Talk:Memphis, Tennessee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Memphis, Tennessee/Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Tennessee (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Memphis, Tennessee is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
[Project Articles][Project Page][Project Talk][Assessment][Template Usage]
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cities (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stax Museum Link[edit]

I suggest someone who knows how create a link the Stax Museum's Website <> to either the tourism or at least the other points of interest. Stax is a cultural icon and should be noted in an article such as this. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Economy Addition of Crye-Leike[edit]

The economy section lists several companies that are based out of or headquartered in Memphis. It could also make mention of Crye-Leike. Crye-Leike is headquartered in Memphis - started/founded in Memphis and in business since 1977. It is now the nations 4th largest firm. Reference - Angeliquev (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Biased Tone of this Entry / Yellow Fever Epidemic[edit]

The overall tone of the Wiki entry on Memphis seems to too easily gloss over more troublesome aspects of the city's history, one of which is the devastating yellow fever epidemic of 1878, which was a very important part of the history of Memphis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I would not consider that "biased". Second, this is supposed to be a general encyclopedia article on Memphis, not a complete authoritative history of Memphis. While the epidemic was a big deal (more than half of Memphis' population at the time left), I'm not sure that it warrants a mention in this particular article. The epidemic is mentioned more over at the other more complete article: History of Memphis, Tennessee. -- Otto 17:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It warrants at least a mention. nut-meg (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with Otto about the significance of the yellow fever epidemics (there were several in the 1870s). These were major events in the city and caused it to become less significant nationally than its two sister cities, St. Louis and Atlanta. Furthermore, since the time that the separate History of Memphis, Tennessee article was created, the history section of the parent article has been reduced beyond what one would expect for a parent article. More of the major historical events should be included in abbreviated form. --Zeamays (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just go ahead and change what you think needs changing in the parent article? Wikipedia, apart from trying to be an accurate encyclopedia, is also about being bold with your edits and that means if you hate it and have an idea to improve the article, do it. doxTxob \ talk 03:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


I have indefinitely semi-protected this talk page to prevent an indefinitely blocked user from continuing to harass others here with multiple IPs solely to promote himself. This has been going on for nearly two years now. I would direct new and anonymous users to either my talk page or the requests for protection page to request a change in protection status or request an edit to this page. · jersyko talk 18:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! I have seen that going on. I don't think that the protection is going to be much of a disturbance as only anonymous or new users are affected. What a pity that some people just don't get it and make it more difficult for the decent majority of editors. Thanks! doxTxob \ talk 18:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Crime-Free Memphis[edit]

Who removed the crime section without discussion?--Scribner (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I placed the following on doxtxob's user page: "Always discuss major changes, like removing or moving a section on the article's talk page. I had to dig through edits to discover your unreferenced move. Since both Detroit and St. Louis have crime sections on their main page, Memphis should as well. I never saw the reference to another article and neither will the average reader. A copy of this will be placed on the article talk page. Thanks!" Wow. --Scribner (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no rule about the placement of a crime section in a town or city article. If you know better, let me know. I do not think that two examples of other cities are enough to establish a precident for all cities. I suggest the following to you. If you hate it the way it is and it is overly important to you and makes you unhappy, just change it back. That would make sure that we are not over-discussing every little tiny detail. This is one big problem here on Wikipedia, instead of contributing useful content, some people prefer to discuss unimportant details over and over. Yawn! Scribner, you might have to much time at your hands, do something useful with it! doxTxob \ talk 20:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a rule, DoxTxob, that when you make major changes to an article to make note of them on the article talk page, which you failed to do. The specific edit you made made no reference whatsoever to moving the section, not even a mention in the Edit summary box. Learn and follow the basics of editing. I've restored the crime section to this article.--Scribner (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I made a change to the crime section, removing an unsupported claim that the rise in crime might be caused by gang recruitment and/or a drop in federal funding. I spent (wasted?) a good bit of time over two days trying to find support for that, or even someone making an unsupported statement in the news about it, but finally the best discussion I could find about the crime jump in 2005 was the story in the Atlantic Monthly, so I gave a one-line summary of one point from the article. It's a very interesting article, and perhaps provides more good information about Memphis. Probably some of it could be used in this article, if you're interested in pursuing that.
That said, in response to the above comment, perhaps the crime section should be a policing or public safety section, since it's a subtopic of government ("crime" doesn't seem to be a subtopic of government -- well, depending on your point of view :-)). While I was doing the above-mentioned research I found a bunch of government initiatives to reduce crime, in addition to those mentioned, that should be mentioned as well.
Anyway, as a one-time Memphis resident and Memphis fan, this is a good article, thanks to everyone for their work on it. Ngriffeth (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested[edit]

