Jump to content

Talk:Akron, Ohio/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Asking

I am asking that since that data isnt vandalism that might mislead viewers or damage Wikipedia's reputation, its content's encyclopedic relevance is currently in discussion, and usually people are given 48 hours to respond; for editors to refrain from removing the data for tonight as it is late and school is tommorrow, but i will surely continue when i wake up in the morning.--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the material I removed has been discussed plenty in the past and was shown to be trivial. I was following Wikipedia guidelines from WP:IPC. I don't know of any 48 hour requirement. --Beirne (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
BTW, there is plenty of other material in the article that has been discussed that needs to be deleted too, so you are getting much more than 48 hours for lots of it. --Beirne (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no such requirement. If you are unsure about the encylcopedic value of material, present it here before adding it to the article. We have been more than patient and willing to discuss what material belongs here and what doesn't and used countless references from Wikipedia guidelines and policies in explaining our thinking and trying to help you understand. Remember, the burden is on you to show why the info should be included, not on us to explain why it shouldn't. Just because something isn't purely vandalizing the article does not mean it is helping it or should remain for any amount of time. If it's trivia, it doesn't belong here. If it doesn't fit the established guidelines, it doesn't belong here. If it's unsourced it doesn't belong here. Simply having a source does not mean it should be here. All material I have removed has also been for the same reasons as Beirne: it's either trivial, unsourced, and/or improperly sourced. Most of the pop-culture stuff you re-added is still trivial and doesn't belong here. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, if there is question over the encylcopedic value of information, adding it back and then asking for discussion is the opposite of what should happen. It really needs to stay out unless discussion can show it belongs. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

<- Threeblur0, you need to listen to what these guys are saying. I've said it before as well - not everything that is verifiable belongs in an encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia article is suppose to be a summary of important information about a topic, not an all-inclusive compendium of assorted facts. The longer the page gets, the less likely people are to actually read it.. --Versageek 17:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Versageek, didnt see your message, also i noticed ive been trying to fit all the information that should be in catagories together.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The popular culture section has been rewritten, and while it at least mostly deals with Akron in popular culture, it is full of tangential references to Akron that do not belong here. As I have said a number of times before, a popular culture reference should only be included if it helps someone who knows nothing about the city to learn something. As the Wikipedia "In Popular Culture" article says:

In determining whether a reference is notable enough for inclusion, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone. For example, if a movie or a television series has been filmed in a town, the viewer is seeing a concrete representation of what the town actually looks like at street level — but if the town is merely mentioned in a single line of dialogue, the viewer hasn't learned anything except that the place exists.

With that in mind, here are my thoughts on the current items in the Akron in popular culture section:

  • LeBron James - Maybe he fits here, but the detail would also fit fine in his sports reference.
  • Rugrats - I watched the first few minutes of the Rugrats video. It says the Pickles moved to wherever they were from Akron. That was it, so that fits in the category of towns mentioned in single line of dialogue. This Rugrats mention should be removed.
  • Marbles - Marbles are about Akron's effect on popular culture, not Akron in popular culture. They should be mentioned elsewhere and they are. Marbles should be removed from this section.
  • My City Was Gone - This one is the type of thing that should go in the list. The mention needs a reference but the song does have some things to say about Akron.
  • Get it in Ohio - It is just above a mention of Akron, but aside from mentioning LeBron James I'm not sure that saying his buddies were coke Kings in Akron says anything specific about the city. I'd be inclined to remove it.
  • Your Touch - It's neat that it was filmed in Akron, but Akron isn't identified and all you see are a roof and smokestacks. I'd be inclined to remove it.
  • Leland Gaunt - We talked about this in length before. Gaunt was born in Akron but the books don't otherwise say anything about Akron. This fits in the definition of empty references to Akron. This should be removed.
  • Rome wasn't built in a day - We've talked about this a lot too. You can replace Akron with almost any city on the planet and the sentence will make just as much sense. Akron just happens to be the location in the sentence. This should be removed.
  • Akron in The Stand - This doesn't really say anything about Akron either other than there was flu there, like in lots of cities around the world.
  • My Own Worst Enemy - The article does not say that the character often visits Akron, it says he often visits places like Akron and Albany. He only needs to visit Akron once for that to be true. This should be removed.

So My City Was Gone is the only strong In Popular Culture reference in the paragraph. Everything else is either too trivial to be mentioned or just barely above that. --Beirne (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In determining whether a reference is notable enough for inclusion, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone.

  • LeBron James - information fits here because he is putting Akron in popular culture, which is more fit for this article/section than his personal page.
  • Rugrats - fits because the city's culture/history is expressed due to stew being a toy inventor and the family being from there.
  • Marbles - fits because the toy subculture is a part of the larger popular culture.
  • My City Was Gone - fits because it's based on Akron.
  • Get it in Ohio - fits because it tells information about Akron and person's view on it.
  • Your Touch - fits because it is set in Akron (possibly the whole video cause it dosent make sense to shoot a video in seperate cities when no significant-city landmarks are being shown).
  • Leland Gaunt - fits because Akron is prominent setting (where a main character is from and is referred to in [[Needful Things multiple times)
  • Rome wasn't built in a day - fits because it expresses the author's view on Akron, putting it in comparison to Rome (chose the city out of many for a reason).
  • Akron in The Stand - fits because the city is visited in the book, whereas not a big number of other cities arent, prominent setting, referred to multiple times.
  • My Own Worst Enemy - fits because he in more than one episode he goes to Akron, prominent setting.

--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I had removed the trivial instances of Akron in popular culture and had the removal reverted. I was following the guidance of WP:IPC, which says "Entries that make only passing reference to the subject can usually be removed." I left the ones that either fit or were less clear. I removed Rugrats because all it says is that the family is from Akron. While there is the toy inventor mention, which may or may not be coincidental, the show does not appear to make the tie, so someone who didn't know about Akron would learn anything, the test from WP:IPC. Akron is not a prominent setting in the Leland Gaunt stories, it is just mentioned as his birthplace. Once again, no one learns anything about Akron from the book. On the Rome statement, the statement says nothing about Akron, it just mentions it as a way of saying that other cities weren't built in a day either. That is not unique to Akron. In The Stand, Akron is mentioned in one paragraph in the reference, and it is more about the characters who visited than Akron. On My Own Worst Enemy, the reference doesn't say that he visited Akron more than once or that Akron was a prominent setting. --Beirne (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


"In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable facts of interest to a broad audience of readers. Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject. For example, a city's article may mention films, books or television series in which the city is itself a prominent setting, and a musician's article may name television series or films in which the performer has made several guest appearances.

