Talk:Missoula, Montana/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New Missoula Picture

I think the Missoula page could use another photo of downtown that is more recent. I took one today (09/17/2010) and cropped it. Problem is I can't add it until my status is confirmed or I make 10 edits. Any one out there that has the capability, please feel free to post my picture. I would appreciate the help. BTW it is a large picture even when cropped so using a panoramic thumbnail I think would be best. Here is the direct link to it from my photobucket account. http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/xx291/armyofdarknes/DowntownMissoula.jpg

Thx again for the help. Armyofdarknes (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And the same picture with a slightly different crop on it. http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/xx291/armyofdarknes/DowntownMissoula2.jpg

Armyofdarknes (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded your picture on the Missoula, Montana page, and have made all work attributed to you! you can find it also at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MissoulaNew.jpg and see all info, and Licensing info here. I am finally glad to see a new pic of Missoula on Wikipedia!!!!

I am fairly new to wikipedia, and hope I have helped.

User:Missoulian 21:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

America's Illegal Drug Capitals

The citation to Forbes for this claim references the SAMHSA survey (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/substate2k8/SecC.htm). The 13.8% drug usage is for "Region 5" which you can see here (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/substate2k8/SecD.htm#FigD27). Since Region 5 actually consists of 7 counties, it is somewhat misleading of both Forbes and the 69.144.1.177 to only reference Missoula, when the survey itself does not. Thus, I have revised the contribution with more accurate language. Vintage2 (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this obscure statistic even included? Especially since, as you point out, it's not even specifically about Missoula, which is the subject of the article. I say, delete it. Dlabtot (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, it is a pretty remarkable statistic. On the other hand, it is misleading to put the focus entirely on Missoula. I am ambivalent and would be okay with it keeping or deleting it. Vintage2 (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Organizations and non-profits

What are the criteria for inclusion in this section? For example, Working for Equality and Economic Liberation and Montana Shooting Sports Association are included... The College Music Society and the Missoula Institute for Sustainable Transportation are not.... why and why not? I propose dropping this section altogether. Dlabtot (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think we need such a huge list either...perhaps drop at least the redlinks? Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, only redlinks with a third party reference to establish some kind of notability. If they are a big enough organization to claim a headquarters then they should at least merit some non trivial press coverage, even if only local. Mfield (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking out courthouse picture

The picture of the courthouse is messing up the history section.

How? User:Missoulian

Challenging information that you know is correct and uncontroversial

What was the point of this revert? I don't get it. Why challenge material that is uncontroversial and that you know is correct? Please explain. Dlabtot (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, once material is challenged it is no longer uncontroversial. Hyacinth (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you didn't make the edit I am questioning, it seems impossible for you to explain the motives behind it. Dlabtot (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the material does not seem to be harmful to the article there seems to be no reason for its removal. Rather, it should have simply been tagged with a {{fact}} tag per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dealing with citation problems. Hyacinth (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, rather than simply placing a {{fact}} tag, editors should make at least a minimal effort to find a citation themselves. In this case, it took me two minutes to find a citation and add it to the article. That doesn't seem like a lot to ask. Dlabtot (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Hyacinth (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You yourself referenced Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dealing with citation problems, which quite explicitly says: "If an article has no references, and you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the template" Dlabtot (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly though, this conversation is pointless unless the person who made the edit deigns to participate. Dlabtot (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The quote beginning "If an article..." and which you took out of context refers to "...the template {{Unreferenced}}" and not to the {{fact}} tag. Hyacinth (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So it's your position that editors should not make a minimal effort to find a citation, but rather should just place a {{fact}} tag? Dlabtot (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

References for population

I removed the references in the first paragraph because they do not support the claims "US Census Bureau's 2010 Estimate" or the "Metropolitan population". The references only give a 2006 population estimate. I cannot find a 2010 estimate and don't know where the person who made that change got it. 71.179.150.116 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I restored the Census reference and fixed the number to accord with it. We should stick with what we can source. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. 71.179.150.116 (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Very funny indeed!!!