I have requested to semi-protect the page indefinitely at WP:RFP today. On 08/15/08 the former semi-protection was lifted but since then, continuously and in a very persistent fashion there is non-notable material added by an anonymous editor, despite lengthy discussions about the lack of notability. doxTxob \ talk 18:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn, it got denied. How long do we have to wait before trying again? Because this guy is just going to keep on doing it, and we can see that his IP changes a lot. -- Otto 13:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that guy is really persistant. What surprised me was that he started again shortly after the old semi-protection was lifted. On WP:RFP it is stated that the disruptions have to be on a daily basis more or less until page protection is considered appropriate. I guess we have to report the IPs and remove edits manually. Although with changing IPs there's not much chance that reporting would be sucessful to block the edits. I understand that it is detrimental to have too many pages with strong protection, because one of the important facets with Wikipedia is that everyone can edit, so protection should be kept to a minimum. But semi-protection is not very strong at all (that's why they have it as an alternative to full protection, probably) it just keeps anonymous users and very new accounts from editing, so not very many legitimate editors are kept out, if any at all. doxTxob \ talk 17:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Article has been protected for one week. Not sure that this is going to help long term but better than nothing. doxTxob \ talk 17:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
He's back, at User: -- Otto 19:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! Is it ever going to stop? doxTxob \ talk 19:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, probably not until somebody goes over there and tells him to stop it in person. Sigh.
His home IP is obviously which is a DSL connection somewhere over in East Memphis. The other connections he's used have been a Comcast connection (presumably his workplace), an AT&T phone, and just today a T-Mobile hotspot, but judging from the two IP address from that aDSL connection, and examining a map of the phone stations, I'd say he lives within a couple miles of Memorial Park cemetery. I'd need better logs to pinpoint his address.
Might call my BellSouth friend up, see what he can tell me. -- Otto 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I got it protected for 2 more weeks. -- Otto 16:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote copied from the RFP page on the protection:

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Normally, I'd decline this because of the sporadic nature of the vandalism; however, the really bizarre range of IPs vandalizing it seem to warrant special action. I've given it a two-week protection; if you'd like any more help, please feel free to come by my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse - IP info[edit]

Examining the IP's making these changes, I find the following: (talk · contribs · block log) - Connects back to a static IP address, which is in Memphis. Senderbase tells me that is on the same IP block, at *.18. is a commercial real estate firm in Memphis. David Saks is a realtor in Memphis, and he's big on self-promotion as well. Coincidence? (talk · contribs · block log) & (talk · contribs · block log) Both ADSL connections on, both trace to somewhere in Germantown. No way to be specific here, although with the times of the edits, a BellSouth abuse rep could look at the logs and trace the specific person. (talk · contribs · block log) TMobile hotspot - basically untraceable. (talk · contribs · block log) AT&T - Ditto, could be any AT&T based device from anywhere.

Might be worth sending some emails to abuse@ or postmaster@ some of these places, since he's spamming Wikipedia. -- Otto 16:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much luck we'd have with abuse emails to Bellsouth, but it certainly couldn't hurt. In the meantime, I've issued some short blocks on several of these accounts, and I intend to temporarily block any IP account that makes this exact same edit (based on WP:EDITWAR#Enforcement, WP:SOCK#Blocking, and WP:EVADE). While not an ideal solution, it keeps the article from being permanently semi-protected. — Satori Son 17:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for blocking the IPs. doxTxob \ talk 19:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... More attempts. -- Otto 17:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs · block log) Comcast. However, whois reports it as being reassigned by them to a McDonald's on 657 South Highland. Open Wifi, perhaps? Time of the edit in Memphis would be around 4 am. (talk · contribs · block log) University of Memphis. The netblock is wide enough that it could be any connection on campus, no further details on this one. Contacting UofM administrators might be useful, university people are usually helpful about this sort of thing. Oddly, this one happened at 1 am.

