Talk:Akron, Ohio

Template:OhioSAN

its leaving out the great fire of 1901

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

Back to popular culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

• LeBron James - information fits here because he is putting Akron in popular culture, which is more fit for this article/section than his personal page.

• Rugrats - fits because the city's culture/history is expressed due to stew being a toy inventor and the family being from there.

• Marbles - fits because the toy subculture is a part of the larger popular culture.

• My City Was Gone - fits because it's based on Akron.

• Get it in Ohio - fits because it tells information about Akron and person's view on it.

• Your Touch - fits because it is set in Akron (possibly the whole video cause it dosent make sense to shoot a video in seperate cities when no significant-city landmarks are being shown).

• Leland Gaunt - fits because Akron is prominent setting (where a main character is from and is referred to in [[Needful Things multiple times)

• Rome wasn't built in a day - fits because it expresses the author's view on Akron, putting it in comparison to Rome (chose the city out of many for a reason).

• Akron in The Stand - fits because the city is visited in the book, whereas not a big number of other cities arent, prominent setting, referred to multiple times.

• My Own Worst Enemy - fits because he in more than one episode he goes to Akron, prominent setting.

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

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

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

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

You're still missing the points Beirne has made and the purpose of these sections in general. For instance, Rugrats having Akron as a hometown is trivia; it has no bearing in the series (no episodes take place in Akron and it isn't mentioned again) and does nothing in explaining or featuring Akron for the purposes of the article. There's a good chance one of the writers was from Akron and just stuck in it. You have to look at the difference between being a major setting and/or filming location and a passing reference to the city in a quote or in a line of spoken dialogue. Rugrats being a notable TV show does not mean Akron's brief mention is encyclopedic or worthwhile in this article; the same goes for most of the mentions as Beirne has explained. A lot of the reasons you are giving for inclusion are your own personal opinions (like why the author selected Akron and Rome for the quote). He's not comparing Rome or Akron at all. "Rome wasn't built in a day" is a common quote (look it up). Adding something about Akron is nothing significant, nor is it anything beyond a passing mention. Characters being from Akron is not that same as a story taking place in Akron. I still think LeBron is far more appropriate in the notable natives section since he is the most well-known Akronite right now. Right now most of this is trivia and boosterism. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're still missing the point, sections should contain verifiable facts of interest to a broad audience of readers, it does that, also WP:USCITY#Arts and culture isnt the same as popular culture, plus view Category:Fictional characters from New York City Category:In popular culture Category:Locations in popular culture --Threeblur0 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Also in My Own Worst Enemy, he visits Akron more than once, making it a prominent setting, i will find sources. I also gave reasons for the other material but dont have time right now.--Threeblur0 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, something being verifiable and interesting does not necessarily equal notable or encylcopedic. See WP:N. This is currently the biggest problem this article faces and you (and any editor) face as an editor in being able to distinguish between what is "interesting" and what is notable and worthwhile. There are a lot of interesting, verifiable facts that are out on the Internet about Akron; that does not mean they should be included here. As for the guidlelines at WP:USCITY#Arts and culture that is where pop-culture mentions are made. A subsection can be made for pop-culture, but only when it's needed. Not all city articles have pop-culture sections. I'd say most don't. The presence of the categories you mentioned still does't satisfy the mostly trivial reasons for including the Akron-specific pop-culture info here.

