Talk:Plymouth, Michigan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I wish that the first picture of Main Street would have turned out better. I had my phone set to 160 resolution, so that's why it's so blurry.

Wrifraff101 02:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Toomey[reply]

Advertisements.[edit]

Sections of this article are written as advertisements. I'll be trimming the 'Events' section shortly, and I think we may choose to delete the 'Restaurants' section entirely - I don't think it can be saved. Morganbored (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History section too long/detailed?[edit]

The 'History' seciton is extremely long and overly-detailed. I'm not saying it should be trimmed, but maybe create a new page for 'History of Plymouth, Michigan'? Write a brief overview for the main page and have a link to the History page. Thoughts? -hsxeric (talk) 12:55 16 February, 2013 (UTC)

RE: History section. I was going to say the same thing, or something along the line of condensing it and removing information that would be considered non-notable. It definitely could use a re-write to make it more readable and concise.2602:306:320A:AF0:11B5:786F:7737:53D2 (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to do this today, but it got reverted. I'm not saying that what I wrote is perfect, but I cut a lot of the unnecessary details (do we really need three paragraphs on the history of railroads and the contents of Celestia Young's diary? I don't think so). If anyone objects to some of the changes, they can always partially revert. But I think a full reversion is a bit unjustified.
Also, I added several references where there were none. I used a wordpress site only because it was the genealogical history of the Starkweather family and could find no other source. It's not "scholarly" but I think the family themselves would be a good primary source and anything else would likely be secondary. Underlinecontrast (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Plymouth, Michigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people: How long is "significant"[edit]

An editor has now twice deleted a notable person who -- according to refs -- lived in here. For two years. Which is a sufficiently significant period of time for him to have been reports by the sources as having moved here.

The editor has decided that the person must live there for a certain number of years -- though he has not indicated how many that is. And has not addressed the fact that what he points to does not state that two years is less that a significant number of years. He just deleted based on his personal view.

Plus -- here the fact that he moved to Plymouth was significant for his bio, because he moved here to pursue his hockey career, by training in ice hockey here. That is not a criterion, but is relevant.

I don't think it is right for an editor to delete notable persons that meet this list's criteria.

And what's next? If someone is born here, but moves after a month, he will delete them?

If they attend a college for only two years, he will delete them from the list of alumni?

It's not right for an editor to make up rules, and delete the work of others on that made-up criteria. --2604:2000:E016:A700:1C17:F64F:473D:37F1 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This person was added to several notable people lists. In my reverts I mentioned WP:USCITIES#Notable people, which states that the list is for "any famous or notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city". Two years was barely time to lace his skates! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who are we talking about? I assume a hockey player, but who? And did I understand Magnolia677 right that the same editor has added his name to multiple settlement articles? John from Idegon (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John from Idegon: Yes, the hockey player Jason Zucker. He was added to this article (2 years stay) and List of people from Los Angeles (2 year stay). I don't feel two years is a " significant amount of time", but I haven't seen a consensus about this. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we both know exactly what is going on here, Magnolia677. Somebody needs to familiarize themselves with WP:TOU and WP:COI. Tattoos? OMG. To address the theoretical question, how long is significant is situational. If someone spent two years here and during that time was involved in something of great (or even moderate) significance, then it would be significant. I don't think youth hockey is all that significant. One of the more enlightening discussions on this subject occurred at Talk:Vancouver, Washington regarding President Grant. On another point, the IP'S mention of alumni lists is apples and oranges. Consensus at both the Schools project and Universities project is that attendance at the school, even as little as one day, is all that is required. Wholly endorse removal from both here and LA. Obviously, 2 years is not significant in lala land, where people come and go all the time. For a journeyman athlete, the only settlement articles they should be added to are their birthplace, where they were raised and where they retired. Someone needs to take a serious look at the encyclopedic content in the bio too. I do not edit sport people's bios, cause I haven't the patience to deal with the fanatics that lurk around sports subjects. Try explaining to a sports fan that not everyone understands what a "pick 6" or a "triple double" is. John from Idegon (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to John -- First, a question. What brought you to this page? You never edited it before. And yet you appeared here. To support a position by Magnolia.