I am glad that you post the IPs here and that you are able to identify where they are from. Very good work! Let's see how this continues for another week or so. This list of IPs can be perfectly used to argue in favour of the protection and not so much to continue blocking these IPs. As I see it, if all the IPs get blocked, we may disconnect parts of the UofM from Wikipedia as well as who knows how many McDonalds Wifi hotspots or what not. That cannot be what anyone could want. Wow, this IP blocking is far more disruptive than an indefinite protection would be. I really have problems to comprehend why it is so difficult to get the semi-protection in this case from some admin. That would be easy and smooth. If he's going to a different McDonalds every day, the IP blocking does not make sense, the unwanted information would still have to be removed manually every time. But what can we do ...?! doxTxob \ talk 21:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I basically agree with you. I don't think semi-protection is too much to ask for a non-controversial article, as the article is still editable to anybody with a user account. But if we have to show the level of vandalism going on here first, then so be it. -- Otto 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs · block log) = ADSL connection on IP2Loc says it's in Germantown. No way to be sure of that. Because this guy apparently has DSL, he can change IPs easily, as it's just a matter of redialing the connection. Unlike cable modems, you don't tend to get a static IP for long periods of time. (talk · contribs · block log), unusual in that it's the same exact IP as he had on September 28th. Possibly leeching of a neighbor's wifi? (talk · contribs · block log) (talk · contribs · block log) Nothing special about these two. Just random ADSL connections somewhere in Germantown. (talk · contribs · block log) Looks like our boy goes to Starbucks in the morning. :) -- Otto 21:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we please get a semi protect on this article now? Look at the recent edit history. He's like a third of the edits. -- Otto 08:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC) (talk · contribs · block log) Another Starbucks. (talk · contribs · block log) A Hampton Inn. 962 South Shady Grove Road, Memphis, TN. (talk · contribs · block log) U of M.

The others are ADSL or Comcast cable lines. -- Otto 08:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Woot! Finally, a semi-protection! Yay!

For what it's worth, four of the latest cases of this guy have been done from (talk · contribs · block log), which is a McDonald's over on South Highland (in Memphis). Since these have all been done at around 1 or 7 am, I suspect that our boy lives close to there and is leeching off their wifi. -- Otto 19:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, eventually your efforts of tracking down all the IPs paid off. Great work! Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 22:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and he's ticked off at me too. LOL. See here: -- Otto 16:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
My goodness, that is pretty lame for a grown person ... Well, that shows once more that he does not get the point, even after almost two years. The story was discussed endlessly in the past and is shortly mentioned in Wikipedia's lamest edit wars, even stating his name. That is some questionable honor for him there. Strange, you would think that a real estate agent has some reputation to lose, I mean that stuff pops up at google if you do a search on his name. I am glad it is over for hopefully a long time. doxTxob \ talk 18:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
lol, it'll actually be three years next week. Apparently at one point he was trying to use his additions on Wikipedia to convince the Memphis city council that 'One Last Bridge' was the official song of Memphis. Strange dude. In the past we've had months of quiet between the spurts of edit warring and name-calling: I hate to see this article semi'd long-term because of one guy who can't accept reality, but he just doesn't seem to be losing interest this time, does he? -- Vary Talk 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Now there has been repeated vandalism on userpages on which he leaves lame, indecent, insulting and threatening comments. See User:Otto42's comment above and also here: both of them originating from (talk · contribs · block log). Lameness is one thing but insulting and threatening other editors is quite something else. I hope that is not this kind of stuff that is going to continue for years now ... sigh! doxTxob \ talk 22:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

More userpage vandalism from (talk · contribs · block log) ( doxTxob \ talk 05:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia on DVD ... incl. Memphis[edit]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

Memphis is planned to be one of the articles. Should there be important additions or improvements on anyone's mind or something major needs to be fixed. Now is the time!