The huge Image of the mayor is truly a joy. Thanks for the laugh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.239.121 (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Both of you should settle down and grow up. You don't need to SHOUT(!). Further more, the image isn't "HUGE!' It is currently displayed at 220px. Hyacinth (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Copying from UM Business School Website or other sites

The downtown master plan is a clear direct copy. The description of the outdoor activities reads as if it were copied from the UM Business School website, but I can't find the specific page. Please do not copy material from other websites. Thanks, 11:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

wiki city project guide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsetay (talk • contribs) 05:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

urbanized area?

I am a Missoula resident, and I have always wondered if Missoula has an urban Population? The U.S. Census Bureau defines an urban area as a Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer)." If I am mistaken Missoula's 2009 population estimate is around 65,000, and the population density is more than 2,000. Orchard Homes, Montana (which is adjacent from Missoula) has a population of 5,199, and a population density of 815 people. Isn't this in the criteria of being an urbanized area? I am very curious to figure this out. If any one could help I would greatly appreciate it!!!!

User:Missoulian December 15, 15:10 (UTC)

I guess I have to comment on this, urban area: REALLY? If Missoula ever turns into some big old urban mess, I’m out of here. I love it just the way it is.

Mizmontana (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'd much rather have a Sprawling Area than an Urban Area. Ugghh. Still, Montana considers itself to have three urban areas: Billings, Great Falls, and Missoula.Dsetay (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Having lived in Seattle, Denver, Phoenix and Vegas, I find it hard to consider any of the towns you listed as Urban. Maybe Driving the six lane traffic in Billings you feel like you are in a city for ten or fifteen minutes (and that's not a good thing) then you realize, yeah guess I'm not at all (and that is a good thing). Sure maybe by your little pdf of "URBANIZED AREAS AND URBAN CLUSTERS" in Montana you can call it an URBANIZED AREA but why would you want to. If you ever go live in a real urban area you will realize how good we have it in Montana.

Mizmontana (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You sure do assume much. I've lived in Seattle as well, which is still pissant compared to Tokyo, Beijing, and Hong Kong where I have also lived. Ooooh, but you've lived in Phoenix, aaaahhh. Well, I'll default to the expert then. Besides, I don't make the definition of an urban area. User:Missoulian above has already mentioned that the Census Bureau makes that distinction; it's not a subjective issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsetay (talk • contribs) 00:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not the Wikipedia way and are not at all constructive. Mizmontana (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. I assumed the previous snide remarks were directed at me. Please forgive my country bumpkin character. Dsetay (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm Sorry but could you please point out what you considered a snide remark? I meant nothing to be taken that way.

Mizmontana (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well even though all this info, and input is valid- isnt this the point of Wikipedia. To make it easier to read, and understand. I think legally on Missoula's page we should as a part of wikipedia, put in its Urban Area. please respond to this so we can together fix this issue.

User:Missoulian (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Tallest Buildings?

I am not opposed to a section about Missoula’s buildings. Missoula has some great architecture. But isn’t having a list titled “tallest buildings” kind of silly? I mean it’s not like we have any High-Rise buildings here. Nor should we want to have any High-Rise buildings messing up what is a beautiful skyline.

Mizmontana (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinions of whether Missoula should have higher buildings is up for debate. Nice architecture can add to the skyline, not just take away. But, I agree that the Tallest Building section in Missoula is kind of silly. That's why I've refused to add Jesse Hall despite its notable absence considering it has the exact same blueprints as Aber Hall. A list of buildings on Historical Society's lists would probably be much more appropriate.

Help Missoula Page

I am very upset. I have been watching this page every day, and almost every time I, or someone else adds something to make this page easier to read, it gets deleted. I do not know why this happens or who does this, but this is part of quote- WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. So instead of deleting valid information about Missoula, I would suggest people learn more about Missoula, and make this page what Wikipedia wants it to be.

User:Missoulian 10:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? It seems that that most of the things being deleted from this page are pictures, etc. for copyright reasons. The only way to really avoid that is to take your own photos, upload them to Commons with no restrictions, and go from there. The Wikipolice are ruthless when it comes to copyright. Also, try citing your sources more to deter those like User:Linda Rider who seems to be stalking you.