Did Magnolia contact you? And did that lead you to come here? I see that you two chat with each other, with regard to other articles. I'm having trouble understanding another likely scenario. And if that is what happened, I'm not sure that that is the best way to have a conversation.

Also -- I looked at the COI link. It has zero relevance.

As to your opinion -- even if solicited by someone with whom you are wikipedia friends, on an article that you never touched, that "If someone spent two years here and during that time was involved in something of great (or even moderate) significance, then it would be significant" -- that seems to be not a consensus-driven rule, but something you are making up. That is in conflict with how it works. People are listed on "List of city x" if they are born in a city -- even if they are not involved in something significant in that city. All the time. Same with "Notable alumni." The made-up test is in conflict with how wikipedia works on all those lists. So that makes no sense as the standard, even as an implicit standard. Just the opposite. We list people all the time on such lists without them having been involved in anything significant in that city or school.

Plus, as mentioned, this person went to this city, leaving his family as a youth, specifically to advance his hockey career, so he has even more significance in his choice of city than usual.

Plus, two years is certainly significant enough time for "born in city x" or for "alumni of school x," so I don't see support for your friend's view in how things actually work on wikipedia. 2604:2000:E016:A700:550D:C78:6C39:3C38 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2604:2000:E016:A700:550D:C78:6C39:3C38: I think the question is, how did you end up here? You've never edited this page before either. Are you an alternate IP for the other editor who commented here, and who also seems to be adding sports figures to high school articles? I highly doubt you just randomly found this discussion and joined in to support the other IP editor. Please take a moment to read WP:SOCK. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No -- the question is (because I asked it first, it I would think deserves an answer) how John ended up here.
And -- since John never edited this page before, but has had on-wp communications with Magnolia -- whether Magnolia contacted him, on or off wikipedia, leading to him coming here, and supporting Magnolia's view. And if that is what happened, whether that is OK.
Magnolia -- it is also a question for you, then. Did you contact John, on or off wp, about this conversation, before he joined it, supporting your view?
To answer your question, I am the same as the IP that began this conversation. My computer provider does not provide a static IP address. This is caused by my computer service provider, not by me. It has nothing to do with socking. And is quite normal. If you speak to someone who knows about IP addresses, or research it, you will understand this.--2604:2000:E016:A700:79D7:9430:713A:70E2 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Content on any article is decided by consensus not rules. We have no hard and fast rules on content (except for things like copyright and libel). If you want him here, you need to convince other editors that he should be here. To me, your arguements are not convincing. How is it significant to one's knowledge of this community that this young man spent two years here advancing his career? IMO, part of the problem may be that you are viewing this as an edit about a hockey player. It's not, it's an edit about a city. There are methods available for getting more people involved if you so choose but at this point there is no consensus to include his name here. And yes, Magnolia677 did indicate to me that I should take a look at this. As I am one of the most active editors on political geography articles in Michigan, I don't see how this is inappropriate. You're more than welcome to post a neutral notification at WT:MICH and WT:CITIES to get more editors involved. If that doesn't garner a clear consensus, then there are further dispute resolution methods available after that. John from Idegon (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I retitled this section for clarity. There have been thousands of reverts on this article. This title actually indicates exactly what we're talking about. John from Idegon (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please limit your discussion to settlements. What goes at school articles has no relevance here. The guidelines are totally seperate. Significant is not a factor on school lists. John from Idegon (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've lost your credibility the moment you spelled separate wrong. 79.137.73.127 (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What rules wikipedia editors apply for inclusion at all parallel "notable people from location or school x" lists is actually in my opinion relevant here, to the extent that those rules relate to lists that bear similarities.
In addition, you write: "Content on any article is decided by consensus not rules." Here's the problem. The "consensus" you refer to on this page was created by you contacting one other editor, whom you refer to as "Hey Friend," (see the Fairview Alpha, Louisiana discussion here) soliciting his input here, and as he has done in the past when you did this (on conversations on various subjects) he joins the conversation and agrees with you. That's not an even-handed consensus discussion. Not when you solicit input from your friend. And that sort of approach will drive good editors away. I believe.2604:2000:E016:A700:79D7:9430:713A:70E2 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Plymouth, Michigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plymouth,_Michigan&oldid=1209786149"