Talk:St. Louis/Archive 3

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

This article or section does not cite any references or sources.

What Gibberish! If those who set up the "warning" will look at other encyclopedias, they will see that sources for such standard items as the year of the founding of St. Louis are NOT cited. And information, held to be generally true never is. Otherwise, the citations would be the aliment and the information the condiment. That said, the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra's music is played regularly on the classical radio station here in Los Angeles California. And I say this as a listener to it. The food section I have a larger problem with as a former resident I see no mention of Fitz' Hamburgers. Those things do give local flare to St. Louis. I am not smart enough to sort out what is preferable. But at 60 years, I have a better historical perspective than some editors on this page.Mark Preston 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links Clarification?

It was my understanding that the external links are there to provide additional informational resources. At least, that's what I expect to find in an external links section. But the discussion below on 'link spam' resulted in deleting a link to a separate wiki focused on St. Louis, which one would expect to provide an expanding source of additional information. Someone within the discussion mentioned several other St. Louis wikis, unfortunately, never naming them. And a google search on -- "St. Louis" wiki -- yields only Wikilou and references to it. So I am at a loss to find these mysterious others. Anyway, I do know about wikilou, so I guess it's no loss to me that it isn't linked here, however, I feel it is a loss to others, since it's an obvious source for more, detailed information on the city and the surrounding area. Gavroche42 20:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Today (5/15/07) I added the link to WikiLou.com to the external links section of this article page. It was removed by Gamer83, as he has done in the past. I left a message on his user talk page saying: "I understand your initial concerns regarding WikiLou, and even agree with them. However, WikiLou has become much larger, with an extensive readership. It now has over 1100 articles and nearly 100,000 unique hits. There is new discussion from other users on this issue. I'd like to know what you think the threshold for WikiLou being notable enough to mention would be. I don't want to have any edit wars or nastiness (as seems to have happened when this came up before, judging from the talk page). I just want to see your logic. Thanks."
Much like Gavroche42, I have found WikiLou to be a great tool for information on St. Louis. It is becoming (if it isn't already) the difinitive source for st. louis music info, as well as lots of other stuff (it has nearly 1200 articles). I would like a response on this issue, and some more reasonable discussion on it. It looks like it got nasty last time it was brought up... --63.252.114.218 17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


I'll begin by saying I smell some serious sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting, because there is no way you could know how many "unique hits" a site has unless you are in fact that site's owner. Secondly, the threshold for when the site can be included is not set by myself, it is set by Wikipedia:Notability (web). Read the policy, and make your case based on that. And please stop starting new discussions under different usernames/anonymous IPs, that too is against wikipedia policy. Gamer83 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiLou's webalizer stats: http://wikilou.com/webalizer/index.html
WikiLou's modlogan stats: http://wikilou.com/modlogan/index.html
WikiLou's wiki stats page: http://wikilou.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Statistics
Those are what I based the stats off of. You don't need to be the owner of a site to see these. I thought we could be civil on here, but now I see who the agitator is. --63.252.114.218 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh ok, me calling into question an anonymous poster's identity, and explaining wikipedia policy is somehow attacking you? If you say so. Anyways, I noticed you convienently forgot to make your case for the inclusion of your wikipage based on the requirements laid out by Wikipedia:Notability (web). Please make your case based on that policy and stop attempting to bait arguments. Gamer83 20:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you will read the "policy", Gamer83, you'll realize that it is actually a "guideline". "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense..." This site is clearly a source of further information about St. Louis, much more so than a few of the other external links that go uncontested on this article page. --24.107.185.206 03:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Look WP:N is the guide in determining what is and isn't included on wikipedia. I'm not going in circles with you guys and longer. Make your case on why this site is notable, based on the policy, or end this discussion. If you can't make your case by citing wikipedia policy, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Logging in from every different PC you see isn't helping your case either. Feel free to bring a moderator in on this discussion, they will simply explain to you the same policies that I have laid out. Gamer83 19:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Subscript text

St. Louis Metropolitan Area

The St. Louis Metropolitan area is in TWO states, and is thus not the largest metropolitan area in the state of Missouri, since it is also in Illinois. If you were to calculate the largest metropolitan area in the state of Missouri, you would have to add Kansas City's MSA on the Missouri side and add St. Louis' MSA on the Missouri side. So, I have removed the fact that it is the largest MSA in the state of Missouri since it is in two states and is thus NOT the largest metropolitan area in the state of Missouri.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.191.6 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 January 2007