I do not see any problems, really. Well, we should make sure that the infamous official songs of Memphis are not accidentally included in the release.

For more information on the project, visit the WikiProject Tennessee Talkpage. October 20 is the deadline. doxTxob \ talk 21:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Which year was Memphis founded?[edit]

Hi there, this issue is of concern for the Memphis article and the History of Memphis, Tennessee. I have written two articles in which the friendship and business relationship of James Winchester, John Overton (judge) and Andrew Jackson are mentioned (Randolph, Tennessee and John Overton (judge)). In the context, it is nessecary to also mention the foundation of Memphis, because they made some good money when they founded Memphis. The question that arises here is: In which year was Memphis founded?

The Memphis article (and the History of Memphis, Tennessee, too) indicate the year as 1820. The source used in the article does not confirm that. The two sources below suggest 1819 as the foundation date.

The article about James Winchester offers even the date of the foundation as May 22, 1819 that without any inline references, though. So it is unclear if the source (McHenry, Robert. Webster's American Military Biographies, Springfield, Mass.: G & C. Merriam Co., 1978) covers the date, too.

I did a little more searching on the internet and was surprised how little I could find about the topic. Can anyone offer some good and reliable source for the year of the foundation? It would be nice to have the correct year in all of the articles mentioning the foundation, backed by a good source. But I am not sure if "surveyed and designed" or the year in brackets "(1819)" really refers to the year of the foundation.

Any help is welcome! Thank you. doxTxob \ talk 21:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC) places it on May 22, 1819 as well. -- Otto 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Great! Does that look good enough to change the year to 1819 in the article? doxTxob \ talk 17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just changed the information to 1819. doxTxob \ talk 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have moved your comments on my discussion page to here, because here is where I started the discussion.

Riverboat Link[edit]

An editor has repeatedly deleted a straighforward link to the Memphis Riverboats site. He apparently considered it advertising. I differ with his interpretation of the Wiki guidelines. There are many links and references in Wikipedia to commercial entities, and, if not used excessively or ostentatiously, are not considered advertising. See:

"This page in a nutshell: Adding external links to an article can be a service to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." - wikipedia Guidelines for External Links

The link I added complies with each of these. Perhaps if he disagrees, he will be kind enough to state why in detail. --Zeamays (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add external links, they go at the bottom of the page under the ==External links== section, not in line with the text. If you want to add your link there, I have no objection. // Chris (complaints)(contribs) 14:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no reason a link cannot be in the text. This is common in Wikipedia articles, and perfectly justified here. BTW, it's not "my link", although it is important to include. --Zeamays (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Page move from Memphis, Tennessee to Memphis, TN[edit]

I am not sure, maybe I have missed something here. The last time I checked it, settlement articles are supposed to be named according to the "City, State" convention and not "City, State abbreviation". They change a lot of stuff here on Wikipedia, unfortunately, which keeps battallions of editors busy. But this is new to me. If there is a reason for the move due to naming conventions that might have changed, I apologize here right away. If not, I would prefer the page moved back to "Memphis, Tennessee".

I will also notify the editor who initiated the change. doxTxob \ talk 21:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. There's been no naming convention change that I'm aware of. The relevant section, for the record. -- Vary Talk 02:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the page back. doxTxob \ talk 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? If the problems start up again we can easily reprotect. --TS 18:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

With everyone's favorite musician back, semi-protection may need to be considered again if the rate that he's inserting his claim increases. Ravensfire (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
How can one guy be a problem? Just revert and ignore. That way we get the benefit of non-logged-in edits such as this one. --TS 17:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
He does seem to be working from a relatively small pool of IP addresses these days; I seem to remember that he used to be on a constantly shifting IP, which got old fast... -- Vary (Talk) 17:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Revert and ignore ceases to be an option when he's doing it upwards of 3 or 4 times a day, which he's done in the past. I'm half convinced this guy is just running scripts to do it at this point, since the edits are *always* identical. I'd prefer permanent semi-protection, it seems warranted at this point.
Accounts are free, if somebody wants to register, it's a matter of seconds to do so. Also, quite frankly, anon users don't add enough to make it worth the time to merit a continual revert war.
That said, if he is only on a few IPs, banning those might work. However, in the past, he's been on DSL lines, which are easy to shift to new IPs, and blocking whole ranges doesn't seem justified. -- Otto (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

