*Definitely a view from 169 south is a best view, but I'd like a shot that includes the bridges across the missouri. I don't know if there's an angle available that does that well, however. It seems like shooting from the airport would be too close and low, but maybe from near that curve where 169 goes around the airport from the north. I don't know if there'd be a shot from near Briarcliff or whatever that place is called. Another good reason to have a 169 south view is because most non-regional visitors would be entering the city that way from KCI.[[User:Subversionarts|Subversionarts]] ([[User talk:Subversionarts|talk]]) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*Definitely a view from 169 south is a best view, but I'd like a shot that includes the bridges across the missouri. I don't know if there's an angle available that does that well, however. It seems like shooting from the airport would be too close and low, but maybe from near that curve where 169 goes around the airport from the north. I don't know if there'd be a shot from near Briarcliff or whatever that place is called. Another good reason to have a 169 south view is because most non-regional visitors would be entering the city that way from KCI.[[User:Subversionarts|Subversionarts]] ([[User talk:Subversionarts|talk]]) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
'''Total 5 for Charvex, 2 for Enorton," not sure if Subversionarts was just a comment on the view or supporting a version of that picture. '''Support''' a version if you have an opinion one way or the other. I agree with Subersionarts that the view from Enorton's picture is better, but overall Charvex's is a much higher quality picture. With the current results I'm going to go ahead and change the pic to Charvex's cropped, this can always be changed if a new consensus develops or we get a better quality picture from 169 south. [[User:Grey Wanderer|Grey Wanderer]] ([[User talk:Grey Wanderer|talk]]) 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support Charvex's''' - This photograph is much more clear and I feels captures KC better. [[User:Tubahero|Tubahero]] ([[User talk:Tubahero|talk]])
'''Total 6 for Charvex, 2 for Enorton," not sure if Subversionarts was just a comment on the view or supporting a version of that picture. '''Support''' a version if you have an opinion one way or the other. I agree with Subersionarts that the view from Enorton's picture is better, but overall Charvex's is a much higher quality picture. With the current results I'm going to go ahead and change the pic to Charvex's cropped, this can always be changed if a new consensus develops or we get a better quality picture from 169 south. [[User:Grey Wanderer|Grey Wanderer]] ([[User talk:Grey Wanderer|talk]]) 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
We never had a vote. This was simply just a discussion. No one OBJECTED to any of my comments. I don't see what position of authority you are in to revert that picture back. I will not change the picture yet, but I say you should give it another week or so before making a final decision. No one has yet to counter any of the arguments presented, only that Charvex's photo is of better quality. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Enorton|Enorton]] ([[User talk:Enorton|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Enorton|contribs]]) 06:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
We never had a vote. This was simply just a discussion. No one OBJECTED to any of my comments. I don't see what position of authority you are in to revert that picture back. I will not change the picture yet, but I say you should give it another week or so before making a final decision. No one has yet to counter any of the arguments presented, only that Charvex's photo is of better quality. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Enorton|Enorton]] ([[User talk:Enorton|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Enorton|contribs]]) 06:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about Kansas City, Missouri, and the surrounding metropolitan area 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.Kansas CityWikipedia:WikiProject Kansas CityTemplate:WikiProject Kansas CityKansas City
Kansas City is rated with small cities such as Wichita, Topeka, ect in "importance level" ranking. It should be ranked with peer cities like Denver, St. Louis, ect. Why are we given a "mid" importance level ranking despite a metro area of over 2 million people and having a major city status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.142.218 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made the above post. After doing some looking into, Maddison Wisconsin was given "high" importance. That is ridiculous! Kansas City is definatley a major city in the US and is very important to the US economy. It has major cultural atractions and a population of over 2 million people, as well as being considered a major US city. I changed it's importance level to "high". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clay Chastain
This bugger doesn't deserve a mention in the Kansas City article and it is an insult to the city to even mention him. People don't need to know he initiated the ballot. Adding his name to the article does nothing except add a piece of information that isn't important. Especially when he is just a crazy piece of crap who is doing a lot more harm than good to the light rail plan in Kansas City. He doesn't deserve ANY mention in the Kansas City article and should be wiped from ANY connection to our wonderful city.