It is a fact that they are from Akron, Rugrats are known worldwide, so the fact would interest a broad audience of readers. Akron is a prominent setting because it is where the main family characters originated, a main character from the city does cultural things of the city, such as toy inventing (a lot of toy makers and companies started in Akron, also other types of iventors), Akron has a well founded jewish community (plenty jewish organizations are located in the city, and jewish native Stanford R. Ovshinsky early life section has an example), Tommy's mother's side of the family is jewish. The music is even made the Akron natives of Devo. Chuckie Finster was afraid of the guy on the oatmeal box (a good portion of the country knew Quaker Oats were maded in Akron at the silos) In an episode, the traffic reporter, Rex Humbard, is named after the televangelist who preached near the Derby Downs [1] This all ties to Akron/culture/history and interest a broad audience of readers.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're still missing the points Beirne has made and the purpose of these sections in general. For instance, Rugrats having Akron as a hometown is trivia; it has no bearing in the series (no episodes take place in Akron and it isn't mentioned again) and does nothing in explaining or featuring Akron for the purposes of the article. There's a good chance one of the writers was from Akron and just stuck in it. You have to look at the difference between being a major setting and/or filming location and a passing reference to the city in a quote or in a line of spoken dialogue. Rugrats being a notable TV show does not mean Akron's brief mention is encyclopedic or worthwhile in this article; the same goes for most of the mentions as Beirne has explained. A lot of the reasons you are giving for inclusion are your own personal opinions (like why the author selected Akron and Rome for the quote). He's not comparing Rome or Akron at all. "Rome wasn't built in a day" is a common quote (look it up). Adding something about Akron is nothing significant, nor is it anything beyond a passing mention. Characters being from Akron is not that same as a story taking place in Akron. I still think LeBron is far more appropriate in the notable natives section since he is the most well-known Akronite right now. Right now most of this is trivia and boosterism. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You're still missing the point, sections should contain verifiable facts of interest to a broad audience of readers, it does that, also WP:USCITY#Arts and culture isnt the same as popular culture, plus view Category:Fictional characters from New York City Category:In popular culture Category:Locations in popular culture --Threeblur0 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Also in My Own Worst Enemy, he visits Akron more than once, making it a prominent setting, i will find sources. I also gave reasons for the other material but dont have time right now.--Threeblur0 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope, something being verifiable and interesting does not necessarily equal notable or encylcopedic. See WP:N. This is currently the biggest problem this article faces and you (and any editor) face as an editor in being able to distinguish between what is "interesting" and what is notable and worthwhile. There are a lot of interesting, verifiable facts that are out on the Internet about Akron; that does not mean they should be included here. As for the guidlelines at WP:USCITY#Arts and culture that is where pop-culture mentions are made. A subsection can be made for pop-culture, but only when it's needed. Not all city articles have pop-culture sections. I'd say most don't. The presence of the categories you mentioned still does't satisfy the mostly trivial reasons for including the Akron-specific pop-culture info here.
For My Own Worst Enemy do the mentions say anything about Akron? When he visits, does a significant amount of the plot take place in Akron? If so, then yes it should be included, but if it just mentions a few times he visited Akron and that's it, then it's just a mention and isn't really significant. A setting isn't just where a character goes, it's where action actually takes place in terms of plot development. "Prominent" suggests most of the important action takes place there. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
For a comparison, My Name is Bill W., which I haven't seen, likely would fit as a pop-culture mention because it's about the founding of AA in Akron. Even though Bill W. didn't live in Akron and only visited, important things happened during his visit that relate to Akron history. My Own Worst Enemy is fiction, of course, but if the visits to Akron say something about the city and aren't just a generic setting for some episodes of the show then it would also fit, otherwise not. --Beirne (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed the in popular culture article and found another interesting criteria: "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be notable if the subject responds to it in a public fashion—such as a celebrity or official quoted as expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference.". So a number of the items really need secondary sources to demonstrate their notability. --Beirne (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed an inproper tag, due to it being in the wrong section and all the data with Akron as a prominent setting or helping people to understand Akron or what comes from Akron, plus none of the data in film and television are "passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics"....Also after reviewing the catagories i listed, i found better ways to wikify the information.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Leatherheads has just passing references to Akron. All the Marbles and Dance, Girl, Dance have portions that take place in Akron but nothing indicates that they tell the viewer anything about the city. The Instructor needs a secondary source instead of a tertiary, and Prison Break needs a secondary source instead of a primary. --Beirne (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Have you watched Leatherheads? It tells a significant amount about the city's sports team etc. All the Marbles and Dance, Girl, Dance, and The Instructor have concrete representations of the city (even though pop culture rules shouldnt apply to this section) and i will get another reference for Prison Break.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I haven't seen Leatherheds, which is why the mention needs a good reference. From what I could find Akron is only mentioned in passing.[2]. Regarding the other three movies I suspect that The Instructor counts but needs a good secondary reference to prove notability, All the Marbles might, and maybe Dance, Girl, Dance. They need good secondary references to prove it, though. And this section is the very definition of Akron in pop culture. More than a Game, All the Marbles and The Instructor, but the others are appearances of Akron in popular culture, in this case film. --Beirne (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Know what, i have a headache from last night and have articles to make and alot of typing to do, so for the time being, ima let you have, then fix everythng later with editors input, enjoy.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sections

I cant see why the film and television section was removed, just like cleveland and similar cities, it seems Akron needs the section for the information to fit well. Does anybody think otherwise, if so, why?--Threeblur0 (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Because parts aren't backed up with references, and the WP:USCITY guidelines suggest that movies and TV filmed in the city go in the media section and appearances of the city in a movie go into the in popular culture section. I put the ones that fit in popular culture in the new section. Regarding films done in Akron, the guidelines say "major motion pictures". This leaves out The Instructor. All The Marbles might fit with good secondary references, even though it was only some scenes. --Beirne (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the sentence about Thomas and Beulah is still incorrect, as i recall her grandmother already being in Akron and only her grandfather coming from the south.--Threeblur0 (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

They appear to both have come from the South but separately. I have clarified the wording. Thanks! --Beirne (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Devo

I took the part of Devo forming in Akron out of the notable section, as they formed at Kent State. I forgot to add a comment so this is my explanation here. --Beirne (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think their first performance was in Akron (if I remember right) and of course some of the band members were Akron natives. If it's mentioned in the notable section, it should be the members who are from Akron rather than the entire band. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I found two sources [3] [4] that say Devo formed in Akron, it also says it on the wiki page. Also, upon reading the reference about Devo under the Kent residents section [5], i find it is a narrative of the narrator's first person account of concert viewings and research, which could possibly be wrong.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The first two sources are a good start, but neither are true reliable sources since they contain no verifiable material (like a bibliography of where they got their info from). According to this link, the first performance was at the recital hall at KSU. I'm not quite sure what you mean in regards to the third source though. The link you provided (which is also used in the Kent article as you mentioned) goes to an excerpt of chapter 7 of a published biography of the band (We Are Devo), so it would appear to pass reliability and would probably be one of the best sources of information about the band. This essay by former band member and Akron native Bob Lewis is linked on the Devo article and states on page 2: "Let me be plain about this: contrary to popular belief DEVO was not and is not a phenomenon of Akron, Ohio. It was rather a logical extension of a series of inexplicable forces that made Kent State University a mass culture nexus for a brief and shining moment." --JonRidinger (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The origin of Devo is a bit tricky. Some of the members were from the old Northampton Township and the group got together at Kent State. They were part of the "Akron Sound" though, so Akron is used as a convenience in some descriptions of the band. The WP article on Devo does say they formed in Akron near the top, but reading their history in the body of the article they were formed in Kent. Of course, we need a better source. Bob Lewis' statement puts things pretty clearly in Kent. I think this outweighs the other sources that say the group was formed in Akron and we should keep the statement that they were formed in Akron out of the article. --Beirne (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken parts of the popular culture, film, and literature sections, rewritten them, given them good references, and have created a new Akron in popular culture section. This meant that a lot of the existing things listed got cut out, but what got cut did not conform to the guidelines for in popular culture guidelines. I don't have a problem with items being added to the new section, but they must have solid secondary references and not deal with trivial references to the city. For examples of references look at what I used, which was generally reviews or literary criticism. Primary sources such as scripts don't count because they don't show notability, and tertiary sources such as imdb or other quasi-encyclopedic sources don't count because they tend to not have the same standards of accuracy and in the case of the movie databases do not show notability either, as they include everything they can. --Beirne (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The correct thing to do would be put citation needed tags, and you use consensus. Funny how i tried to put it under the section and it kept being removed, mass data loss so we have to go back and do it right. Plus you removed pictures in the process, and no guidlines say it should look like the way you put it, which looks random. Furthermore, they way you worded it really isnt good encyclpedia prose. Finally, your sentence for More Than a Game, didnt sum it up right. Behind my final reason, your sentence for Thomas and Beulah was inncorrect as only her grandfather came from Mississippi, all this is vandalism if not close.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Threeblur0, Beirne's careful rewriting is the farthest thing from vandalism. I think there should be an WP:RFC/U on your conduct here and your refusal or inability to learn to follow the basics of the WP:MOS. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
How is incorrect facts, careful rewriting? How am i showing refusal or inability to learn to follow the basics of the WP:MOS, when i first placed in popular culture in the culture, then got it removed by others who said it didnt belong, then gave it it's own section like it is suppose to have, only to have it put back in culture by one of the editors who said it didnt belong?--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I never said the popular culture concept didn't belong, I said that most of the popular culture material in the article didn't belong. I've been putting tags on items for a long time and discussing here, but for most of them valid references were not found. I did pick my items out of the existing lists, but had to come up with new sources for all of them except for More than a Game, where I had already put in a valid ref myself. You are right about Mississippi, I'll fix it when I put the section back. For More then a Game, I got what I wrote from this sentence in the review: More Than a Game, which looks back on the achievements of a high school basketball team in Akron, Ohio, that happened to include the future N.B.A. superstar LeBron James, is halfway there. In either case those can be easily edited. What isn't so easy is leaving information in the article that cannot be backed up with good references. Removing the picture was inadvertent, but since there is already an art museum picture in the museum section we don't really need another one in the film and TV section where it doesn't even apply. --Beirne (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You seemed to agree with the John that it didnt belong in the culture section, which i stated. Please explain which and how the information on the sources arent valid. It seems we might need a concensus first to find rather it should be a seperate section [like most popular culture sections are] or be fused with culture. The article, which is similar to Cleveland's style, is organized and only pointed out as wrong by you and John, a small minority compared to the atleast hundreds who view the page. Your actually removed to pictures, and the second museum picture is meant for the above section on museums and shows change.--Threeblur0 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

