Talk:Louisville, Kentucky

Request for comment

Should 'Louisville' be used alone in titles for entities or disambiguated to be associated with Louisville, Kentucky? For example Central Station (Louisville), instead of "Central Station (Louisville, Kentucky)"? Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up this useful topic. I figured it would be helpful for the discussion to do an inventory of what we're dealing with. Below is the number of instances of related strings I've found in article titles, excluding redirects, proper names and NRHP designations, mostly at the trailing end of the titles:

1. "(Louisville)" – 17
2. "(Louisville, Kentucky)" – 48
3. ", Louisville" – 72 (all of them neighborhoods in Louisville, Kentucky)
4. ", Louisville, Kentucky" – 3
5. "in Louisville, Kentucky" – 13
6. "in Louisville" – 5
7. "of Louisville, Kentucky" – 10
8. "of Louisville" – 1
9. "Louisville's" – 1 (National Register of Historic Places listings in Louisville's West End)

Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

While WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:USPLACE, and a community decision to go by the AP style book for article titles for a set of major US cities, clearly pertain (as of January 2024) to the top-level article (this one), it becomes murkier at WP:PRECISION, WP:TITLEDAB and WP:NATURAL, where these are seemingly weighed with PRIMARYTOPIC/USPLACE in mind. Are we to insist on disambiguating everything associated with Louisville with "Louisville, Kentucky" or is there wiggle room for particular cases, given that ordinarily, given its sheer prominence compared to other places called 'Louisville' (plus Louisville has linked here for over 19 years), "Louisville, Kentucky" would be considered the primary topic for 'Louisville' and thus many if not most encyclopedic subjects related to Louisville mean "Louisville, Kentucky"? For instance, if a Louisville (KY) neighborhood only applied to the Louisville in Kentucky, is there a necessity to disambiguate further with ", Kentucky"? Where do we draw lines? Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Above I explored what I think are the parameters of the discussion. Now, here's my preference for what I think we should do, noting that my mind can be changed. Since we're not talking about the top-level article, we should put more weight on the predominant use of 'Louisville' and use it alone to disambiguate or to situate a place such as a neighborhood, unless further disambiguation with ", Kentucky" is necessary, like if you had a same-named neighborhood in both Louisville, Kentucky and Louisville, Colorado. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Reply: This may have been dealt with, and I didn't look, but I Agree, and don't think we ever need to over-disambiguate. The title, Louisville, Kentucky, clearly identifies the subject of the article as well as in the lead, "...is the most populous city in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

A good thing is that silence on the discussion will likely mean there will not be any objections so be bold and "just do it" might be in order. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Article issues

I think some issues need addressing.

The article has enjoyed 2,256 editors, 370 watchers, and 55,429 pageviews in 30 days. Bear with me.

The second to last paragraph (Killing of Breonna Taylor in 2020) in the "20th and 21st centuries" subsections offers a little negativity in mentioning a chief was fired and four officers received federal charges. It adds but no significant systemic changes were made.

My issues are the long timeline of, take your pick, lack of neutraility, one of our fundamental principles), that includes due and undue weight and balance.

There has been a lot of good news, including the "Public safety" subsection. Louisville has been recognized as a "friendship city" in the "Sister cities" section. In the "Utilities" subsection: "In June 2008, the Louisville Water Company received the "Best of the Best" award from the American Water Works Association, citing it as the best-tasting drinking water in the country." It received the "43rd "most walkable" score. There is a fleet of zero-emissions buses even though there is no nuclear power and 70% of the energy comes from coal.

What concerns me is the safety and the police.

• 'Our lives are never the same'. Slain victims' relatives reflect at end of violent decade, The DOJ says the Louisville police routinely violated civil rights,
• JCPS: Only fix for late buses is to stop transporting magnet and traditional students.

Maybe buss pay stinks,

• Louisville’s Forgotten History Of Police Officers In The KKK,
• The Deep Roots Of Louisville’s Rage Over The Police Killing Of Breonna Taylor
• New report details decades long systematic problems in Louisville policing
• 'This Conduct is Unacceptable' Department of Justice issues scathing report into Louisville police practices
• In Louisville, Federal Report on Abusive Policing Comes as No Surprise
• 5 events that highlight Louisville police’s racist past

The State Police also have has some issues:

• Where Lots of Police Shootings Draw Little Scrutiny.
• There is currently not a State Police presence in Louisville.