And he is NOT an activist! He is only a crazy guy who doesn't know jack about light rail, and has always been crazy. He is worthless and calling him an activist is only a compliment to him. People in Kansas City don't recognize him as an activist.
They also did not vote for his plan, they voted for the idea of light rail. They could care less if his ideas went through. He belongs back in Virginia and needs to stay out of our beautiful city. --KCMODevin15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we include lots of people whose contributions to the world aren't necessarily positive. I think that it's hard to talk encyclopedically about light rail in Kansas City without discussing Chastain's role. Doesn't matter what you feel about the subject personally or politically. (ESkog)(Talk)16:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you are dead wrong, KCMODevin. Clay Chastain was the primary engineer behind the actual infrastructure and layout planning for the measure passed in November of last year. The Light Rail measure is HIS idea and he alone pushed it through the legal system 6 times to get it on the ballot. He IS light rail in Kansas City. Personally, I agree with you, and think light rail is superfluous and not needed here in KC (for god sakes our roads are shit!), but none of this matters. He is an activist and he is tied to light rail, therefore he needs to be mentioned and linked. --Active1x0
No he doesn't, and light rail does belong in Kansas City... He may have been the chief engineer, but he is not smart enough and doesn't know enough about the Kansas City area. He does not deserve a mention. He did nothing in regards to infrastructure, and the only layout he gave was a completely flawed plan. The voters were NOT voting for his idea, they were voting for light rail... The voters would accept a city planned light rail plan. This guy is nothing more than a quack, and it's an insult to KCMO to include him in this article.. He is not an activist, and like I said, to call him one is only a complement to him and an insult to our city. He is not light rail in Kansas City, and you're being butt buddies with him doesn't change that.
Also, my edit has been changed to be NPOV. IT states facts found in the various referenced/sourced newspaper articles that are relevant and important.
Also, active, sign your comments...--KCMODevin20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I ask 10 Kansas Citians who comes to mind first when talking about light rail, I bet Chastain would be the leader by far. Right or wrong, he is the public face of the light rail movement in Kansas City. Changing that is a matter for political activism, not an edit war on an encyclopedia trying to report facts. (ESkog)(Talk)20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soon he won't be though, and I will be more than happy to wipe him off the face of this article when his plan fails and the city-backed plan goes forward. --KCMODevin20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Clay Chastain
Nobody has the right to decide whether somoene is worthy or not of being listed on wikipedia. Facts are Clay Chastain is intimately involved with the Kansas City Light Rail initiative. The fact that he had a plan placed on a ballot and it actually was voted in by residents enforces that idea. It's history and it should be documented accordingly to its relevance. Any personal feelings in regards to any political figure or citizen whether positive or negative are not to interfere with the neutrality of Wikipedia. wikipedia exists for the sole purpose of educating people. We do not have the right to dilute relevant information to a topic regardless of how we feel for somoene.
ESkog had a perfect example. Adolf Hitler is a large part of the history of Germany. Regardless of how we feel in regards to his crimes and his opressive rulership it is sitll history and cannot be erased. If anyone has negative remarks to share, they should be voiced on a different forum. Kcuello (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also with this said, nobody should be proactively looking to list Clay Chastain's name unless the portion of news in relation to light rail directly involves him. I will personally follow these developments and anyone seen removing relevant information will be reported to administrators. Kcuello (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Intro rework
I rewrote the intro to be a little more streamlined and to put a little more emphasis on things like KCs contribution to culture (civil war, jazz, blues and BBQ) and moved the mention of the city's tap water being clean which, though interesting, embarrassed me a little to have in the opening paragraph. Kansas city has made much interesting and varied history and has made more contributions to the national stage than the old intro let on. I also glanced at the rest of the article and removed somethings that are located in the metro are not the city itself. The article will look much more impressive if it seems that it does not have an agenda, and is simply telling it as it is.
