Talk:Louisville, Kentucky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleLouisville, Kentucky is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 1, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 30, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
September 4, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Editors willing to help others on this article (sources, questions, etc.)[edit]

Pic of the new Colonial Gardens[edit]

To have a nice, current image of Colonial Gardens for its article and other appropriate Louisville-related articles would be fantastic. I mean, the place just looks wonderful compared to how it looked before (as shown in its article). Might anyone have a pic of the remodeled main building to upload? If not, I may have to lug my butt over there and take a pic myself. At any rate, remember: the pic has to be your own work, be in the public domain, or have a compatible license for use on Wikipedia. Thanks! Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 09:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and took new pics of the place and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons and put some of them in the article. Please feel free to upload more from Colonial Gardens present and past if you like. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 04:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

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)[reply]

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 Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 06:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 22:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Origin of Louisville being the "Gateway to the South"[edit]

The first record of Louisville being referred to as the "Gateway to the South" comes from the Courier Journal editor Henry Watterson in 1895 as he was addressing the GAR encampment (Union Veterans). This can be found in the Introduction of Anne Marshall's dissertation "“A STRANGE CONCLUSION TO A TRIUMPHANT WAR”: MEMORY, IDENTITY AND THE CREATION OF A CONFEDERATE KENTUCKY, 1865- 1925" [2] for a Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Georgia. The dissertation eventually went to print as "Creating a Confederate Kentucky: The Lost Cause and Civil War Memory in a Border State. [3]https://uncpress.org/book/9781469609836/creating-a-confederate-kentucky/ Here is the quote from Henry Watterson

"Standing before an immense crowd at the opening of the 1895 Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) encampment in Louisville, Kentucky, Courier-Journal editor Henry Watterson delivered words of welcome, proclaiming, “It is . . . with a kind of exultation that I fling open the gateway to the South!”

According to Marshall Henry Watterson was speaking from a southern city's point of view.

"Many in attendance noted the irony of an ex Confederate soldier and eminent New South spokesman offering his greetings to Union veterans. What many listeners may not have noticed, however, was the manner in which Watterson cast Kentucky’s wartime position, even as he extended his wishes for sectional reconciliation. “You came, and we resisted you,” he said of Kentucky’s wartime response to men in blue, “you come and we greet you; for times change and men change with them. You will find here no sign of the battle; not a reminiscence of its passion. Grimvisaged war has smoothed his wrinkled front . . ..” Funmountainlion (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She points out the irony of Louisville's support of the Union during the war. She continues

"Along with many of his fellow white Kentuckians, Watterson seemed to overlook the fact that his home city stood with the Union during the Civil War, and had served as a major supply center for the Union Army. Furthermore, Union veterans would have only had to wander a few blocks to the intersection of Louisville’s Third and Shipp Streets to see an unmistakable “reminiscence of passion,” a towering Confederate monument erected just a few months earlier."

Marshall's sourcing came from the Filson Historical Society

"Henry Watterson, “Address of Welcome to be delivered to the Grand Army of the Republic on Behalf of the City of Louisville,” Henry Watterson Papers, Speech Collection, Filson Club Historical Society, Louisville, Ky." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funmountainlion (talkcontribs) 17:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting information. Since article talk pages are about article development, are you requesting this be covered in an article? If so, perhaps it fits into History of Louisville, Kentucky. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 18:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It probably does fit into history of Louiville. As far as article development, the following needs to he revised
"20th and 21st centuries[edit]
The moniker "Gateway to the South" comes from the large number of African Americans that moved to Louisville during the period of the Great Migration in the beginning of the 20th century."
Maybe the moniker was used during that time but that is not where it originated from and needs to be revised.
It is correctly mentioned in "Louisville, Kentucky in the American Civil War" Louisville, Kentucky in the American Civil War under the Post War period. This has been a question discussed in Louisville for years and its origin has now been unearthed and documented. Funmountainlion (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Source "Destguides" revised their article concerning the moniker due to its complexities of meanings throughout the 20th Century. Revision made to article. 2603:8001:6E00:2AC2:B07E:9853:17A8:41B2 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

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.
Maybe buss pay stinks,
The State Police also have has some issues:
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)[reply]
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 Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 23:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]