<---"The John"? Enough with the personal attacks. No, we never said there was no place for any pop culture section; what was previously there was largely cruft, so it was better to not have any section than to have what was there. WP:USCITY does not have pop culture as a separate section; it has it mentioned within the context of arts and culture. It doesn't even require it be a subsection, though that is certainly an option. This article is not similar to Cleveland's style because Cleveland is a featured article; this is a class-C and even that is a stretch given the overall poor organization, excessive subheadings, and cruft present. Considering you are the only one who has acted on your view of this particular pop-culture section, do not assume that "hundreds" of people who view this page automatically agree with your viewpoint. In the end, it's irrelevant since no other experienced editors have supported your overall position; what is relevant is established Wikipedia policies on content and structure. Inaction on the part of other editors should never be assumed to be automatic support; many times it's simply not wanting to get involved or plain indifference. Even then, the general structure of the Cleveland article is one possibility for this article; it is by no means an absolute, a concept you have shown great difficulty in comprehending throughout this long, laborious process. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Threeblur"? Glad to see you didnt put that personal attack this time, also what personal attack are you talking about? I know, but you removed it from the culture section and said it didnt belong (like i keep stating...). This article is similar to Cleveland's style because it has sections that that page has. If all that is present, could you point it out in disscusion so we can slowly but surely fix everything together, intstead of making major edits and then using the talk page, which is backwards? I didnt say or assume that, reread what i said. As you said, all cities arent the same and sometimes require different sections for it to be proper, Akron is significantly different from the average city, so it definitly applies to it.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Threeblur0, read upwards through the various discussions and you will find out my issues with the sources. I have repeated them over and over. And on the pictures, having an art museum picture in the Film section doesn't make any sense anyhow. I just never got around to removing it on purpose. Having a picture of the scupture at Guzzetta Hall doesn't make sense either in the literature section, either. And yes, please stop assuming bad faith and making personal attacks --Beirne (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the pictures, this was discussed way back when you first starting adding pictures into the article about a year ago. Generally, the pictures in a section need to be directly relevant to that specific section, otherwise they are just there for decoration rather than expanding the topic. It is unlikely a public-domain image is available for anything in the pop culture section since all of it is copyrighted and placement of a copyrighted picture in this article would not qualify under fair-use. With "major edits", remember, it is the person who adds the info to defend its inclusion, also known as burden of proof. We do not have to explain in detail every removal we make. And no, sorry, Akron certainly has things about it that are unique (as does any city) but in terms of pop culture, it is pretty standard for a city its size. Being mentioned in books, tv shows, and movies is hardly abnormal for a city of over 200,000 people. It certainly isn't on the level of Cleveland or anyhwere close to cities like New York, Los Angeles, or any other major city (no Akron is not a major city). --JonRidinger (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Bernie, data has changed since then, and dramatically, just for the sake of gettng this over with, please do cause it makes sense and will work. The section is "Arts and Culture", just like many pages, the pictures stretch into other sub-sections, which is fine. And again, what personal attack and assuming of bad faith?

JonRidinger, the pictures (which are are related) are drectly relevant to the specific section (arts and culture), the pictures do that by showing art. I dont know why you told me that but ok. I think i added proof with the references put, but if i didnt, again, could you tell me how i didnt? I didnt say yall did, but when you remove encyclopedic referenced data that is located where it fits, you kinda really do. You should be, other than that, then name atleast five other cities the same size that is as unique as Akron in terms of pop culture, or history for that matter. Also, in terms of popular culture wasnt even my focus. Why the tone and random comparisons, talk about taking it personal, the fact that it isnt a major city and has been the setting or location of the amount it has been in, makes it unique (i know, it's a mini-major city).--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The pictures I removed weren't stretching into other subsections, they were placed in other subsections. Every time I saw the picture of the art museum in the film section I thought about how strange that was there. The personal attack was you calling Jon "the John", and assuming bad faith was when you said of my changes "all this is vandalism if not close". Vandalism implies bad intent on the part of the person who did it, the opposite of assuming good faith. In any case I have restored my changes and took out the part about Thomas and Beulah coming from Mississippi. --Beirne (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The pictures are IN THE ARTS AND CULTURE SECTION, where they fit. Not strange. I never called him "the John", i shortened his names as he would do mine often, no, what i said is fact since you removed correct referenced data with incorrect data.(kinda fits the definition). In any case you did it again, and worse this time so im restoring so we can attempt to do it right as stated above. Your behavior is getting out hand and you dont seem to want to cooperate with other using the talk page, i might have to get administrators involved.--Threeblur0 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You called Jon "the John" when you wrote "You seemed to agree with the John that it didnt belong in the culture section, which i stated." Search on this page to find where you said it. I made an honest mistake saying that Thomas and Beulah came from Mississippi, but in spite of what you just said the text that it replaced had no reference at all, so it was not correctly referenced. It made statements that may or not be true, but there was no way to know. I added a proper secondary reference and I was able to use it to verify that I had made the mistake, which I corrected. Regarding cooperation on the talk page, I've been talking about these things here for ages. Feel free to get administrators involved. --Beirne (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Please, be my guest and get administrators involved. Have them look over this talk page and the edit history of the article. Beirne clearly explained his edits more than once, which he isn't required to do. And yes, you referred to me as "the John" above which is not a shortened version of my name and can easily be considered an insult. The only shortened version either of us have ever used for you is "Threeblur". --JonRidinger (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I just undid a change by Threeblur0 that removed the infobox from the top of the article. --Beirne (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Threeblur0, you just added (back) the film Dance, Girl, Dance (among other things) for its supposed great relevance to Akron in popular culture. I looked at the Wikipedia article and it makes no mention of Akron, which is not a good sign. Neither does the listing on IMDB. The film is on the Library of Congress' preservation register and it also does not mention Akron (link in the article as a ref). The article also cites the New York Times review of the film, so I looked at that and it does not mention Akron (nor does it like the film much). Trivial mentions of Akron do not belong here, as has been pointed out to you over and over and over. I am going to work on a Request for Comment/User (will take me some time as busy in real life). My hope is that you see it is not just the several editors here who disagree with you, but the community at large. I hope you change your ways, but if not this disruptive editing cannot continue. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
He removed referenced prose that had his and mine included then reverted back to a version that didnt have as cleared information. After the earlier discussion and proper edits, he didnt clearly explain, but instead said "in any case I have restored my changes and took out the part about Thomas and Beulah coming from Mississippi", which administrators will see. Im not going keep repeating myself on why he should explain the edit he is making. Oh i see and should have looked, originally i was putting "the editor" but didnt erase all they way when i changed to your name, my error but not meant to be an insult. For now on say my full name and i will use yours.

That was on accident.--Threeblur0 (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, it is not in popular culture, omg, can we please use the talk page FIRST to figure what needs to go where? Also here is a better reference that says Akron. [6] --Threeblur0 (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Except aspecting other editors to take the right steps, i will start myself from its current stage.--Threeblur0 (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper). Tripod, which is where the suggested reference points, is self-published material and is not acceptable as a source in Wikipedia. --Beirne (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for the tip, really. Does this one work? [7] --Threeblur0 (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a better reference. Reading it, though, the movie appears to use Akron as a stepping-stone to New York City, so Akron isn't the focus of the movie, and from Ruhrfisch says Akron isn't even mentioned in most reviews of the movie so it must not stand out. I'll have to think about this one. --Beirne (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd say if it isn't clear-cut, probably best to leave it out; it isn't really that important. Does it make or break the section? Will leaving it out truly lessen a reader's understanding of Akron? That can go for anything in the article; remember even having a reliable source does not mean it should be in the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
After finally seeing the movie, more than just one or two scenes are in Akron and the two girls arent the only main characters from the city, they even talk about the tires factories and one characters works in the industry, plus the film fits the qualifications. I also found a better reference.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you went above and beyond. There was enough in the reference to make it a judgment call but since you've seen it and explained more detail then having the movie in the article sounds good to me. --Beirne (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree...good work Threeblur! --JonRidinger (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Needed edits

Are their anymore issues with the article which warrants the tag on top of the page?--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

The cleanup tag was placed for a lot more than simply moving a few pictures. First, the pictures still need some work in their placement (good places to start are WP:IMAGES and MOS:IMAGES), but that's the least of this article's worries. There are still widespread content issues, spelling, and organizational problems as well as missing or improper citations. Very little has changed in the past several weeks as it seems all the main editors took a break for whatever reasons (I was personally just burned out to this article). The best policy is to open a discussion before removing a tag like that. Remember, the tag is there to let other editors know it needs help and also to let readers know this isn't the best example of a Wikipedia article. It really isn't there as a badge of shame, but to solicit help. Removing the tag before the article is back to something close to being at the standard won't help make it better. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you specificly point out the issues with the article which warrants the tag on top of the page since they are not easily seen, yet you've located them.----Threeblur0 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The tag will be removed, as it should, if issues arent directly specified.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Threeblur, just because you don't understand the purpose of the tag does not mean I have to again spell out the issues surrounding why it is still remaining. The burden of proof isn't on me or any other editor to defend the tag remaining; it is on you to prove it isn't needed any longer. You are free to go into the talk archives if you have forgetten why it was put up in the first place. I also explained the general reasons again above why it needs to remain: picture placements are still a problem, the organization overall--particularly the history-- is a mess, and there are still content issues that have never been addressed along with missing or improper citations. A general lack of action for the past several weeks should not be interpreted as a sign that the article is now somehow in good shape or that it's acceptable. Again, when problems are widespread throughout an article, placing individual tags on every thing is cumbersome and time consuming, so general tags were created. As the general problems are reduced, then we can start putting more specific tags provided they are few and far in between. But in general, this article as a whole needs cleaned up. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Maps