IP Addresses he's used recently: (talk · contribs · block log) University of Memphis. They have the whole - netblock. However, this particular one resolves to "mbialek" turns out to be Mark Bialek, the (former?) program director for the WUMR radio station. One of the DJs at WUMR is none other than one David Saks. I find that rather interesting... (talk · contribs · block log) resolves to , a BellSouth DSL line in Memphis. Getting a new IP on DSL is as simple as "redialing".

-- Otto (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The guy has entered identical text just three times. It's a problem to be resolved by hitting the rollback button. We've actually spent much more effort discussing the problem than it merits. --TS 18:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
No. Check the history. He's entered this identical text well over 100+ times. I documented many of the IPs he used way back when. Heck, the last time this happened went on for 6 months. I'd really not like to have to keep reverting this jerk for another 6 months before getting the block in place again. -- Otto (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Unless we're able to block all the IP addresses he has access to, it's virtually guaranteed that he'll be re-adding this text at least daily for as long as the article is unprotected. If he continues to edit from University of Memphis IPs, an email to their IT contact might be in order, especially if he starts doing this sort of thing again. Anyone ever done one of those? I've never had to. I wonder if we can just get "Official Song of Memphis" added to one of the vandalbots' 'bad words' list? I don't know if there are performance issues with having too many items on those lists. I'm as tired of this guy as anyone, but keeping the article protected is just as much 'letting him win' as allowing his songs to stay in the article, so I'd love to see us make this a little harder for him without using protection. I could have sworn I came back and set an expiration for the last protection - the only reason I set it as indefinite initially was so he wouldn't have a date to put on his calendar. -- Vary (Talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I still say it's less effort to hit the rollback button once a day then it is to spend days arguing about it. This is just one guy. --TS 10:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
"It's less effort to do as I say than it is to argue with me" is not really a fair argument. What worries me is not the additions themselves, but the accompanying harassment of editors who remove said additions, which seems to have gotten particularly nasty very early this time around. This is a guy who has at least once threatened to interfere with an editor professionally for removing his self-promotion from this article (although he fortunately wasn't bright enough to work out the editor's name before the revisions of the editor's userpage with identity clues were deleted). WP:RBI only works for editors who are just trying to be irritating; as long as he's able to add himself to this article, even if the change only stays in place for an hour or so at a time, I very much doubt he's going to get bored and leave. If the harassment and threats continue, I assume we'll have to take the matter to the technical contacts of some of the more commonly used IP ranges.
That said, I'm going to bring up blacklists again. Does anyone know more than me about how they work and if adding choice phrase or two to a bot's blacklist or the site's edit filter is an option? The flagged revisions trial is supposed to be rolled out in a few weeks, of course, which may make all this moot. -- Vary (Talk) 13:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you seemed to get the idea I was saying something along the lines of "I'll keep arguing until you agree with me so you might as well do as I say." No, I was saying that it's easy enough to revert this nuisance and spending effort trying to find out how to stop him being a nuisance at all is probably effort wasted. My apologies for not making myself clear earlier.
For blacklists, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. As you can see from the title, it's intended for use against spammers, not this kind of lone guy plugging his song, and it works on domains in links. --TS 14:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't quite my point, Tony; I only meant that those of us who've been on the receiving end of this editor's vitriol are (obviously) very interested in finding a way to prevent his disruption altogether. It's even less effort to protect the page, isn't it?
I'm aware of the Spam blacklist and know that it's for external links only; that wasn't what I was talking about. I'll see if anyone else comes along who knows a bit about the other types of edit filters we use here. -- Vary (Talk) 15:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. He went straight to the personal attacks, this time, didn't he?

And TS, I think you're missing our point. Continually reverting him is easy, sure, but NOT continually having to revert him is far easier. Furthermore, continually reverting him here as well as removing his continuous, anonymous, personal attacks, gets very old, very fast. We can't block the entire city of Memphis from anon edits. We can, however, block this article from them, with minimal impact. And as history has shown, when he can't post his crap anonymously, he ceases to bother us for long periods of time.