For My Own Worst Enemy do the mentions say anything about Akron? When he visits, does a significant amount of the plot take place in Akron? If so, then yes it should be included, but if it just mentions a few times he visited Akron and that's it, then it's just a mention and isn't really significant. A setting isn't just where a character goes, it's where action actually takes place in terms of plot development. "Prominent" suggests most of the important action takes place there. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For a comparison, My Name is Bill W., which I haven't seen, likely would fit as a pop-culture mention because it's about the founding of AA in Akron. Even though Bill W. didn't live in Akron and only visited, important things happened during his visit that relate to Akron history. My Own Worst Enemy is fiction, of course, but if the visits to Akron say something about the city and aren't just a generic setting for some episodes of the show then it would also fit, otherwise not. --Beirne (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the in popular culture article and found another interesting criteria: "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be notable if the subject responds to it in a public fashion—such as a celebrity or official quoted as expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference.". So a number of the items really need secondary sources to demonstrate their notability. --Beirne (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed an inproper tag, due to it being in the wrong section and all the data with Akron as a prominent setting or helping people to understand Akron or what comes from Akron, plus none of the data in film and television are "passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics"....Also after reviewing the catagories i listed, i found better ways to wikify the information.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Leatherheads has just passing references to Akron. All the Marbles and Dance, Girl, Dance have portions that take place in Akron but nothing indicates that they tell the viewer anything about the city. The Instructor needs a secondary source instead of a tertiary, and Prison Break needs a secondary source instead of a primary. --Beirne (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you watched Leatherheads? It tells a significant amount about the city's sports team etc. All the Marbles and Dance, Girl, Dance, and The Instructor have concrete representations of the city (even though pop culture rules shouldnt apply to this section) and i will get another reference for Prison Break.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't seen Leatherheds, which is why the mention needs a good reference. From what I could find Akron is only mentioned in passing.[2]. Regarding the other three movies I suspect that The Instructor counts but needs a good secondary reference to prove notability, All the Marbles might, and maybe Dance, Girl, Dance. They need good secondary references to prove it, though. And this section is the very definition of Akron in pop culture. More than a Game, All the Marbles and The Instructor, but the others are appearances of Akron in popular culture, in this case film. --Beirne (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Know what, i have a headache from last night and have articles to make and alot of typing to do, so for the time being, ima let you have, then fix everythng later with editors input, enjoy.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Asking

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

Most of the material I removed has been discussed plenty in the past and was shown to be trivial. I was following Wikipedia guidelines from WP:IPC. I don't know of any 48 hour requirement. --Beirne (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there is plenty of other material in the article that has been discussed that needs to be deleted too, so you are getting much more than 48 hours for lots of it. --Beirne (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such requirement. If you are unsure about the encylcopedic value of material, present it here before adding it to the article. We have been more than patient and willing to discuss what material belongs here and what doesn't and used countless references from Wikipedia guidelines and policies in explaining our thinking and trying to help you understand. Remember, the burden is on you to show why the info should be included, not on us to explain why it shouldn't. Just because something isn't purely vandalizing the article does not mean it is helping it or should remain for any amount of time. If it's trivia, it doesn't belong here. If it doesn't fit the established guidelines, it doesn't belong here. If it's unsourced it doesn't belong here. Simply having a source does not mean it should be here. All material I have removed has also been for the same reasons as Beirne: it's either trivial, unsourced, and/or improperly sourced. Most of the pop-culture stuff you re-added is still trivial and doesn't belong here. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, if there is question over the encylcopedic value of information, adding it back and then asking for discussion is the opposite of what should happen. It really needs to stay out unless discussion can show it belongs. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Akron in popular culture rewrite