Dsetay (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a few entries that were pure promotional puffery, as well as some external links. A good general guide to city-article structure can be found at WP:USCITY, which is the formatting guideline developed by WikiProject Cities.

Please remember that additions should maintain a neutral point of view, be verifiable with reliable sources, and not be based upon original research.

For external links, please remember that additions should meet WP:EL and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. These are further defined at WP:USCITY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well personally I think User:Linda Rider is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me which can and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions for this user(so if I were User:Linda Rider I would stop this immediately). On the topic of More Specific , there is one where it is bothering me more lately than anything. The 2009 population estimate of Missoula is 68,876. Someone always deletes this and puts some 64,000 number, that is not valid. For proof here is a link to the U.S Census Bureau 2009 population estimate of Missoula. http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/files/SUB-EST2009_MT_WY.csv/. Then Scroll down to Missoula City, Montana. As you can see on the far right population it says 68,876.

I reverted it because it appeared you were replacing the census source with a different source. But, you are correct that the US Census 2009 estimate shows the population should be 68,876, so I agree that's the number that should be shown where the 2009 estimate is used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Barek, someone finally aggress with me, so I will change the population of Missoula to 68,876.

User:Missoulian 11:44, December 18 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

I read this after posting my apology below, however I still stand by my apology. But before you go Tossing around wikihounding charges I suggest you read WP:WIKIHOUNDING paying close attention to the second paragraph.

Linda Rider (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What is with this page?

There must be some wild Montana cowboys whooping it up on this page! This page seems to change daily. From looking at the history some pretty wild edits are being done on a weekly basis. I have looked around at some of the other Montana Cities pages and they all seem to be pretty stable, so what gives with this page. One of the ethical codes of Wikipedia is to aim for a "neutral point of view". I was reminded of this after an edit I made. I have kept that in mind as I think all the editors of this page should. The Grammar on this page is really something also, it feels like 15 year olds wrote it. And what is with that Missoula traffic section? If you haven’t read it please do.

This page is already a c-class page and it seems to me it is a prime candidate for deletion if things don’t change.

Mizmontana (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

On the traffic section ... I was tempted to delete it as pure original research, but instead only removed one sentence that was most blatantly opinion based, and added {{fact}} tags for the rest (edit history). Still, if it's not cleaned up, that section should eventually be trimmed down considerably more or simply removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

apology

I guess I owe Missoulian an apology. I really didn’t think that was a true census estimate but it would seem it is. In my defense this is where I was getting my estimate. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/30000.html A real U.S. Census page but different figures. So, I apologize. I really thought you were posting false figures but it would seem I was wrong!

Linda Rider (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you User:Linda Rider, I really appreciate your apology, and hope everything is resolved with this page. I will apologize if I have done anything wrong in your regard. I will be honest, I LOVE MISSOULA. I have lived in Missoula all of my life. For the Cities in Montana, Missoula is pretty HUGE. Missoula is one of 2 Metropolitan Area's where it has surpassed 100,000. I have seen Missoula grow from a tiny logging town, to a beautiful University town. Once again I appreciate you apology, and hope these issues have been resolved.

User:Missoulian (User talk:Missoulian) 17:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Result

In my past posts on Missoula's Talk page, I have only been trying to help Wikipedia become easier to read and understand, and I hope everyone aggress. I am a Missoula resident, and have been my entire life. I Love Missoula, and I just do not want to see anything left out in this page, nor any false information. I hope the Missoula page continues to post all correct information. (Because I am in no hurry in leaving this Beautiful City (my opinion).)

User:Missoulian User talk:Missoulian 17:41, December 19 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a jerk I just find this to interesting to let it pass. I am sure you meant to type (agrees) however you did type (aggress) which means: to attack first or begin a quarrel. Prophetic?

Linda Rider (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I love Missoula as well, but please try to remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a travel guide. Anything that makes the page look more like a promotional brochure than an objective report will usually get deleted by the WikiPolice and you will have spent a lot of time editing for naught. Just to give you a heads up. Dsetay (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3