Semi-protecting this article is the easiest approach, with the most minimal impact. -- Otto (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protecting is easy, but not cost-free. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit, and anything we put between a reader and the editing process means fewer edits. That's why we allow people to edit without logging in.
If somebody wants to ask for the page to be semiprotected again, I won't stand in their way, but I do think it's much better to perform a rollback than to block all IP edits just because one guy abuses the feature. --TS 17:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protection was basically invented specifically for this sort of case. Where it's unfeasible to block a single user from continued vandalism of a specific page. Having continual rollbacks (there's been 3 *today*) makes the history of a page pretty worthless, which is much worse than having "fewer" edits. Especially on a page that shouldn't receive a lot of edits to begin with. I mean, face facts, Memphis is Memphis. It'll still be Memphis tomorrow. What possible edits of value can possibly be left for this article? Cleanup, new sources, new data, but there's not much left "new" to say about it, really. -- Otto (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
No, semi-protection was not created to deal with instances of a single editor being a nuisance. Having lots of rollbacks in the history isn't a problem; you can take the diff of any two revisions and intervening reverted edits will not feature.
If you think Wikipedia's article on Memphis shouldn't get many edits, you're wrong. Lots of work needs to be done. The weather table, for instance, was only added very recently, and to pick a subject at random there is nothing about local TV and radio services and newspapers. --TS 18:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Regretfully, I agree. It would be easier to just semi and forget it, but even for such a determined guy as Saks, it's not worth it. Just think of it this way - we'll get to see what new, unimaginative rantings Saks leaves for us, and can think of new and interesting ways to tell him that he's off-key with his notes, and he should just let the music die. Ravensfire (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Still disagree. My comments shouldn't be interpreted as me saying the article is in any way "complete", just that it's unlikely to get good edits that are needed from anon editors. The sort of edits that are likely to be done and accepted are not likely to be done by unregistered editors, that's all I mean. A semi-protection wouldn't affect this. -- Otto (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to whatever clever person arranged for this. -- Vary | (Talk) 14:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for the effort. It was indeed worth a try, but ultimately a filter simply isn't going to protect against somebody trying a direct attack. Not unless the filter is too broad to begin with. The semi-protect is the only thing I can think of that will really work. -- Otto (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Media section[edit]

Anybody want to work on a Media section, listing tv/radio/paper outlets in Memphis?

Found these already lying around to get started with: Template:Memphis TV Template:Memphis Radio

More to work with: Memphis is the #48 market in the country for television, according to the Nielsen DMA's.

-- Otto (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing log of David Saks related vandalism[edit]

Here we go again. (talk · contribs · block log) University of Memphis. -- Otto (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Another incident: (talk · contribs · block log). Pinethicket (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That one is also at the University of Memphis. -- Otto (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC) (talk · contribs · block log) - he's back. Ravensfire (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That one is a BellSouth DSL line. Could be anywhere in Memphis, but probably around the Germantown area. -- Otto (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one! Some people just never learn. - BilCat (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet another one, from the same IP 40-odd days later. - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Another: 14:12, 1 April 2011 by Pinethicket (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Move request affecting one of the redirects to here[edit]

Talk:Memphis (disambiguation)#Requested move should have been announced here, since the proposal is to move the disambiguation page to Memphis. Currently, MemphisMemphis, Tennessee. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Memphis WikiProject[edit]

Hi! I am proposing a Memphis Metropolitan Area WikiProject. Would anyone be interested in starting one? Normally I would propose a task force, but the project concerns a multi-state metro area, so it wouldn't work as a task force. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Eradication of Yellow Fever[edit]