I changed the map back to the original map just showing Akron highlighted in Summit County because the "dot on" map (File:OHMap-doton-Akron.png) put together with it is the same map as the pushpin map right below it. The pushpin map is one of a few mapping options to use on the city infobox and the "dot on" map is another. So basically, if you use one, you don't use the other. So if the combined Summit County and Ohio map (File:AkronSummitCoOHsk.png) is preferred use it instead of the pushpin map. If the pushpin map is preferred, it's best to use it with the map of Summit County by itself (File:Akron-SummitCoOH.png). :) --JonRidinger (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To-Do List

To more proficiently progress wikifying this article, could editors who notice errors in the page please add a statement that specifies indivisual problems, so other editors can work to solve the problems. This way works the faster than editors looking through archives for problems which may have already been fixed since the placing of the tag, such as citations and MoS.--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Take the time and go through the talk page archives here...that's what we have been doing over and over and over and over: explaining the problems. No need to keep repeating. I have already explained again how the history section needs completely reorganized and in many ways rewritten to have some sort of continutity and flow; pictures need placed so they aren't on the same line of text as another and they need to be in a relevant section with a relevant caption; many sources need to be placed or replaced; much of the information is still of questionable worth for an encyclopedic article. How do I know this? I've taken the time to read and become familiar with the MoS and as many relevant Wikipedia policies as I can so I don't need another editor to come in and show me where all the problems are. I've joined and taken the time to know the various WikiProjects and the standards they have developed for their respective articles. For this article specifically, the Ohio Wikiproject and the Cities Wikiproject are the ones to know, especially the cities project. I've taken the time to participate in and/or read discussions on how the various policies were formed. You need to be a lot more proactive than simply placing the burden on other editors to show you where the problems are because we have shown you multiple times. If you have questions ask, but don't just rely on what everyone else does. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
As i stated above, it would be more faster and convient for other editors if they had a list of things need done right here in one spot, rather than them going through archives where they will find problems that have already been fixed, is this hard to get? Sorry for not paying much attention to your personal attacks, but they just arent important. Which sources need replaced?--Threeblur0 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep this in mind: it would be faster and more convenient for you if someone put together another list of problems. It would not be more convenient for me or another editor to go through the archives or the article again and point out all the problems and make a list for your convenience. Experienced editors who see the cleanup tag know what to look for since they are familiar with the MoS, main Wikipedia policies and definitions, and the general article and project guidelines, so they won't need a to-do list nor will they come looking for one in the talk pages. That's why I always emphasize becoming familiar with those things on your own (nothing personal). To-do lists are generally used when the article is being reviewed for GA status (which this is sadly in no danger of getting to anytime soon) to show where it needs to meet (or has met) very specifc criteria. Again, there is no time limit or need to rush to get the tag removed and the main problems--mainly content and organization--will take some time and effort to fix because it basically involves going through the entire article from top to bottom. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Jon's list in the Cleanup Tag section pretty well summed up what the article needs. This history section needs to be made chronological. Having it be topical makes it difficult to add new material, because not everything fits into one of the categories. If you want someplace to start, you can work on the citation needed and the dead link tags, which were put there to highlight problems. Otherwise, we've been talking about the issues for ages, and the discussion is well preserved for you to read. --Beirne (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with the above comments, I would be glad to point out general areas that need improvement on this talk page much as I would at a peer review. I agree with Beirne that a good place to start would be with the citation needed and dead link tags. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A good place not to start is adding more info to the popular culture section. Of all the sections in the article, this needs the least amount of mass additions if any. Remember, as *several* editors have pointed out, it should not be a list of every appearance of Akron in works of literature, TV, film, etc. This is a general encylcopedic article about Akron, not an article about everything from Akron. As has been said before, the vast majority of the information is WP:FANCRUFT and trivia. Just because something has a source doesn't mean it should be included here because it does little if anything to help the reader understand the subject better. In my opinion, the only additions that need to be made to this article are where citations are missing or are improper. The focus here needs to be on improving what's here, not expanding a poor article even more. Adding more content doesn't fix the article's problems; it actually makes them harder and more time consuming to fix. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately the new pop culture material is the sort of thing that the cleanup tag refers to. As I have said many times on this talk page, an appearance in popular culture is only merited if it tells someone unfamiliar with the location something about it. Just appearing in a book or having someone born from there is not enough. Yes, there are references but that does not indicate that the films or shows say anything about Akron. --Beirne (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a good essay on this at Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. While it is not an official policy or guideline, I think it is an accurate reflection of most editors opinions on what should be in a GA or FA in terms of pop culture. Mere mention in an episode or movie or book does not merit mention here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent improvements

It's nice to see some progress being made, especially in the history. Though it is much improved, it still has a ways to go, though it is at least closer to being cleaned up but maybe not GA status. Even with the reduction in the history section it is still quite long, plus it basically ends in the 1960s, meaning it will be even longer. What will eventutally need to happen is a History of Akron, Ohio article will need to be created and the history section here should be reduced to just a few large paragraphs summarizing the most important parts of the city's development (mainly early history and industrialization, the rubber era, and late 20th/early 21st century history). Once it gets past 5 large paragraphs and multiple subsections, it's too long for this article and can stand on its own. There are still other problems, but most are small grammatical and spelling things. As for the lead, as I noted in the edit summary, the lead doesn't need to be any more detailed than it currently is and for the most part should remain rather broad in language. Eventually it could include more general summary of other content in the article, but for now I think we need to focus more on evaluating the encylcopedic nature of the content in the lead and the article (like the Newsweek source...it's 9 years old so really isn't accurate now). The lead's job is to catch the reader's attention and summarize the very basics of the article. Going into more details on why the city declined (like citing specific companies that moved) isn't needed in the lead and the source for Akron being "the" center of polymer research was hardly a third-party source (it was a promotional website for this region). There are very few exceptions of info that should be in the lead that aren't mentioned later in the article (nicknames and denonyms are the ones I can think of and maybe the mention of the metro area the city is part of, which could be mentioned in Geography). I've come to believe when writing an article, the lead itself should be revised as the last event of improving an article so that it accurately summarizes the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be nicer if you corrected the errors you saw. Actually, it goes to 2007, and im currently working on how to trim and add a recent times section of history. It will be either the same size or smaller than Kent's(which oddly a has a long history section) and a whole seperate history of Akron article wont be needed. The lead had problems, which i fixed instead of just stating, if it needs trimming then it should start from the fixes. What you believe, may not be Wikipedia Guidelines.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
As I've said many times, the Kent article is irrelevant here. We're discussing the Akron article. Just because it has a large history section does not mean A) this article should have one or B) that the Kent article isn't being worked on or even C) that the Kent article is without problems. I'm actually in the process of making a History of Kent, Ohio article and reducing what's on the current Kent article to three large summary paragraphs. It's a small part of the reason I don't have time to be constantly cleaning up this article among the many other articles I edit and watch. My hope is that you and other editors can make your own edits that don't require cleanup by me or other editors. That's why I take the time to explain the why's and how's. I've also gotten tired of spending lots of time doing cleanups only to see them reverted. My reasonings for the history section come from the WP:USCITY#History guideline. Again, not required, but I definitely see why the suggestion was made for length. If you ever want this to become a GA then following those guidelines are your best bet. What you did to the history was certainly a step in the right direction, however, I wouldn't call it being "fixed" any more than what you did to the lead by adding more details than are needed. The best edits not only fix some problems but they fix all or most of them. With sandboxes and other editors to help, there's no reason an edit should be placed in an article that needs additional major cleanup. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Featured articles New York City and Cleveland have nickname information in the lead, what are you talking about. The Newsweek source has a date so theres no confusion, plus i believe the list was only made once and nothing has changed to take Akron off of it.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Reread what I said..."There are very few exceptions of info that should be in the lead that aren't mentioned later in the article (nicknames and denonyms are the ones I can think of..." In other words, I said nicknames and denonyms are the exceptions to the rule, though it is not out of place to have that information also in the body of the article. As for the Newsweek source, yes it has a date, but for the lead it's largely inappropriate. Within the article would be fine, but mentioning a one-time article that named Akron a tech haven 9 years ago really isn't relevant in the lead. Even in reading Cleveland's I think the sources and "most livable city" shouldn't really be in the lead since it is now 5 years old. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, for future reference, if a fact mentioned in the lead is sourced in the body of the article, it does not need an additional citation in the lead or infobox unless it is highly controversial or challengeable. If the lead has a lot of items that have their own sources, there's a good chance it has a lot of information unique to the lead and thus isn't following the guildelines of how the lead should be written. See WP:LEAD. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Subheadings

I reverted the removal of the subheadings to the history section. Their removal some time ago led to the initial disorganization of the history section. The use of the New York City and Cleveland articles as examples is, once again, not a valid comparison. Both of those articles have History of New York City and History of Cleveland articles respectively, so the history sections in the main city articles are merely summaries of larger articles. That is not the case here. Unless this article has its history section trimmed down and/or has a History of Akron, Ohio article started (which would also result in the history section here being trimmed down), then subheadings should remain to break up the large sections of text. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

its leaving out the great fire of 1901

during the akron riots of 1900 to 1901 there was a great fire that burned down the down town fire station. that site of the fire station is now where city hall is located on south high street that was completed on the centenial of 1925. 99.51.212.6 (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Category/List