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

The correct thing to do would be put citation needed tags, and you use consensus. Funny how i tried to put it under the section and it kept being removed, mass data loss so we have to go back and do it right. Plus you removed pictures in the process, and no guidlines say it should look like the way you put it, which looks random. Furthermore, they way you worded it really isnt good encyclpedia prose. Finally, your sentence for More Than a Game, didnt sum it up right. Behind my final reason, your sentence for Thomas and Beulah was inncorrect as only her grandfather came from Mississippi, all this is vandalism if not close.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Threeblur0, Beirne's careful rewriting is the farthest thing from vandalism. I think there should be an WP:RFC/U on your conduct here and your refusal or inability to learn to follow the basics of the WP:MOS. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How is incorrect facts, careful rewriting? How am i showing refusal or inability to learn to follow the basics of the WP:MOS, when i first placed in popular culture in the culture, then got it removed by others who said it didnt belong, then gave it it's own section like it is suppose to have, only to have it put back in culture by one of the editors who said it didnt belong?--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said the popular culture concept didn't belong, I said that most of the popular culture material in the article didn't belong. I've been putting tags on items for a long time and discussing here, but for most of them valid references were not found. I did pick my items out of the existing lists, but had to come up with new sources for all of them except for More than a Game, where I had already put in a valid ref myself. You are right about Mississippi, I'll fix it when I put the section back. For More then a Game, I got what I wrote from this sentence in the review: More Than a Game, which looks back on the achievements of a high school basketball team in Akron, Ohio, that happened to include the future N.B.A. superstar LeBron James, is halfway there. In either case those can be easily edited. What isn't so easy is leaving information in the article that cannot be backed up with good references. Removing the picture was inadvertent, but since there is already an art museum picture in the museum section we don't really need another one in the film and TV section where it doesn't even apply. --Beirne (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You seemed to agree with the John that it didnt belong in the culture section, which i stated. Please explain which and how the information on the sources arent valid. It seems we might need a concensus first to find rather it should be a seperate section [like most popular culture sections are] or be fused with culture. The article, which is similar to Cleveland's style, is organized and only pointed out as wrong by you and John, a small minority compared to the atleast hundreds who view the page. Your actually removed to pictures, and the second museum picture is meant for the above section on museums and shows change.--Threeblur0 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pictures I removed weren't stretching into other subsections, they were placed in other subsections. Every time I saw the picture of the art museum in the film section I thought about how strange that was there. The personal attack was you calling Jon "the John", and assuming bad faith was when you said of my changes "all this is vandalism if not close". Vandalism implies bad intent on the part of the person who did it, the opposite of assuming good faith. In any case I have restored my changes and took out the part about Thomas and Beulah coming from Mississippi. --Beirne (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The pictures are IN THE ARTS AND CULTURE SECTION, where they fit. Not strange. I never called him "the John", i shortened his names as he would do mine often, no, what i said is fact since you removed correct referenced data with incorrect data.(kinda fits the definition). In any case you did it again, and worse this time so im restoring so we can attempt to do it right as stated above. Your behavior is getting out hand and you dont seem to want to cooperate with other using the talk page, i might have to get administrators involved.--Threeblur0 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You called Jon "the John" when you wrote "You seemed to agree with the John that it didnt belong in the culture section, which i stated." Search on this page to find where you said it. I made an honest mistake saying that Thomas and Beulah came from Mississippi, but in spite of what you just said the text that it replaced had no reference at all, so it was not correctly referenced. It made statements that may or not be true, but there was no way to know. I added a proper secondary reference and I was able to use it to verify that I had made the mistake, which I corrected. Regarding cooperation on the talk page, I've been talking about these things here for ages. Feel free to get administrators involved. --Beirne (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, be my guest and get administrators involved. Have them look over this talk page and the edit history of the article. Beirne clearly explained his edits more than once, which he isn't required to do. And yes, you referred to me as "the John" above which is not a shortened version of my name and can easily be considered an insult. The only shortened version either of us have ever used for you is "Threeblur". --JonRidinger (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I just undid a change by Threeblur0 that removed the infobox from the top of the article. --Beirne (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Threeblur0, you just added (back) the film Dance, Girl, Dance (among other things) for its supposed great relevance to Akron in popular culture. I looked at the Wikipedia article and it makes no mention of Akron, which is not a good sign. Neither does the listing on IMDB. The film is on the Library of Congress' preservation register and it also does not mention Akron (link in the article as a ref). The article also cites the New York Times review of the film, so I looked at that and it does not mention Akron (nor does it like the film much). Trivial mentions of Akron do not belong here, as has been pointed out to you over and over and over. I am going to work on a Request for Comment/User (will take me some time as busy in real life). My hope is that you see it is not just the several editors here who disagree with you, but the community at large. I hope you change your ways, but if not this disruptive editing cannot continue. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He removed referenced prose that had his and mine included then reverted back to a version that didnt have as cleared information. After the earlier discussion and proper edits, he didnt clearly explain, but instead said "in any case I have restored my changes and took out the part about Thomas and Beulah coming from Mississippi", which administrators will see. Im not going keep repeating myself on why he should explain the edit he is making. Oh i see and should have looked, originally i was putting "the editor" but didnt erase all they way when i changed to your name, my error but not meant to be an insult. For now on say my full name and i will use yours.