Memphisdan put in an edit that claimed drainage of Gayoso Bayou in the 20th Century was responsible for eradication of yellow fever. I have done extensive research on this and found it was rather the George E. Waring, Jr.-designed separated sewer system (which kept Gayoso Bayou constantly flowing, rather than being drained. The Bayou still exists, but flows underground.). The sewer system was constructed about 1880, before the charter was restored, and the economy of this system, which was state-of-the-art at the time, allowed the financially-strapped city to build it. I posted this information in the Waring article with citations from several books for these facts (Google books access to 19th Century engineering journals was invaluable). The info in the Waring article is linked in the History of Memphis, Tennessee article. Maybe I should place more of this information in the latter? --Zeamays (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll not disagree if you have done this research. Bigger point is, re-chartered Memphis vowed to always consider water, drainage and public health. A major tunnel/cistern was located beneath my old shop at 1316 Madison. Building the new trolley line (worth a story in itself) the city dug a huge hole in front and rebuilt that tunnel as needed. City engineer also said We have no good drawings downtown of the pipes and lines belowground, so this hole was also exploratory surgery. (Citing Glen Cammack of Speaker Services.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memphisdan (talkcontribs) 17:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Construction of the Memphis sewer system began in January 1880, and the original design was completed in 1884. (See Troesken, Werner "Water, Race, and Disease" The MIT Press, 2004. --Zeamays (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd largest claim[edit]

3rd largest in the southeastern US is found in the Census data, which shows Memphis behind Jacksonville and Charlotte.Emjaymem (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


Sometimes I really hate this site. I love that we can make changes and correct things if they are wrong, but often you get stupid people changing values with not thought at all. All the area values given are the same in the stats box as the are in the geography section, but they just don't ass up. 313.8 sq mi (city) - 302.3 sq mi (land) does not equal 15.4 sq mi (water). I don't know which value is incorrect, so I can't change this. Also the metric equivalents for both city and land do not match their imperial values.

This is the area in which Wikipedia is let down. Statistics. VanillaBear23 (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

USA-centric POV[edit]

I was astonished to learn that 'Memphis' redirects straight away to Memphis, TN. This is USA-centric POV, the historical city of Memphis, Egypt is globally and historically much more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom-b (talkcontribs) 18:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been brought up before on and I suggest you read the arguments there. Memphis, TN is far, far more likely to be the city being searched for than the ancient city of Memphis, Egypt. Wikipedia doesn't choose where links go based on "importance", but based on what is likely to be searched for.
From WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely - much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined - to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic...."
The primary topic for "Memphis" is clearly Memphis, TN Furthermore, if you want to use "importance" as your criteria, then Memphis, TN still wins. It's the birthplace of much of the music in the modern world. It's the primary shipping hub for the country and for a fair amount of the world as well (thanks to FedEx). On half a dozen different levels, Memphis, TN is far more important to modern day searchers than a dead city in Egypt which is really of interest only to historians. -- Otto (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Link[edit] is a social network for residents of Shelby County in the 901 area code. Some weeks ago I posted links to the site in the external links section of pages for various neighborhoods in the 901 area code. I was asked to suggest the link on the talk page to make sure the site is referencing these areas [Memphis, TN - Cordova - Germantown etc] before reinserting it. The assumption was made that I posted a link to the site to alter search engine rankings but as I know wikipedia uses nofollow tags that is not the case. If someone can agree that the site is in fact referring to Memphis & other Shelby County communities I would greatly appreciate them adding the link or stating that they have no objections with it being added.

any help offered would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Chi soul

--Chi soul (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally, Wikipedia articles should not link to social networking sites. See #10 on WP:ELNO. I don't see your site as something useful to add to the article, sorry. Ravensfire (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ravensfire. Since Wikipedia is not a link repository, it has very specific guidelines as to which websites should be linked to. does not meet those standards, as Ravensfire has explained. You should consider listing it at, which is a specifically a link repository. — Satori Son 20:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Skyline Picture of Memphis[edit]

The Skyline picture of Memphis as seen from the Tom Lee park that we first see when reaching this page is silly to have there. Instead, the skyline picture as seen from the Hernando de Soto bridge (located further down on the page) should replace the existing one we are greeted with because it is a better representation of the Memphis skyline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:B100:CB:118E:8B7F:AD92:B8B1 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If you include Sputnik Monroe, then why do you disregard Billy Wicks?[edit] It is certain that this was the largest rivalry in Memphis for many years, and to not include Billy Wicks, while promoting Monroe is a failed attempt at being a real encyclopedia! You are actually following a very racial line of reasoning which is common amongst a lot of Liberals. (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