I removed the "see also: Category..." because it's redundant to have both. If the List of people from Akron, Ohio doesn't have all the people it should, perhaps some effort should be put in completing the list. Further, when readers go to the list, it is connected to the main category anyway. There are no other articles I have seen that direct readers to a category like that; only to a list when one exists. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I removed quite a bit of info recently added to the lead mostly because it isn't appropriate for this section. See WP:LEAD for the details about what makes a good lead. Basically, there really shouldn't be any citations in the lead except in rare circumstances. The lead is an introduction and thus should summarize the entire article so should also be more general. That means everything in the lead should be found elsewhere in the article and we really should see lists even in prose form. Highlight certain aspects of the article from each section; the less notable aspects can be mentioned later in the body of the article. Everything that was added was properly sourced, but just in the wrong place. The same goes for the police section. Here we need a basic explanation of the department. Most of the info added falls under trivia and has almost no notability outside Akron. Unless it received significant coverage (both in where and how long) outside of Akron, it doesn't belong here. Any questions, please discuss here :) --JonRidinger (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If something in the lead is already in the body of the article, the source can be moved to the article itself unless it is highly challengeable. But the lead should be very general; it's not really appropriate to list a whole bunch of the historical companies there when they're discussed later in the article, especially when one needed an explanation in parenthesis with it. Basically, the entire article needs to be worked over from top to bottom, cleaning up language, prose, and the citations. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Akron Experiment

I kept this in even though I question its placement in the article and its notability. This is not a human rights issue. The article clearly states the girls who participated did so willingly with permission from parents. The brief sentence in this article makes it appear as though it was forced on them and was very dangerous when in fact, the experiment was highly successful. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Taken from the lead guidelines,

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.

The information fits these qualifications, if you feel they do not, please explain why, also i dont understand how force comes to mind.--Threeblur0 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the leads for Cleveland and New York City, which I know you are familiar with. You'll note both do not list a large amount of companies that began in each city or are currently in each city even though there are many nor do they dive into anything that is not covered later. Both give a good, but not detailed, overview of the article in mostly general terms, mentioning specific aspects where needed (such as mentioning the United Nations as part of being a global city and the NYSE for being a financial capital). "Concise" in the lead guidelines should not be interpreted as "detailed". You can be very concise with very little detail. Note also the lead says: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". In other words, the most important stuff should be getting most mention. When the mention in the lead is about as long as the mention in the article itself, it's not that important. Listing historical or current companies is not the most important thing, particularly in a large city, but even more so when some of these companies (like the Akron Toy Company) don't even have articles about them and need further explanation in parenthesis why they're important. It's one thing to mention a company, like Goodyear, that Akron is likely most known as being the home of (particularly in light of the most common nickname "The Rubber City"), but most of the companies in the lead you have included are mentioned briefly in the article and their inclusion in the lead is more an attempt at boosterism than any step in getting this article cleaned up. Simply mentioning the overall industries is enough. And do remember, the burden of proof falls on the editor who wishes to include additional information. It is up to you to properly justify why this needs to be in a lead that is already large and in need of quite a bit of work as it is. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The salt test are notable because, goiter was stopped in what was known as the Goiter Belt, the electric railway was notable because it made mass human long distance travel much faster, the world championship is notable because the popular football sport started in America and they won the first title undefeated, toys are popular nation and worldwide, so is tires and other polymeric materials.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not saying they aren't notable enough to be included somewhere in the article (though remember, an encyclopedia article isn't supposed to be about everything Akron; but the most important and notable info), but the lead is a different story. Again, look at the larger city articles that I know you frequently consult for ideas and see how they use more general terms and far less detail in the lead, highlighting the largest and most notable elements that are discussed further in the article. For instance, the New York Yankees have won 27 World Series titles but you don't see that mentioned anywhere in the lead of New York City. Right now, it just looks like the lead looks deperate to show Akron's importance by reeling off a list of companies and endless details. You also need to check sources on the claim that the polymer industry started in Akron. While it certainly has grown there, I didn't see anything that stated it started there. Akron isn't even the only polymer center anyway.

Stopping a disease isnt important? time saving transportation? there isnt a difference between first and 27 times after? Where does it say "started"? I know, but it is the main one. According to the lead article they qualify.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Also lead guidelines says list companies that support the city's economy.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You have to understand what is most important and what isn't in terms of the lead, not in terms of your personal preferences on an event or item of information. The fact that just ONE source supports the Akron Experiment statement is evidence it isn't nearly as important as you seem to believe it is. The Akron Pros winning the first NFL title is trivia; interesting but tells us nothing about Akron and definitely not a lead-worthy item for a city of nearly 200 years old and over 200,000 people. The professional sports teams of larger cities are far more notable than the Akron Pros and I don't see them in any FA or even GA class city articles leads.
Akron the "main" polymer center? According to what source? If a source states that and is from the University of Akron or the City of Akron, those fail WP:RS because of neutrality issues. Akron is *a* center of polymer research and development; it is not *the* or even the most prominent from all the sources I've seen.
In reality, the entire lead needs major work with or without these additions. It is supposed to summarize the entire article and currently says nothing of things like the city's government structure, climate, etc. And list current companies that support the local economy? That means the largest and CURRENT companies but mainly mention the main industries, not listing a bunch of historic companies that do absolutely nothing for Akron's economy any more, nor does it mean list every company currently headquartered in Akron. Basically, you need to think like a Wikipedia editor and not simply as an Akron resident. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to summarize information about the city, not tell how wonderful the city is. Regarding current industries, the US Cities project suggests listing types of industries, such as services, manufacturing, etc., and not specific companies. Also, there are other issues in the lead. The statement "In the 21st century, the city's economy began an upswing, due to continued efforts in industry and media notoriety from NBA All-star LeBron James." is without foundation and it isn't clear that there is an upswing in the economy, least of all due to LeBron. He has merely brought attention to the city. The Newsweek high-tech haven mention was from 2001 and is getting pretty stale. The link for the industries started in Akron says nothing about the industries. --Beirne (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

from the link,

Heartened by the study, school districts and health departments across the country began to reproduce The Akron Experiment.

Colonial Salt of Kenmore became one of the nation's first companies to add potassium iodide to its product. Its table salt was sold under 160 labels at stores across the country.

Heralded for their study, Marine and Kimball gave speeches around the nation about the success in Akron.

In 1925, an Akron Public Schools survey of 27,000 pupils found that 49 percent of elementary-age girls had goiters compared to 26 percent of the boys — far above the national average.

The burden of proof is on you, the fact that it happened nearly one hundred years ago would explain the lack of present day articles on it, but since im listing three other links and came across more, i'd say it's important.

Akron was first at many things, so the firsts are most important, particularly a city with the nickname City of Invention and a two yearold well know Akron Witnessed First campaign. You must remember, not all cities are the same, for it's size Akron has more notable history than cleveland, just as some smaller cities than Los Angelous do. what the championship tells about the city is they won it and were first to do so, other cities dont list this cause there are less than ten worldwide sports, so only ten could do it first. What company is listed that is not currently helping the economy?--Threeblur0 (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Threblur, but the "City of Invention" is a self-proclaimed nickname straight from city hall and the "Akron Witnessed First" campaign isn't exactly neutral either. These kinds of programs are designed as promotional tools. Doesn't mean it's all not true, but it also can't be taken at face value. Sure, many can be mentioned and are important, but many are also not as important outside of Akron as the city would like people to think; like all cities are not equal, neither are all facts, even facts with a reliable source. This NFL title is an example; being first is cool, but Akron no longer has a team (and only had the Pros for a few seasons) and it being first was a simple matter of logistics: someone had to be first so it had nothing to do with Akron itself. Do you see the first World Series winner listed in their respective city lead? What about the first NHL or NBA champions? Nope. It's because in the bigger scheme of things, those are trivia as are many of the "firsts" for Akron. Now, if it were where the NFL was founded (i.e. Canton) that would be noteworthy and good to mention in the lead. As for the economy, while they contribute, where do we stop with the list? LOTS of companies contribute to the local economy, so having a list just invites people to expand it to include their company. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Economy Section District Names

Economy section needs restructuring for both ease of reading and clarity. In addition, I would like to raise the issue of the lack of sources for the colloquial terms for the business districts. I am a native Akron citizen and have never heard of these areas referred to as "corridors" or even as separate entities. Maguxmagu (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

cuisine and meaning of akron

If you talk about cuisine in akron and don't mention swensons and luigis...you don't know crap about food in akron...and akron comes from the greek term acropolis...meaning peak or summit...get you stuff right if you put it on wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.235.157 (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They're both mentioned in the cuisine section. As for the meaning of the word Akron, it is also mentioned in the first section of History. And just FYI, "acropolis" means "high city" (acro=high, polis=city). --JonRidinger (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

It's good to see this article getting some attention. My only worry is that some new problems are coming up with the rewriting of the prose. Be sure to read the Manual of Style and be familiar with other featured articles; not only how they are laid out, but what information they contain and how they are written. In a quick glance at the first paragraph of the Rubber Capital section, there are several glaring issues:

  • The opening sentence doesn't really make sense. Akron being transformed from a canal town to an industrial city wasn't caused by the city's history or the history of the rubber industry. It was caused by the growth and development of the rubber industry itself.
  • The sentence "In 1869, the first rubber company in the city became the Goodrich Corporation, owned by B.F. Goodrich." This makes it sound as if B.F. Goodrich was already in Akron and was named B.F. Goodrich in 1869. A better way to reword for clarity would be "The first rubber company established in Akron was the Goodrich Tew and Company in 1869." This tells us it's the first and what year it was founded. You would also use the original name. The term "Goodrich Corporation" came much later. This sentence would be followed by mentioning (in the same tense) the founding of Goodyear and Firestone. This would be edited to "In 1898, Frank Seiberling founded the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, followed in 1900 by the establishment of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company by Harvey Firestone."
  • This: "The final major tire company to begin in Akron, General Tire owned by The O'Neils Family, in 1915." is not a complete sentence. It should read "The final major tire company to begin in Akron, General Tire, was started by The O'Neils family in 1915."
  • In reducing some of the extra info, what we have is a section now that jumps from one decade to the next very quickly, so you have a bunch of disjointed sentences together that don't have any apparent connection. The last paragraph of the Rubber Capital section has a lot of non-rubber related things in it and summarized quite a bit of material in very few sentences.
  • The sentence about being the hub of the trucking industry is totally out of place. I'm not sure where it would fit best, but smack dab in the middle of the sentences about the establishment of the rubber industries isn't one of them.

There are other issues that need addressed, but this is a good place to start. I certainly don't want to come across as critical of the efforts, but more helpful advice for this article and future articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I noticed one of the edit summaries cited removing duplicate information that is in the intro. Make sure to read WP:LEAD. The lead section should all be duplicated elsewhere in the article. There shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't mentioned somewhere else in the article as the lead functions as a summary of the entire article. That is why many leads do not have citations in them since they are summarizing info that is sourced later in the article. Also, not sure that Akron and the area "leads the nation" in polymer research. The source used on that statement is not a neutral source, so it would fail WP:RS. We would need a source from outside the area that states Akron is the national leader in polymer research. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Unfortunately, the slew of recent edits have not "cleaned up" the article to Wikipedia standards. If anything most of the recent edits have maintained or in some cases diminished the quality of the article.

  • First, scroll down to the References section. After ref #168 there is a slew of "citation errors" from citations that have been altered somehow by the recent edits. It appears to be a case of the beginning citation being removed and dependent citations no longer having the needed parameters. That definitely needs to be fixed before any talk of removing the cleanup tag starts.
  • Second, also in the citations, there are still several citations that are just bare urls or titles; where all we have is a link to a website. Citations need titles, links (if available), author(s) (if available), publisher, publishing date, date accessed (for online citations), etc. and should be placed in an appropriate citation template, depending on where the source is from (book, news, web, journal, etc.). Note that just because something is online does not mean it should be placed in the "cite web" template. Cite web is for citations that are only on websites, not news outlets or books that happen to be online.
  • There are citations for city-data.com, which as far as I know does not qualify in itself as a reliable source since it does not cite where it gets certain data. If their data is sourced on their website, use the original source, not city-data.com.
  • As I have stated before, the lead needs to be a summary of the article. There should not be any information in the lead that is not stated elsewhere in the article. As it stands now, there is quite a bit of info in the lead that is unique to the lead. The "Akron Hammer" nickname for LeBron James comes to mind.
  • There are an overabundance of wikilinks in the article. Check out the policy on linking. We do not link very general terms (numbers included) in an article and those terms we do link are linked once or just a few times (maybe 2 or 3 depending on the length of the article and the placement of the terms in the article). An example is the linking of "330" and "area code" in the lead. Not only is that fact not anywhere else in the article, but "330" links to the number three-hundred-thirty and "area code" links to the article on area codes. The proper link would be to Area codes 234 and 330 and then piped to "330 area code" (though that fact shouldn't really be in the article at all as it's trivia). Linking to the generic "championship" article is another example of an overlink. See WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK (right after overlink)
  • While redlinks aren't bad, having a lot of them can be. The history section has quite a few redlinks, meaning they are linked to non-existant articles. While some could potentially have articles, they currently don't. It's better to create the articles first and then wikilink them here later. Some of these redlinks have been in the article well over a year. Not every company ever formed is going to be notable, so not every redlink in this article will ever have an article. See WP:RED.
  • There are still some general writing issues, such as the change in verb tense in a sentence and the general lack of flow in the history sections, jumping from one decade to another with little or no explanation. An example is "In the 1970s and '80s, Akron's rubber industry experienced a major decline as a number of labor union strikes occurred, plus Firestone and Goodrich relocating their headquarters out of the city." Experienced is past tense, but relocating is not. Should be relocated. There are other instances of this as well. In top of that, this sentence follows a sentence about the rubber industry thriving, then all of the sudden...BOOM...it's falling apart.
  • Throughout the article there is an overuse of commas. An example: "Others giving speeches on race, in the city include..." No comma is needed there at all.
  • The entire "racial events" section would be better served integrated into the history section than in demographics. The "see also" in that section (City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health) has nothing to do with race. Even the mention of Simon Perkins negotiating a treaty with the native tribes doesn't fit as it was done in 1807, 18 years before he founded Akron. This article is about Akron not Simon Perkins or other people who may be associated with Akron.

Go into the archives of this talk page and find when the cleanup tag was originally placed. It explains many of the same issues. Please discuss before removing. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Make sure statements actually reflect what the sources say. The source from OhioHistoryCentral.com about the Akron School Law of 1847 said nothing about inspiring the graded system used across the country. The article high school talks about the first high school in the US as being established in 1821 (see English High School of Boston). The source mentioned that the Akron School Law served as an inspiration for the 1849 Ohio School Law: "The Akron School Law proved to be the example for other communities to follow. In 1849, the Ohio legislature passed the Ohio School Law, modeled after Akron's law." The movement was already going on in other parts of the country.

On a related note, avoid using abbreviations initially, even for things that are seemingly well-known like the NBA. Remember, Wikipedia is for an international audience, so the first usage of the term should be the full name followed by the common abbreviation in parenthesis like: National Basketball Association (NBA), or National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

Also keep in mind that the lead should be a summary of the entire article, and thus should not contain any unique material. If it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article, it shouldn't be in the lead. Right now the lead has a very promotional feel to it as opposed to being a summary of the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications

I put clarification tags on the statements "It became "The Rubber Capital of the World" owing to its location along canals, railroads, and interstate." and "Having landmarks such as the All-America Bridge, Akron is one of the nation's pioneer cities producing the first championship teams for the American Professional Football Association (National Football League) and the National Basketball League (National Basketball Association)."

The city became known as the Rubber Capital because it was home to all the major tire manufacturers. The canal preceded that by several decades and the Interstate highways didn't arrive until the 1950s, long after Akron was the Rubber Capital of the World. The canals and later railroads led to industrial growth in Akron, which ultimately led to the growth of the rubber industry.

As for the second statement, it combines the random mention of the bridge with the mention of the first championships in certain pro-sports leagues, which have nothing to do with each other. "Pioneer city" sounds a bit stretched here; the city was merely home to the first champion of the NBL (the Akron Wingfoots) and the first champion (Akron Pros) of what became the NFL. The Wingfoots still exist but were not part of the NBA ever and the Pros only existed a few years after that 1920 win. Someone has to win the first title; Akron being home to those teams doesn't make the city a "pioneer" in sports championships. Being the home of the first pro team in a sport would be one thing. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mayor

The repeated attempts to include a claim that the mayor considers himself saftey director "after drinking with his friends" is not really encyclopedic. That event and the 911 transcript citation would be much more appropriate for the article on Don Plusquellic than this article. The point of the government section is to give a general idea about the government structure in Akron, not highlight minor scandals and mishaps. It would be one thing if the mayor in an official press release took over all aspects of the city's government, but using transcripts from a 911 call as a reference that he does this on an official or even regular basis is neither accurate nor encyclopedic. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Plus it's just a snarky comment, showing POV, and it is less than trivia in an article about the city. --Beirne (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I disagree. You're including bad information in the article with the way it is written. There is no Public Safety director. The mayor states himself that he is the Public Safety director. He said it after a night of drinking, and is slurring his words in the 911 tape. If you don't want to include that part, then don't, but it is important for accuracy that you note that the Public Safety director position is unfilled, and the Mayor assumes the role. Lastly, and I apologize, because I don't know how to open a new talk section, the paragraph about the police department is completely biased. Clearly you all won't agree with the version I wrote, so I suggest it be taken out. You've all said this is meant to be encyclopedic and not include recent events. I honestly think that if we're sticking with that, the entire government section should be re-written to discuss the form of government that Akron has, and not include anything about recent events. We can't have it both ways. --opiv6ix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC).