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

Ruhrfisch, it is not in popular culture, omg, can we please use the talk page FIRST to figure what needs to go where? Also here is a better reference that says Akron. [3] --Threeblur0 (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Check out Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper). Tripod, which is where the suggested reference points, is self-published material and is not acceptable as a source in Wikipedia. --Beirne (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the tip, really. Does this one work? [4] --Threeblur0 (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a better reference. Reading it, though, the movie appears to use Akron as a stepping-stone to New York City, so Akron isn't the focus of the movie, and from Ruhrfisch says Akron isn't even mentioned in most reviews of the movie so it must not stand out. I'll have to think about this one. --Beirne (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say if it isn't clear-cut, probably best to leave it out; it isn't really that important. Does it make or break the section? Will leaving it out truly lessen a reader's understanding of Akron? That can go for anything in the article; remember even having a reliable source does not mean it should be in the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

After finally seeing the movie, more than just one or two scenes are in Akron and the two girls arent the only main characters from the city, they even talk about the tires factories and one characters works in the industry, plus the film fits the qualifications. I also found a better reference.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you went above and beyond. There was enough in the reference to make it a judgment call but since you've seen it and explained more detail then having the movie in the article sounds good to me. --Beirne (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree...good work Threeblur! --JonRidinger (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sections

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

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

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

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

Devo

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

I think their first performance was in Akron (if I remember right) and of course some of the band members were Akron natives. If it's mentioned in the notable section, it should be the members who are from Akron rather than the entire band. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I found two sources [5] [6] that say Devo formed in Akron, it also says it on the wiki page. Also, upon reading the reference about Devo under the Kent residents section [7], i find it is a narrative of the narrator's first person account of concert viewings and research, which could possibly be wrong.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The first two sources are a good start, but neither are true reliable sources since they contain no verifiable material (like a bibliography of where they got their info from). According to this link, the first performance was at the recital hall at KSU. I'm not quite sure what you mean in regards to the third source though. The link you provided (which is also used in the Kent article as you mentioned) goes to an excerpt of chapter 7 of a published biography of the band (We Are Devo), so it would appear to pass reliability and would probably be one of the best sources of information about the band. This essay by former band member and Akron native Bob Lewis is linked on the Devo article and states on page 2: "Let me be plain about this: contrary to popular belief DEVO was not and is not a phenomenon of Akron, Ohio. It was rather a logical extension of a series of inexplicable forces that made Kent State University a mass culture nexus for a brief and shining moment." --JonRidinger (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The origin of Devo is a bit tricky. Some of the members were from the old Northampton Township and the group got together at Kent State. They were part of the "Akron Sound" though, so Akron is used as a convenience in some descriptions of the band. The WP article on Devo does say they formed in Akron near the top, but reading their history in the body of the article they were formed in Kent. Of course, we need a better source. Bob Lewis' statement puts things pretty clearly in Kent. I think this outweighs the other sources that say the group was formed in Akron and we should keep the statement that they were formed in Akron out of the article. --Beirne (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Needed edits

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

Cleanup Tag

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

Can you specificly point out the issues with the article which warrants the tag on top of the page since they are not easily seen, yet you've located them.----Threeblur0 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The tag will be removed, as it should, if issues arent directly specified.--Threeblur0 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