I've also changed the wording about having the second most fountains in the world from a fact to a claim, as we still need a reliable third-part source that is not a regurgitation of the tourism boards advertising. Grey Wanderer | Talk20:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On my list of things to do is to bring the page up to the standards described on Wikiproject cities. The page isn't far away but needs major sourcing aand the famous people and schools section need to be pared down a lot. Individual schools should not be listed, school districts however might. with the amount of people from kc with wikipedia pages we really just need a link to the list or category of notable citizens not list them on the article itself. Grey Wanderer | Talk20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crime Exaggerated
The crime artile is much very exaggerated, especially in the article of the entire metropolitin area having bad crime. Johnson county is relatively crime free when compared to the inner city of KCMO and KCK. this is proven especially with the fact that suburban cities Overland Park and Olathe Kansas are both in the top 15 best places to live. The link with that article is dead and no longer active. Crime rating in Olathe, Overland Park, Lenexa, Lee's Summit, and Shawnee is very low. No facts to support that crime is on an increase because of 2 rappers being shot. I have deleted that portion of the crime section. I know for sure that New Orleans, Houston (needs 500 more cops), St. Louis, Detroit and Miami are highly unsafe. Thats 5 metro areas that are for sure worse off in crime than KC metro. More up to date informaiton should be listed.Kcuello22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kcuello, if you live in OP or in that area, then of course you don't know much about the inner city or what goes on in it. The gang wars in KC started with the deaths of those two rappers. The murders/fighting kicked up temporarily, causing a rise in the crime rates.
Also, not all of the inner-city has bad crime, which is a falsehood that many sheltered people from the SW suburbs tend to believe. Only sections of the inner-city have bad homicide rates. KCMODevin13:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a former resident of Kansas City MO. and that dates back to July of this year. As a former resident of City market and my parents living in "Northeast" I highly contest the exaggerations of crime. Once again, the listing of 2 rapeprs that obviusly have no bearing on crime spike is still highly questionable. I see it as more of a ploy to popularize the rappers. Kcuello22:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both KCMODevin and Kcuello seem to have some good points. I think that this might be resolved if KCMO could provide a few sources for the gang wars, surly there must be news articles, or statistics on that sort of thing? Otherwise it should probably be removed. Grey Wanderer | Talk22:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask that any proof consist of the following:
1) Direct reference to both rappers.
2) Prove it is the cause of gang wars that have increased crime
3) be as recent as within the last 6 mnths to a year.
Otherwise the article would be considered out of date. this event occurred mroe than 3 years ago. I will remove the post until there are facts to prove such claims.Kcuello (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recent Edits to Kansas City Page
Recent edits over the past few weeks have subtantially improved this article. I just wanted to leave a big Kudos and thank you for all of those that have worked very hard to make this article informatice and respectable! Kcuello (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Little Apple
It is a little known fact that Kansas City was both affectionately and infamously known as the "The Little Apple" since the early 1900s. The phrase can be found on posters, post cards, and media from that era, which I have seen with my own eyes in local antique malls, junk stores, and restaurants, but am wanting for examples online. If I must, I will go to a local pizza shop I know of and photograph a contemporary-era poster that hangs on their walls.
The nickname dates to Kansas City's infamous mob era, when gambling, sex shows, and the most riotous bars lined 12th St. (instead of a huge Marriott hotel with blinken-lights as is there now). This is the era when the "middle deal", an unknown and thought-to-be-impossible sleight, was rumored to be in use by Kansas City card sharps (Dai Vernon came to Kansas City to discover and reveal to the magic and sleight of hand communities this versatile trick of the gamblers in KC).