One option is creating your own sandbox page, writing a section, and requesting help and pointers if you aren't sure. If you have taken time to read the article and this talk page along with its archives, you will see the article has significant problems. The key is understanding what is notable, what is properly sourced, and what is appropriate to be included in each section. Not everything that has reliable sources needs to be included. I am happy to help in any way.
As for the Public Safety director, being unfilled sounds like a temporary thing. Using comments of a drunken mayor in a 911 tape as the basis for an encyclopedic article isn't a good idea. If there is a statement avaialble in the city's charter, ordinances, press release, or news article that states the mayor handles these cabinet positions when they are not filled, that would be something to include as it is part of how the government is structured. The way you have been inserting it, however, is very POV and just appears you have an ax to grind as opposed to educating about the actual government structure of the city of Akron. And no, I am in no way a Plusquellic fan or supporter, but how I feel about the mayor is completely irrelevant to how I edit. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


Who is Matt Hendershott?! He is not now, nor has he ever been, the mayor of Akron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.169.239 (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Goodyear Airdock

Took me a while to find out what its called. Looked up the Akron article because of it, but unfortunately there's nothing on it in there. Obviously it's important enough as a landmark to be included in the introductory collage, so I think it should be mentioned and linked. --BjKa (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's actually mentioned briefly and linked as the Lockheed Martin Airdock (Goodyear Airdock is its historic name) in the Airports section since it is part of the Akron-Fulton Airport. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicknames

Sigh, here we go again. The nicknames section on the infobox isn't for every nickname ever used for a city, nor should they be mentioned in the lead. The nickname section is for the most common nickname(s) that are used on a regular basis. Are there any publications that use "Summit City" or "Crossroads of the Deaf" to describe Akron today? I don't think so; they're all historical nicknames. Summit City was also a separate settlement in what is today's North Hill neighborhood and using it to title a subsection of the history puts undue weight on the name. The most common nickname for Akron is still "the Rubber City". Sources for that nickname can be found in a multitude of places. One obscure reference for "Summit City" in the 1800s and the mention of Crossroads of the Deaf in the early 20th century do not denote nicknames used today. Those can be worked into the history section, but shouldn't be listed as common nicknames like Rubber City. Even "City of Invention" isn't really a nickname as much as it's a slogan the city uses as a promotional tool. The only sources I have found for "City of Invention" are all from the city itself; news publications most commonly refer to the city as "the Rubber City" and nothing else. Even "Tire City" is no longer accurate or used much at all since Goodyear is the only tire company left with a major presence.

The lead still had a bunch of info in it that is not present anywhere else in the article. Remember, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not have a bunch of unique information. One item that can probably be removed is the reference from Newsweek naming Akron a "high tech haven". That article is now 10 years old, so it really isn't accurate or informative any more. It can be worked into the history, but the year needs to be mentioned (it originally was, but has been removed in later edits) and really isn't appropriate for the lead as it currently is. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Rubber Capital

"Rubber Capital of the World" is *not* a common nickname and certainly isn't a current one. The most common one used for Akron is simply "Rubber City". "City of Invention" is more of an official slogan from the city rather than an established nickname with any kind of common usage. "Rubber Capital of the World" was once true, but since Akron is now only home to Goodyear, it's not only not true, but has fallen out of use. Even the city's own website states the city was "once known" as the Rubber Capital of the World" (http://akronohio.gov/fastfacts.html) and a Google search also reveals several references to "once known" or "formerly known" in relation to the capital nickname. It should certainly be mentioned in the history section, but not as a current or even common nickname, any more than "Crossroads of the deaf". --JonRidinger (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This editor was not only born in Akron, but has lived in or around Akron for many years. "Rubber Capital of the World" *is* a common nickname: though the tire factories left decades ago, I often see "Rubber Capital of the World" in print and online, or hear it in casual conversation (certainly more than "City of Invention", or even "Rubber City" which itself seems to be a more concise version of "Rubber Capital"). I've searched thoroughly online (Google news, books, etc.), and for every source stating that Akron was "once known" or "formerly known" as the "Rubber Capital", I found at least two more referring to Akron by that same nickname — without any qualifier.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Being from Akron does not really lend any weight to the argument. I'm from Kent (with family members who are from Akron as well), all of 10 miles away, and I hear "Rubber City" FAR more than Rubber Capital when someone is referring to Akron. You can definitely find sources that reference Akron's role as the "Rubber Capital of the World". The fact that many sources do use it as a "past" nickname or slogan now has to do with the reality that only Goodyear is actually headquartered there now; a far cry from the days of Firestone, Goodrich, and General also being there. "Rubber City", however, lends itself to the names of quite a few Akron-related businesses, like Rubber City Machinery, Rubber City Clothing, Rubber City Radio Group and even the Rubber City Roller Girls, which really shows how common the nickname is and how a nickname is a term used in place of the city's actual name. I did find a one use of "Rubber Capital" in the Rubber Capital Harmonica Club. Again, I'm not saying "Rubber Capital of the World" should be taken out of the article; I just don't think it should be in the infobox but instead mentioned in the history. I do agree about "City of Invention". I don't really regard it as a nickname as much as a promotional slogan from city hall. I've never seen the term used outside of promotional websites or literature from the city or related groups. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
If being from Akron doesn't lend any weight to the argument, then neither does living "all of 10 miles away". "Rubber Capital" is still a common identifier (see links from ABC News, The New York Observer, The Washington Post, The Austrailian, Rubber City BullSheet (Rubber City Clothing blog), Columbus Urban Threads, etc.). I fully understand that the term no longer applies literally (can any place today truly identify itself as the "Rubber Capital"?), but its historical significance is too great to leave it out of the infobox. As a compromise, I'm willing to support something like what's in the San Francisco article. I've edited accordingly.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The point of me saying that I was from "all of 10 miles" wasn't to give any weight to my own argument on that basis alone, but to counter your statement, which seemed to imply that being from Akron put more weight in your argument. Being from the area can produce quite different versions of "what we've heard", which is why we can't just base info in the article on things we've heard, even if we are long-time residents of a place. That said, I think how it is now is fine. Based on the sources we've both found, it's a term associated by many with Akron, though many, including within Akron itself (like city hall), seem to recognize it as a "historical" moniker given the realities of where the rubber companies are now located. And I don't think any city could lay claim to "Rubber Capital". Really, I think "Rubber City" shows the significance of rubber to Akron's history, but I'm not going to remove "Rubber Capital" based on that. One caution with sources: personal blogs (Rubber City clothing blog) are not reliable sources, nor are product listings (the Urban Design link lifted their description of Akron straight from this article, a description which actually doesn't make sense if you read it). It doesn't affect your point overall, but just an FYI for future reference. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay. For what it's worth, I would never cite the t-shirt link or blog (which appears to be official, not personal – "Brought to you by Rubber City Clothing"). Reliability remains paramount, but it would be foolish to completely ignore links like these (especially on talk pages).  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Nolan N. Guzzetta Sculpture.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nolan N. Guzzetta Sculpture.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
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) 20:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Half

Is it worth mentioning that Akron, Ohio is the halfway point between Chicago, Illinois and New York City, New York, according to Sonic's west-coast-based/airing commercials? (Also according to MapQuest and Google Maps.) 71.146.10.213 (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

history section has a mistake

this sentanace is wrong => " Laid out in December 1825, where the South Akron neighborhood now is. " this is untrue. in fact south akron neighborhood is goes from South street in the north down to Cole ave in in the south and which is the border of Firestone park Neighborhood. South akron Neighborhood goes from south main steet in the west sharing a border with the kenmore district of Summit lake. in the east Inman street is the border and the bordering nieghborhood here is the northern most part of old thomastown. original akron is not present day south akron however original akron was called south akron before the two hamlets united in 1836 to form the village of Akron. borth areas are still united as part of downtown akron neighborhood. 76.244.155.36 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox title