To-Do List

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

Take the time and go through the talk page archives here...that's what we have been doing over and over and over and over: explaining the problems. No need to keep repeating. I have already explained again how the history section needs completely reorganized and in many ways rewritten to have some sort of continutity and flow; pictures need placed so they aren't on the same line of text as another and they need to be in a relevant section with a relevant caption; many sources need to be placed or replaced; much of the information is still of questionable worth for an encyclopedic article. How do I know this? I've taken the time to read and become familiar with the MoS and as many relevant Wikipedia policies as I can so I don't need another editor to come in and show me where all the problems are. I've joined and taken the time to know the various WikiProjects and the standards they have developed for their respective articles. For this article specifically, the Ohio Wikiproject and the Cities Wikiproject are the ones to know, especially the cities project. I've taken the time to participate in and/or read discussions on how the various policies were formed. You need to be a lot more proactive than simply placing the burden on other editors to show you where the problems are because we have shown you multiple times. If you have questions ask, but don't just rely on what everyone else does. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As i stated above, it would be more faster and convient for other editors if they had a list of things need done right here in one spot, rather than them going through archives where they will find problems that have already been fixed, is this hard to get? Sorry for not paying much attention to your personal attacks, but they just arent important. Which sources need replaced?--Threeblur0 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep this in mind: it would be faster and more convenient for you if someone put together another list of problems. It would not be more convenient for me or another editor to go through the archives or the article again and point out all the problems and make a list for your convenience. Experienced editors who see the cleanup tag know what to look for since they are familiar with the MoS, main Wikipedia policies and definitions, and the general article and project guidelines, so they won't need a to-do list nor will they come looking for one in the talk pages. That's why I always emphasize becoming familiar with those things on your own (nothing personal). To-do lists are generally used when the article is being reviewed for GA status (which this is sadly in no danger of getting to anytime soon) to show where it needs to meet (or has met) very specifc criteria. Again, there is no time limit or need to rush to get the tag removed and the main problems--mainly content and organization--will take some time and effort to fix because it basically involves going through the entire article from top to bottom. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Jon's list in the Cleanup Tag section pretty well summed up what the article needs. This history section needs to be made chronological. Having it be topical makes it difficult to add new material, because not everything fits into one of the categories. If you want someplace to start, you can work on the citation needed and the dead link tags, which were put there to highlight problems. Otherwise, we've been talking about the issues for ages, and the discussion is well preserved for you to read. --Beirne (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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

A good place not to start is adding more info to the popular culture section. Of all the sections in the article, this needs the least amount of mass additions if any. Remember, as *several* editors have pointed out, it should not be a list of every appearance of Akron in works of literature, TV, film, etc. This is a general encylcopedic article about Akron, not an article about everything from Akron. As has been said before, the vast majority of the information is WP:FANCRUFT and trivia. Just because something has a source doesn't mean it should be included here because it does little if anything to help the reader understand the subject better. In my opinion, the only additions that need to be made to this article are where citations are missing or are improper. The focus here needs to be on improving what's here, not expanding a poor article even more. Adding more content doesn't fix the article's problems; it actually makes them harder and more time consuming to fix. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the new pop culture material is the sort of thing that the cleanup tag refers to. As I have said many times on this talk page, an appearance in popular culture is only merited if it tells someone unfamiliar with the location something about it. Just appearing in a book or having someone born from there is not enough. Yes, there are references but that does not indicate that the films or shows say anything about Akron. --Beirne (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a good essay on this at Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. While it is not an official policy or guideline, I think it is an accurate reflection of most editors opinions on what should be in a GA or FA in terms of pop culture. Mere mention in an episode or movie or book does not merit mention here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Maps