Anyway there appears to be some issues in Louisville maybe someone can look at, that might warrant mention. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. You have valid concerns that a city article such as this doesn't have full, balanced coverage of the above and other subjects. The main ways to improve it, though, are making incremental, cited changes, or starting a "add x" or "change x to y" discussion. Specific concerns of coverage lacking can also be written up in the to do list above. I personally would like to improve the article (more than I already have) but there's too much overall work to do, inside and out of the Wikipedia. The best way to guarantee changes are made is being bold and doing it yourself. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Reply: Thank you for your reply. I am aware of boldly editing to fix issues. My personal "Wikipedia to-do-list" is currently around a hundred pages and have added this one. You and I are two of 2,256 editors. I leave talk page comments 1)- to minimize reverts by article protectors, and 2)- so that when I, as well as any others, can see issues noted and have a starting point. Again, thank you for your reply, -- Otr500 (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Portrait of George Rogers Clark

@StefenTower: You added this photo of George Rogers Clark back to the article. While Clark is significant and relevant to Louisville's history, his portrait is decorative and not "an important illustrative aid to understanding", per MOS:IMAGES. Likewise, photos of Muhammad Ali and Louis XVI would also be decorative. However, there are photos in this article of the George Rogers Clark Memorial Bridge, the Muhammad Ali Center, and multiple places named after the King. Please explain why a portrait hanging in the Smithsonian Institution needs inclusion in this city article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Because he's the founder of the city. Showing readers what the founder of the city looks like is informative. The other people you mention aren't founders of the city. This is also a longstanding inclusion in the article - why is there an issue with its inclusion all of a sudden, after decades? Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Further, how he's dressed adds more information, that he's an American Revolutionary War figure and founded the city during that time. For especially young readers who are introduced to the subject of the city, it is natural to show the person who founded it and the context of that moment. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

His portrait is decorative. There are images of places in the city named after him, but readers don't need to see what the founder looked like. Look at Cleveland, a featured article, where there is a photo of a statue of Moses Cleaveland in the city. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I have explained why it's not. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Further, the city does have a statue of GRC, but we can't include it apparently due to US copyright nonsense. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If you or anyone would like to identify an alternative image that shows the city's founder in a more descriptive, less artsy manner, that would be fine by me, as including a visual depiction of the city's founder seems obvious and reasonable. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent removals of content

First off, declarations of "non-notable" don't mean much, as that applies to the subject of the article, which is obviously notable. The article fills in reliably sourced details about that subject. As for anything unreferenced, please feel free to find citations. A rush to remove just because a cite isn't there isn't always agreeable to other editors, but I have already agreed to some of the trimming of unnecessary or brochure-like language. I believe the rest likely can be sourced, or at least we should try to source them. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 10:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The removals by the IP user continue but edit summaries given for removal are either nebulous or misuse terms like "non-notable" (might the user mean "not noteworthy"?). Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Following below is not currently cited but longstanding content that has been removed by an IP user. It's a shame we couldn't handle this the usual way by tagging with {{citation needed}} and having patience for *volunteer* editors to get around to citing. I don't understand why it would bother anyone so much that they feel a need to push this down our throats, so to speak. It seems rather gamed. But alas, here we are and I will seek to find and list cites in this unusual manner, all over the kind of statements that would not normally be seen as contentious. Other editors are, of course, welcome to assist.

Note: this list may be expanded whenever necessary.

Note 2: I am retiring from Wikipedia this morning. Soooo, other editors in the dwindling pool of such on this site are going to have to do the work on this and the other articles I worked on. Have fun (...fighting off game-playing IP editors like this one.) Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

List of contentious statements removed

Following is a list of blurbs removed so we can work on citations:

1. this was claimed to be "undated" (? - it's meant to be a statement of current reality; not having "as of" isn't a reason to remove!) and is probably the most absurd removal as it's a current and flat fact regarding the city's council and should be very easy to cite:

   Original text: The council is chaired by a Council President, currently Markus Winkler (D), who is elected by the council members annually. Democrats currently have a 17-to-9 majority.

   New suggested text: The council is chaired by a Council President, currently Markus Winkler (D), who is elected by the council members annually. Democrats currently have a 16-seat majority with 9 Republicans and one independent.

   Source [2]

   Note: Majority changed slightly.

2. this was claimed to be "non-notable" (?) even though locals should know it be factual and merely a fill-in detail about WFPK:

   The station features not only the usual public radio fare, but also local and regional talent. The station also hosts summer concerts on the waterfront from April until July.

3. this was claimed to be "non-notable" (?) even though it's a substantive claim that would underscore what's being discussed:

   The majority of the businesses along Bardstown Road, such as coffee shops, clothing stores and art galleries, are locally owned and operated businesses.

4. this was claimed to "non-notable" (?) but is a substantive fill-in detail that likely is easily citable:

   A free TARC bus takes participants to many downtown area (especially East Market District/NuLu) independent art galleries on the first Friday of every month.

• Comment...

1 - seems fine.

2 - What is "usual public radio fare"? The station hosting summer concerts does not need inclusion in an article about a major US city. And none of this is sourced.

3 - "The majority of the businesses along Bardstown Road, such as coffee shops, clothing stores and art galleries, are locally owned and operated businesses." Trivial...this isn't a travel guide, and none of it is sourced.

4 - "A free TARC bus takes participants to many downtown area (especially East Market District/NuLu) independent art galleries on the first Friday of every month." Again, this isn't a travel guide, and unsourced trivial details do not need inclusion in a major US city article.

I spend so much time removing cruft and "stuff locals know" from US city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)