There is no reason to have the state name in the infobox title. The state name is included in the article title to disambiguate. Many articles use the state name in the infobox simply because they use whatever the article is titled. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is also no requirement that all city articles MUST have the state name in the infobox title. The name of this city is "Akron". "Ohio" is included in the title since there are multiple cities named Akron in the US. But once you get to the article, there is no need to have "Ohio", just like the intro doesn't say "Akron, Ohio is a city..." No, it says "Akron is a city..." Further, there was no consensus or even a discussion about any mass changes on the US Cities page regarding this specific issue, so the action is simply a personal project baded on your own observations, not on any actual consensus that I am aware of (and I watch the US Cities page, so I would most definitely notice). It's worth noting that the WP:USCITIES example also doesn't use the "official name" or "settlement type" parameters, which are optional. Are we to assume that means there is consensus to not use them? The reality is again, they're guidelines, not absolutes. The fact that many do this and the article guidelines use that as an example is not a reason to go on mass changes. As I mentioned on your talk page, other city articles that have FA status have just the city name (not the state name) in the infobox without any issue. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And there is no reason not to. Every single FA article of a US city, if they are in the top 200 most populous cities, is formatted in this fashion, contrary to your claims. Also can't find where Akron, Ohio went through an FAR review, as you also used in your rationale on my talk page, and since it's a C class article, when did that review occur?. There was a small discussion on the 3rd archive of the US city guidelines, where consensus was reached. There was a much longer discussion (which also included editors who primarily work on Canadian cities), but I can't find it at the moment. I'll look some more and let you know where that one is. Your later arguments make my point. The official name and settlement type have a much lower priority, and are not nearly as strictly adhered to as the "name" listing. The one thing which is clear, is that when the "name" tag is used, it should be formatted in the City, State, format. As I've said, Every FA article of a US city in the top 200 cities is formatted this way, which might indicate that this is the way to go. But let's wait to see what other editors have to say. Onel5969 (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The FAR was for Kent, Ohio. The size of the city is irrelevant since there are not separate guidelines for larger cities vs. smaller cities in terms of basic organization. The main reason I didn't use "Kent, Ohio" in the name parameter was because of how it affected the pushpin map in the infobox. It's a larger issue in articles like Franklin Township, Portage County, Ohio where the title is not only long and cumbersome, but is only used for the sake of disambiguation (meaning it's not even used in sources or regular speech). Simply using "Franklin Township" in the infobox title more than suffices since there's no possibility the reader is at the wrong article. Further, again, since they're guidelines there is no prohibition against doing that. Having just the city name makes it much easier to see than having the "city, state" (especially in cities with longer names) covering up parts of the map. It's the same reason we don't use the phrase "Akron, Ohio" anywhere within the article text: it's redundant. The small discussion you mention in the 3rd archive was not a consensus by any stretch, nor was there any decision or even discussion to mass-edit pages. It was simply one editor stating that the USCITIES example uses it, so there "shouldn't be any question" even though, as you know, the USCITIES guidelines are still not binding to every minute detail, even the order of sections. While New York City is no longer FA, it has also never had the state name used ("New York, New York") on the infobox since it would obviously be redundant. Even when it was FA, it never had that. Also, how many of these 200 have you personally set that way recently? --JonRidinger (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 29 external links on Akron, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Pollution

I added a mention of significant pollution that was reverted here. I come from a town that is significantly polluted by mercury in a river, and nearby PCBs in another river, and i have worked hard to document those in my hometown pages, so that people know the history and can deal with it. It's significant and reliable source support inclusion of the knowledge. It's something that most people would want to know as background to the town and the area, although there are some who want to remove it sometimes, but the purpose of a Wikipedia article on a town or a city is not to present a clean image or a positive image, but rather to be most useful to readers by NPOV standards which means what is deemed significant in reliable sources and editors. Pollution that affects people or might affect people is a significant piece of knowledge that can be useful to people. Therefore i support its inclusion. I came across this news report and so i added the knowledge. I think there is more coverage of this as well. Anyway, "all towns deal with industrial pollution" isn't a good reason to delete it, because (1) it's not really true as there are many towns without significant pollution especially more affluent places, and (2) even if many towns have pollution, it's still notable about the specifics of the pollution, just as many towns have parks but it's still notable the names of the major parks in a town. SageRad (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Pollution - is it notable?

A user blanked my edit that added mention of pollution in the city. I know this is very notable. There is an article on the cancer cluster and there are many many news articles on the topic. I believe it is not justifiable to say this is not notable. I know that pollution is a sensitive topic, but there is no place for whitewashing when it comes to pollution. Not saying that was the motivation of the edit but that motivation seems unknown. The knowledge is very useful for readers to learn about significant pollution and events in the town. So please discuss the reasons for deleting if you wish to do so, and try to gain consensus. We need more discussion than can be done in edit reasons on this topic if there is contention. So let's talk. Anonymous IP user, can you please state your reasons if you wish to have this information out of the article on Akron about the superfund site in the city? SageRad (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Both I and the anonymous editor provided adequate edit summaries. Indeed, the anonymous editor stated "Not notable. Certainly not for its own section." That edit was similar to my earlier edit to remove it, so obviously there are at least two editors who agree that the section isn't notable on its own. Doesn't mean the content can't be included, but a separate subheading? Probably not. The reality is every city with an industrial past has pollution issues and brown fields. I initially reverted it because there isn't anything that appeared significant, unusual, or unique about the pollution in your section (which I stated in the edit summary) on top of the fact that a subheading should have more than one sentence. Please remember with Wikipedia articles that they aren't for everything about a topic; they're for the most significant aspects. Using "service to the reader" is not a valid reason to include content since how much "service to the reader" is a matter of perspective. As it stands now, you have one internal EPA source last updated over a year ago, one recent Plain Dealer article (which clearly uses info from the EPA source), and a Beacon Journal article from three years ago. That doesn't appear to meet either the "widespread coverage" or the "ongoing coverage" aspects of WP:N, at least enough to require a separate subheading at this point.
Additionally, subheadings should generally have at least three solid sentences, but really should have multiple paragraphs to justify an entire section. Another option would be mentioning it in the history section, especially if it only encompasses one or two sentences. Further, bear in mind that just because something can be properly sourced does not automatically mean it belongs in an article. Is it an important local issue that needs to be addressed? Sure. Does that mean it needs to be included in a Wikipedia article about the entire city of Akron? Doesn't appear to. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The WP:N guideline states:

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

The word "widespread" is not in the guideline.
A superfund site is a feature of a town or city just like a park or a natural feature or a building. If it's of note then it's always of note. It's a thing the city has to live with and it is a part of its history as well. Service to the reader is what we are here for, what the encyclopedia exists for. There is pollution in many towns but that doesn't mean it's not notable. it means it's a strong theme in our history as a species and we need to cover it as such. It's a huge part of how we got to where we are today. It's specific and notable in each place where it exists. My hometown has serious pollution and i have made sure it's covered in the article on the town, as it reflects many sources that have covered it. A superfund site is very notable. It is also notable in the wider realm in terms of meaning in the world, governance, general ecology, etc. so the "local relevance only" theme doesn't work. I find it to be notable. I don't see the issue with including it in the article. This source from a few days ago on Cleveland.com is associated with the largest newspaper in Ohio and the site gets 5 million unique views per month. That is current coverage. The EPA link is not an "internal EPA source" but a publicly published EPA source... I don't see why you tend to denigrate it as an "internal EPA source". SageRad (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I think "notable" is probably the wrong word for us to be arguing since notability has a fairly clear guideline here for writing separate articles about specific topics. In this case, we're talking about extra details of an already-notable topic (Akron, Ohio) and making sure they have significance to the overall article topic and don't create undue weight. I understand your feelings on how important pollution is as a topic, but that doesn't mean it should be included in every city article.
As for "internal", I used that word because that's what the source itself states, just below "Site Description": "FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY - SITE IS NOT LISTED ON THE NPL". It's not meant to denigrate the source, but put it into perspective as a reference, as opposed to a more widely seen news article.
The Cleveland.com source is a great source, but it in itself doesn't establish significance since it's the only mention of the site and the first in three years. Seems to be more a case of WP:ROUTINE and WP:GEOSCOPE. Again, I think it should be in the history section (more recent history) or in the Government section, but not as a single-sentence header. See MOS:PARAGRAPHS: "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". Also please visit WP:USCITIES if you haven't already done so as that's the general guideline that I and other editors use in city articles.
And just FYI, "widespread" comes from WP:EVENTCRITERIA: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" (so you know I didn't just make that up! :) ). But again, for our sake here, it's not so much an issue of notability, but undue weight and significance to the overall topic, on top of basic MOS concerns. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I moved the mention to the most recent history section and expanded it a little to give it some context. And yes, this article suffers from several sections that likely have undue weight. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Akron

was the home of Alchoholics Anonymous at Stan Hywett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C02C:EAB0:7905:19B6:9455:C65C (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akron, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Akron, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Akron, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Akron, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Psychology Archives

Should the photo listed as being the Psychology Archives actually show them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.9.221.215 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably. The photo is good though, so I think that it should be retained, just the caption changed. Piguy101 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I changed the caption to reflect your comment. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Akron, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Quaker Oats uninvented at the time

In the intro there's this sentence

Resident Ferdinand Schumacher supplied the Union Army with quaker oats during the American Civil War.

with a link to Quaker Oats Company, all well and good ---- except that the Quaker Oats page says Quaker Oats were formed in 1901. Which is rather subsequent to the Secession War.


The Quaker Oats people do seem through-paced scoundrels, with radioactive experimentation on mentally challenged kids an' all...


Claverhouse (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Were the Cramps really from Akron?

Lux grew up there but the band formed in NYC in every account I've read. I'll edit that in a few days unless someone provides citation.

Lenbrazil (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Scope

Just a reminder that articles on cities are about that specific city, not the general area, including media. We have an Akron metropolitan area article for the metro area. In regards to radio, only stations that are actually in the city and/or licensed to the city should be mentioned here unless they have some kind of physical presence in the city, like a satellite bureau, similar to how none of the Cleveland TV stations are mentioned in the TV section except the context of WKYC having a Akron news program for a time. This is also consistent with the print media section. So WSTB (Streetsboro), WNIR (Kent), and WKSU (Kent) should not be listed here since they are neither located in nor licensed to Akron. That's part of why there's a "see also" for the Akron radio template that shows all stations in the entire Akron radio market (which is the same as the Akron metro area). --JonRidinger (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't get hung up on COL or even physical studios, as I explained in other places, it's smoke and mirrors for companies to say they're abiding by FCC guidelines. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Akron,_Ohio/Archive_5&oldid=1138499774"