Manhattan, KS, adopted the nickname "The Little Apple" in a public relations move of the 1970s. It is obviously a play on the name of their city and has no historical basis. Kansas City, Missouri, however, remains the true and authentic "Little Apple" of the plains (of course, we are happy and proud to share the title with our neighbors). Jizzbug (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any reliable third party sources that substantiate this? If you can I'll help you add the info. But until you can you should probably refrain from adding the information back in the article, as several editors have removed it. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only one editor has removed it: I added the original reference, it was removed 10 days later, and now I have re-added it this second time. Searching Google I was able to find the following page, so I'm not the only person to know about this old nickname of Kansas City: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=139774 Maybe some of these images could be used in the Kansas City article. Jizzbug (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a friend that has a history book documenting Kansas City, Missouri, as "The Little Apple". I will get the bibliographical citation tonight and edit this comment with that info. Jizzbug (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How should we talk about this stuff in the article? Just put SubTropolis in the "Sites of interest" list? Even many Kansas City natives do not know about Kansas City's underground city, I think it at least deserves a mention in the article. We have a massive limestone shelf (thought to be 20 miles deep) and some of the oldest exposed igneous rock on Earth that has provided for many unique facilities under the Kansas City metropolitan area. Jizzbug (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sister Cities
Hanover Germany was listed on the Sister Sities International webpage. I have promptly added it to the list of sister cities Kansas City has listed. Kcuello (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the world is Clay County highlighted in the MO State map on the main page, right beside an equally silly close-up of an emboldened Clay County? Is not the downtown district and city headquarters in Jackson County? Auror (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, your completely right, thanks for catching that. I don't have the graphic skills to fix it, but I'm sure someone does. I can however provide the link to the Jackson County highlighted map .Grey Wanderer | Talk00:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tuileries Plaza is Kansas City’s most distinguishing new mixed-use lifestyle center. The enchanting courtyards, tranquil fountains, lush landscaping, rock waterfalls, slate rooftops and brick paved drives add a distinguishing European Old World flair to the rapidly expanding Northland community. The 65 foot tall glass and stone tower monument offers a beautiful night-time light show for all to see. Tuileries Plaza hosts enticing unique restaurants like Bonefish Grill and Em Chamas Brazilian Grill, Häagen-Dazs Ice Cream Shop, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Caribou Coffee, boutique fashion retailers like Posh and Bliss at La~De~Da, unique home décor like La~De~Da, Curtains Bedding and Fabric Gallery, and Enix Ornamental Iron, one-of-a-kind shops like Epic Bike and Sport, specialty services like Ideal Image, professional offices, and others unique to the Kansas City area.
The development features different events year round, including a Summer Concert Series, Festival of Cultures, Children's Fest, sleigh rides during the holidays, and many more.
The charming Children’s Garden is located between the lake and the courtyard area. It boasts “kid’s size” European Landmarks perfect for parents to bring their kids to climb the Eiffel Tower and Louvre pyramid. Children can also wander through the maze, under the Arc de Triomphe and cool off in the misting river. Tuileries Plaza is located just West of I-29 on NW 64th Street, and just minutes from Downtown and KCI Airport.
We hope you will link our homepage, www.tuileriesplaza.com to Kansas City, MO Sites of Interest.
Wow, blatant attempt to add advertising. I can attest, living within view and earshot of this place, that it's nothing special. Just a collection of small strip malls and vacant storefronts. For the Tuileries Plaza to be a site of interest, it generally needs to be both unique (historically or otherwise) and an attraction for people living outside of the city. Tuileries is neither of these. Auror (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The flag of Kansas City uploaded by User:Enorton on 30 May 2007 is not correct. I took a photo of the flag in front of City Hall today, 17 July 2008, to make absolutely certain what I had seen in so many other places was the most current design. (The images are at left.) The order of the colors from the mast is blue-white-red, as in the flag of France. It also has the logo of the city, in black, with text above and below it in the center. The text reads: CITY OF FOUNTAINS, HEART OF THE NATION, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI." The font appears to be "Trajan," which is derived from the Garamond family, and is available from Adobe and other font vendors. The proportion appears to be 2:3, which is unlike the State of Missouri flag or the United States flag, but is probably the most common format for flags, in general. I redrew the flag in .JPG format. The proportions seem correct and it is better than the old one. - - - If someone would redraw this in .SVG format, it would be better. (I do not have a program that makes .SVG files.) Best regards, Charvex (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above post was made by me-- I forgot to sign in. The picture that we had before has been used for over 6 months. It shows all the major buildings in our skyline, and is a recognizable view of our skyline that many people would associate with Kansas City. It also makes the city appear "grander" and most people would agree that it looks larger. The shot we have now is NOT commonly associated with our city. When I first saw it, I could barley even recognize Kansas City, as it shows buildings from the back such as the AT&T Longlines building and everything looks meshed together. The person who changed it was from France and isn't even from KC. I have lived in KC for all of my life and can assure you that the picture we had from Soutbound 169 in the northland is a better shot than one from Northbound Highway 70. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 15:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox skyline picture
I'm presenting three possible skyline pictures for opinions. The first by User:Enorton has been in place for about six months. The second by User:Charvex was added early this week and removed by enorton in favor of his own. The third, by myself, is a cropped version of Charvex's based on a suggestion by User:Reddi Please compare the three and support one. This is not a vote, but simply a way to see if there is an obvious consensus.