I'm sorry, but what is your point here? Are you talking about a specific section of the article or what? And is there a reason why, considering this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, you are casting blame for whatever you think the problem is, rather than just correcting it? Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

FedEx picture[edit]

An editor has taken objection to the picture of a fedex plane flying who knows where. We all know FedEx is the largest employer in Memphis, and an image in the economy section is very appropriate. Could someone provide a Fed-Ex image that is actually in Memphis? Jacona (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I did in fact look on Commons for a pic at Memphis International Airport, but didn't find one immediately. I have now added one that I hope is suitable. - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
You added a random photo of a FedEx gas tank in some random field in Memphis. Just because FedEx is a large employer in Memphis doesn't mean we should add low-quality photos to this great article. Request a photo from other editors, or drive to Memphis and take a picture. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
You wanted a local pic. So anyway, I did find one of aircraft at MEM. It wasn't in the category for MEM on Commons, but a little extra searching found one. It's a ground pic, and only shows aircraft, not a facility, so you'll probably remove that one too. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, the previous photo of the FedEx aircraft had been in "this great article" since at least January 2009! I honestly don't see why it had to be removed today after having been in the article so long. - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the picture of the FedEx planes at the Memphis airport. It was a picture of FedEx planes only, and showed nothing of the Memphis airport, or of Memphis, which is, after all, the topic of this article. If you cannot find any photos of FedEx which enhance the reader's understanding of Memphis, then just leave it empty. Please also note the following, which comes from the Wikipedia essay WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE: "images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic". Please also note the following, which comes from Wikipedia:Image use policy: "images are included in articles to increase the reader's understanding of the subject". Also, "images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article". Pictures of airplanes in the sky, airplanes at an unrecognizable airport, or FedEx fuel trucks in a random field, are not relevant to this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure the airport photos are recognizable to any one who's been there. The only photo in the article I recognize is the one with the Pyramid, because I've actually seen it from the freeway. Should I remove the rest of the photos because I don't recognize them? Enjoy your block for edit warring - I know I will. - BilCat (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The subject is Memphis. The section is Economy. The picture is of a Fedex plane. FedEx is by far the largest employer in Memphis. FedEx planes have shaped the economy of the city like no other entity in the last 40 years. Seems incredibly appropriate to have an image of a FedEx plane in this article, this section. Calling it "random" doesn't seem right. Jacona (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
While I agree with you on the relevance of this photo, being belligerent toward another editor is a terrible idea. While we may not always agree, if you take any time to look at contributions you will find that Magnolia has been a prolific editor, and his edits are in good faith. Jacona (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The picture has been in the article for over SIX years, and it just now needed to be removed? Per BRD, they should have come to the talk page after the first revert, and then waited until we reached a consensus regarding the next step. Continuing to edit war even after I attempted to meet their requirements isn't right. If they keep it up they risk being blocked. - BilCat (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you on the picture and the approach to resolving the disagreement, but we all need to assume good faith and maintain civility even on those occasions we think another editor is incorrect and unreasonable. Don't make an enemy if you can avoid it, you may need that very editor as a friend someday. Jacona (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I was/am being civil. You should see what I wrote but didn't save! - BilCat (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the left margin. It shouldn't matter how long an error has been in an article, when noticed it should be removed. Could be the article is such great shape that it took this long for the photo to be looked at. Arbitrary photos which don't form a strong tie to where they are in an article should be removed (preferably replaced). Regarding civility, I wholeheartedly concur that discussions should remain civil. Looking back on these comments, unless some have been deleted, this is a pretty civil discussion, on both sides. Just my .02. Happy editing, everyone.Onel5969 (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Memphis, Tennessee[edit]

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Memphis, Tennessee. 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.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Memphis, Tennessee. 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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Page switch[edit]

This page should be moved to Memphis, with Memphis, Tennessee becoming the redirect. The reason is because there is currently no Memphis page, it's just a redirect, and it would make more sense to switch the pages. Don't really wanna explain further, but you guys should get it. (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)