia:Requested moves."

A similar move request has just been opened at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; I think the following response is useful:

"This has been a long-standing and contentious issue that has gone around in circles for years, and it might be hard to reach consensus this time. I undertsand your reasoning, but I've always found this move to be unnecessary, and I still find no real reason to deviate from the standard way American cities are written (City, state), regardless of it being slightly repetitive in this case. I'm closer to the fence about it than you might think, but the most serious problems with this article have nothing to do with its name. In any case, it might be a good idea to post a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) if you're serious about trying to reach consensus and getting editors involved in the discussion.
These past naming convention discussions might be helpful: 1, 2, 3, 4. Good luck. Okiefromokla questions? 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

As there seems to be individual conventions for many countries, I think the comparisons in the move request with Rome and Paris are not valid - if there is a desire for global conventions that should be hashed out first there. Knepflerle (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page length

Despite this article's extensiveness, it seems at times to be unnecessarily long. Some of the paragraphs can be shortened down and/or branched off into separate articles in the future...just a thought. Thanks OopsMessage (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

There is currently a proposal on the table to amend the Wikipedia naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook's suggested names. This would effectively move a number of US city articles currently on the list, so Indianapolis, Indiana would be moved to Indianapolis. To comment on this discussion, please go here. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

According to NOAA, the mean January temperature is 26.5ºF, [1] which, according to the traditional Köppen system places Indy right on the border between Cfa and Dfa. When the 1981-2010 averages replace the very cold Januaries of the late '70s with the much milder ones of the 2000s (especially 2006), the mean will increase to at least 28ºF, making Indy solidly Cfa according to the traditional classification. [2]

Which Köppen system does wikipedia prefer, the traditional one where D climates begin at 26.6ºF, or the modified one which raises the cutoff to 32ºF?

Mcvey68 (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current standard of 32F. The boundary for that pretty much runs the Ohio River. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking the demographics

In this edit, I reworked the demographics bigtime: not because they were erroneous, but because (for some reason) they were primarily the statistics for the balance. For the source of the numbers I put in, see this early version, the original one with Census Bureau demographic data. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of two state capitals to share its name with its state?

An editor added this [1] sentence to the entry at about the same time he added it to Oklahoma City [2]. I'm not sure I'd consider this case to be "sharing"—it's not quite New York, New York, after all—but I get the point. What do others think about the statement? Is it accurate? Is it encyclopedic? Shall we keep/delete/edit it? GreenGourd (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to check for accuracy, that is the job of the person that added it. I feel it has no encyclopedic value. Seeing as you and I are the only 2 people that have taken the time to look at it and express out opinions since May 2009 I am going to remove it.Naipicnirp (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

too long?

Someone put a tag saying the article is too long. It is 84kb and very long to scroll. Any objections to trying to tighten the writing and slightly shortening the article? User F203 (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history has a sub article, condensing that should reduce size by 7k or so. "Law and government" and "Cultural features" would be good targets for sub-articles as well. Moving them to sub-articles and condensing their present version on this article would probably allow another reduction of 25k. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is absurdly long as it sits now. Naipicnirp (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not absurdly long. In terms of readable prose, it is 48kb, which is large, but not absurd for a major city. There are already many subarticles. The article is in very poor shape, though, and I hope to work on it for the WP:Wikicup, but it is not absurdly long. Reywas92Talk 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Combining Sections

At first glance, there are no problems with the sections, "Recreation", "Cultural Features", and "Local Media". However, they are poorly defined and certain, if not many, of their subsections belong in both. These problems make it more difficult than it should to navigate the page.

I propose combining them into one section. Perhaps "cultural aspects", or something along that line. The three all really do have to do with culture in some way. Perhaps you could have "cultural aspects" as the main section, put "local media", and "recreation" as subsections of it, and then move sub sections and sub-subsections into one the appropriate places, either based on consensus or simply by if it needs to be moved or not.

If you read this please reply, there needs to be an agreement about this issue. Jherbertz (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Companies

Does not belong in the same sentence with Fortune 500 companies Are all of the companies listed Fortune 500? If not, perhaps we could have some balance in removal of other non-Fortune 500 companies. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following companies are listed but not part of the Fortune 500
In light of the new ad-hoc criteria for inclusion as stated by both Detcin and Lord Pistachio, vis: "doesn't belong in the same sentence with Fortune 500 companies", I will be removing said companies unless another rationale can be provided. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd agree that it isn't limited to just Fortune 500 companies. However, the companies mentioned in the article need to be significant to Indianapolis for such factors as revenue, number of employees or headquarters in the Indianapolis area, former status as a well known company that has been absorbed by a larger firm, etc. The Nussli Group meets none of those sorts of criteria with regard to Indianapolis (regardless of its significance elsewhere). As proof of this, a search of the Indianapolis Star archives returns no hits at all for Nussli Group, and even the Nussli Group website shows the only thing it's done in Indianapolis is to build temporary stands seating 22,000 for the IMS in 2007.Indyguy (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Will simply remove Peerless since it doesn't have an article as it's just a line of Delta and that is listed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Governor's Mansion on the Circle

A point should be made that the Governor's Mansion in the circle was never really the Governor's Mansion. In fact, it was under construction when the Governor (some say the Governor's wife) decided they weren't going to live there. It apparently sent vacant for a long time before becoming (if I remember hearing correctly) Town Hall and HQ for one of the fire companies. Prior to its construction, the circle was used as a meetings commmons. I am not posting this as an actual update, because I don't have any source citations. I just remember that info from an Indy history book I read. 24.123.26.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Revisit the Naptown Debate

OK, I think it time to revisit the Naptown debate. I feel personally that it is a commonly used nickname nowadays. My understanding is that the nickname came about in the early 1900's because the city was so boring you could take a nap there. I also understand that the dominance of the KKK in the 20's caused the name to take a derogatory turn. But that only lasted until the 50's or 60's when the name became disused until revived in the 90's. Additionally, SO WHAT if rap songs make heavy use of the name? Is the definition of nickname 'An alternate name that all people agree to use.'???? Even if it is/was derogatory, it is still a nickname for Indianapolis.