Support Charvex's cropped It is a much higher resolution, clearer, and it is much easier to see detail. This is the pic I'd want if the article was an FA. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crop the cars out of the bottom picture. The top one should be edited to lighten up the picture ... both are good ... both need further editing. J. D. Redding19:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charvex's cropped. But keep the other one around for another part of the article or another article in the metro area. J. D. Redding19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charvex's - Mainly because it catches some of the buildings at a better angle. But it's a tough call. The Enorton photo includes shots of the KCPT Tower and Pylons. Shooting from north oe south obviously catch different structures. We should make sure both don't get lost.Americasroof (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the Enorton's Enhanced version. It is more colorful. The reason that I believe that my shot is superior to either of Charvex's shots is the fact that Kansas City looks much larger, nicer, and better layed out with this view. It shows a greater panorama and gets all of the major buildings, while Charvex's does not. You can not see the Bartle Pilons as obviously and Commerce Tower is blocked. So is the City Center Square. A skyline image is the "stamp" of uniqueness of a city. When you see KC on the news or in books, they usually show three views. This view from 169, a back view shot from the liberty memorial, or a view shot from Wyandotte County coming towards downtown. You NEVER see the shot that Charvex is showing. I can assure you if you look on any postcard, news skyline shot, or whatever, you will NOT see that shot. Even KCMO's web site shows the shot from the liberty memorial. The shot from southbound 169 is the best I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 00:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a view from 169 south is a best view, but I'd like a shot that includes the bridges across the missouri. I don't know if there's an angle available that does that well, however. It seems like shooting from the airport would be too close and low, but maybe from near that curve where 169 goes around the airport from the north. I don't know if there'd be a shot from near Briarcliff or whatever that place is called. Another good reason to have a 169 south view is because most non-regional visitors would be entering the city that way from KCI.Subversionarts (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charvex's - This photograph is much more clear and I feels captures KC better. Tubahero (talk)
Total 6 for Charvex, 2 for Enorton," not sure if Subversionarts was just a comment on the view or supporting a version of that picture. Support a version if you have an opinion one way or the other. I agree with Subersionarts that the view from Enorton's picture is better, but overall Charvex's is a much higher quality picture. With the current results I'm going to go ahead and change the pic to Charvex's cropped, this can always be changed if a new consensus develops or we get a better quality picture from 169 south. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We never had a vote. This was simply just a discussion. No one OBJECTED to any of my comments. I don't see what position of authority you are in to revert that picture back. I will not change the picture yet, but I say you should give it another week or so before making a final decision. No one has yet to counter any of the arguments presented, only that Charvex's photo is of better quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 06:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arusha, Tanzania
Freetown, Sierra Leone
Guadalajara, Mexico
Kurashiki, Japan
Metz, France
Port Harcourt, Nigeria
Ramla, Israel
Seville, Spain
Tainan City, Taiwan
Xi'an, People's Republic of China
Hanover, Germany