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

Recent improvements

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

It would be nicer if you corrected the errors you saw. Actually, it goes to 2007, and im currently working on how to trim and add a recent times section of history. It will be either the same size or smaller than Kent's(which oddly a has a long history section) and a whole seperate history of Akron article wont be needed. The lead had problems, which i fixed instead of just stating, if it needs trimming then it should start from the fixes. What you believe, may not be Wikipedia Guidelines.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've said many times, the Kent article is irrelevant here. We're discussing the Akron article. Just because it has a large history section does not mean A) this article should have one or B) that the Kent article isn't being worked on or even C) that the Kent article is without problems. I'm actually in the process of making a History of Kent, Ohio article and reducing what's on the current Kent article to three large summary paragraphs. It's a small part of the reason I don't have time to be constantly cleaning up this article among the many other articles I edit and watch. My hope is that you and other editors can make your own edits that don't require cleanup by me or other editors. That's why I take the time to explain the why's and how's. I've also gotten tired of spending lots of time doing cleanups only to see them reverted. My reasonings for the history section come from the WP:USCITY#History guideline. Again, not required, but I definitely see why the suggestion was made for length. If you ever want this to become a GA then following those guidelines are your best bet. What you did to the history was certainly a step in the right direction, however, I wouldn't call it being "fixed" any more than what you did to the lead by adding more details than are needed. The best edits not only fix some problems but they fix all or most of them. With sandboxes and other editors to help, there's no reason an edit should be placed in an article that needs additional major cleanup. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured articles New York City and Cleveland have nickname information in the lead, what are you talking about. The Newsweek source has a date so theres no confusion, plus i believe the list was only made once and nothing has changed to take Akron off of it.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Reread what I said..."There are very few exceptions of info that should be in the lead that aren't mentioned later in the article (nicknames and denonyms are the ones I can think of..." In other words, I said nicknames and denonyms are the exceptions to the rule, though it is not out of place to have that information also in the body of the article. As for the Newsweek source, yes it has a date, but for the lead it's largely inappropriate. Within the article would be fine, but mentioning a one-time article that named Akron a tech haven 9 years ago really isn't relevant in the lead. Even in reading Cleveland's I think the sources and "most livable city" shouldn't really be in the lead since it is now 5 years old. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Subheadings

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

Category/List

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

Lead

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

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

Akron Experiment

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

Taken from the lead guidelines,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have to understand what is most important and what isn't in terms of the lead, not in terms of your personal preferences on an event or item of information. The fact that just ONE source supports the Akron Experiment statement is evidence it isn't nearly as important as you seem to believe it is. The Akron Pros winning the first NFL title is trivia; interesting but tells us nothing about Akron and definitely not a lead-worthy item for a city of nearly 200 years old and over 200,000 people. The professional sports teams of larger cities are far more notable than the Akron Pros and I don't see them in any FA or even GA class city articles leads.

Akron the "main" polymer center? According to what source? If a source states that and is from the University of Akron or the City of Akron, those fail WP:RS because of neutrality issues. Akron is *a* center of polymer research and development; it is not *the* or even the most prominent from all the sources I've seen.

In reality, the entire lead needs major work with or without these additions. It is supposed to summarize the entire article and currently says nothing of things like the city's government structure, climate, etc. And list current companies that support the local economy? That means the largest and CURRENT companies but mainly mention the main industries, not listing a bunch of historic companies that do absolutely nothing for Akron's economy any more, nor does it mean list every company currently headquartered in Akron. Basically, you need to think like a Wikipedia editor and not simply as an Akron resident. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize information about the city, not tell how wonderful the city is. Regarding current industries, the US Cities project suggests listing types of industries, such as services, manufacturing, etc., and not specific companies. Also, there are other issues in the lead. The statement "In the 21st century, the city's economy began an upswing, due to continued efforts in industry and media notoriety from NBA All-star LeBron James." is without foundation and it isn't clear that there is an upswing in the economy, least of all due to LeBron. He has merely brought attention to the city. The Newsweek high-tech haven mention was from 2001 and is getting pretty stale. The link for the industries started in Akron says nothing about the industries. --Beirne (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

from the link,

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

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

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

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

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

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