Here are some current modern uses that clearly indicate the name is alive and is not being used in a derogatory manner.

  • Sports
  • Business
  • Other Usage


OK, so I'm going to stop here. But seriously, it is not a RARE nickname. It is not a BAD nickname... BUT IT IS A NICKNAME! 24.123.26.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This is interesting to me, as I was born in Indianapolis, went to IUPUI, and lived there on the east side of the city for 22 years. I have never heard of "naptown," but you have made quite a convincing argument that others have. -- Masamunecyrus(talk)(contribs) 03:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as nicknames go, Naptown is probably one of the more positive nicknames I've heard. If you really want to go for derrogatory, try some of the nicknames I frequently hear. They include Idiotnapolis, Moronnapolis, and Stupidopolis. Kinda makes naptown seem less derrogatory by comparason, don't you think. 17:40, 25 August 2011 (CDT)Rhatsa26X (talk)
I just did a Google search on "naptown nickname indianapolis" (without the quotes) and got about 139,000 results. I don't see how one can deny that "Naptown" is a nickname for Indianapolis. Perhaps a lot of people have never heard it (all the more reason to include it). Perhaps it is felt by many people as derogatory - although the Wikipedia article on Annapolis, Maryland mentions it with no indication of being negative - it is any more negative than "Chi" (or "Chitown") for Chicago or "The Peg" for "Winnipeg" - anyway, if it is negative, so be it, we aren't supposed to be boosters, are we? Let's remove this ban on mentioning "Naptown". It is a nickname, and even if it is a rare nickname or a bad nickname, it is a nickname. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the entry "Naptown" has a redirect to Indianapolis. (BTW, shouldn't that be changed to be a disambiguation page, with Annapolis also being mentioned?) Meanwhile, nobody seems to be defending the ban on mentioning the nickname in the article on Indianapolis. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If further verification as to the status of "Naptown" as a legitimate nickname for Indianapolis is necessary, The Indianapolis Star posted what may be the definitive chronology of the term [3]. The term has a long history and is widely recognized in the local culture—as has been expounded above—and has, in the wake of Super Bowl XLVI, been recognized by several major media outlets [4][5][6]. If no counterarguments surface soon (especially given that a decent window of time in which to present such an argument has already passed), I feel the most reasonable course of action is to include "Naptown" among Indianapolis's "Nicknames". Scisdahl (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that no opposing opinions have materialized since this discussion began in May of last year, I think it's safe to say we've established a new consensus. I'm adding "Naptown" to the list. scisdahl (t•c) 23:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Indiana's "LOVE" @ IMA.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Robert Indiana's "LOVE" @ IMA.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really now...

An "In Popular Culture" section for a major city? I think I've seen it all...--Chimino (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added the In popular culture template to the section. Most of the items in this section have no references and are just random bits of trivia. I'll wait a few days before doing some drastic pruning. --Indyguy (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one has commented further on this, so I've removed the entire section since it really is nothing more than a list of trivia. The last version with the Indianapolis in Popular Media section is here. If a good source could be found, the information about David Letterman could be added to his article (if it's not already there). Movies about the 500 would be better placed in the Indianapolis 500 article itself. And the importance of basketball in Indiana culture is also significant, but probably more pertinent to the Indiana article. Indyguy (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Back here in 46201"

A recurring line from the song "Sour Suite" by the well-known Canadian band The Guess Who. Varlaam (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation with Marion County

There should be a brief historical mention in the demographics section that the city of Indianapolis and Marion County consolidated to form one city government in 1970. This would explain why it appears Indianapolis's population jumped 56% during the 1960s. To put the consolidation into perspective, if Baltimore City and Baltimore County ever consolidated, the city of Baltimore's population would swell to 1,450,000, surpassing Philadelphia.--MarioSmario (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of population (balance)

  • 820,445 population in the City of Indianapolis (balance) on April 1, 2010 Census.
  • 827,609 population in the City of Indianapolis (balance) on July 1, 2011 Estimate. this one
  • 829,718 population in the City of Indianapolis on April 1, 2010 Census.
  • 839,489 population in the City of Indianapolis on July 1, 2011 Estimate.

I am not sure different number of population about balance?

--Rossdegenstein (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the majority of Marion County is considered Indianapolis, some parts remain independent and are included in the county's population but not the city's. See Speedway, Indiana as an example. City boy77 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I understand and saw in Speedway, Indiana. Thank --Rossdegenstein (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Consolidation Indianapolis

While not necessary for an effective page - though, it'd be nice to have this in the page somewhere if anyone can find it - does anyone have any pre-consolidation maps showing the city limits of old Indy? Does anyone know the exact square mileage either of the census previous to the consolidation or even the square mileage of Indy upon the consolidation if any annexation had occured between the previous census and the consolidation? --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis demonym

There is a demonym listed for people from Indianapolis: Indypolitan, or Indianapolitan. This was added way back in 2009 and still sticks. Has anyone ever heard of this demonym? I've never heard of it outside of a comment on The Urbanophile in 2011. Google searches don't bring up many promising results showing it either to be an official or even an accepted demonym of the city's inhabitants. To my knowledge, there is no demonym for someone from Indianapolis--only Hoosiers, from Indiana. -- Masamunecyrus(talk)(contribs) 06:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ind/local_cli.php#h1
  2. ^ http://clem.mscd.edu/~wagnerri/Climatology/classification.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indianapolis&oldid=574969868"