What?! That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. STL is the largest metropolitan area in Missouri. The STL Metro area mentioned only takes into account counties in Missouri. No one really considers the IL portion in the STL Merto area. By your logic what is the largest Metro area in MO since KC is split as well? Columbia? Get serious and use some common sense. Gamer83 00:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My logic is that your metorpolitan area is NOT fully in Missouri, and thus you cannot claim that it is in Missouri, when it is in two states. Kansas City is also split, and thus it is not fully in Missouri either. Saying that it is the largest metro in the state is incorrect, as there is no census figure computing JUST the Missouri side. According to the Article on your MSA, it is in both states. If you want to find out the states largest metro area, then you need to find out the entire population of all of Kansas City and it's suburbs in Missouri, plus Saint Louis and all of it's suburbs in Missouri. Unfortuantley, there is no census figure to calculate just this reigon. To put it simplly, would you say that "The Sait Louis Missouri-Illinois Metroplitan area is the largest metropolitan area in Missouri" when it's in two states. It would be the same thing as me sayng "The Kansas City Missouri-Kansas Metropolitan area is the largest in the state of Kansas" when it's in BOTH states, even though more of it is in Missouri. It is fine to just say that St. Louis is the 18th largest metro in the US, when both sides of the metro are in the US. It would be different if you were talking about Texas, where all of it's metros are fully in the state. However, both of Missouri's largest metropolitan areas stretch over two states.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.191.6 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 4 January 2007

There are Census figures that break down each county and its population. All you have to do is add those numbers up to see that STL is clearly the largest metro in Missouri. How does it make any sense to add the STL and the KC metro together to determine the largest Metro area in Missouri? They are opposite sides of the state, that can't be called the largest metro area. The KC and STL areas have the two largest areas of concentrated population in MO, so one of those two logically HAS to be the largest Metro area in MO. Add up the population of the KC counties + KC city in MO, then compare that to the sum of the populations of all counties in the STL metro area in MO+ STL city, and you can clearly see that STL is the largest metro area in Missouri. Gamer83 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you fail to understand that it is hard to even DEFINE a metropolitan area. The STL Metro is NOT in missouri, it is in TWO states. Reguardless of the population the suburbs on the missouri side, a metropolitan area is ALL of the suburbs. It is not fair to break up a metropolitan area. And thus, it would be stupid to say that it is a missouri metropolitan area. Furthermore a metropolitan area is not a defined entity by the government, as it has no strucutred government. It should only be the CITY of St. Louis and the CITY of Kansas City, of which Kansas City is by far larger, since those are both fully and definatley in the state of Missouri. It is okay to say that St. Louis's metropolitan area is 18th in the US but not first in Missouri.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.244.214 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
There's nothing "hard" about defining a metro area. The Census Bureau establishes official metro area boundaries. The Missouri portion of the St. Louis MSA consists of Lincoln, Warren, St. Charles, Franklin. Jefferson, St. Louis, and St. Louis City counties. The Missouri portion of the Kansas City MSA consists of Clinton, Platte, Clay, Ray, Lafayette, Jackson, and Cass counties. From here, the question of "which is larger?" is a question of simple math. Or are you saying that, for instance, the New York City MSA isn't the largest one in New York state because it also extends into other states? I think you'll have a tough time finding many people who would accept that definition. Jasontoon 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you've just given yourself away. You want to put KC is larger than STL into this article. Clearly you are a KC booster just looking to sneak some junk into this article. In fact, I did a quick IP Trace on you to confirm just that. [1], everyone feel free to go to that link, then punch in this troll's ip 70.246.244.214. Your logic makes no sense. STL is the largest metro area in MO. I can't believe KC people have nothing better to do but try to come here and insert POV into the STL article. Grow up. Additionally, we already had a discussion lower on this page where we came to a consensus to state metropolitian area in the article. The portion of the Metro in MO is larger than and other metro area in the state. I'm not discussing this anymore since I think it's already pretty clear. If anyone tother than you wishes to weigh in, please do so. For future reference new topic go at the BOTTOM of the talkpage and sign your posts. Gamer83 02:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And just for the record, the very government boundaries you lament in your previous post are the boundaries thak make "KC larger than STL". Everyone knows STL is larger and more dense than KC will ever be. KC city population is a higher number only because they have draw their city boundaries to include nearly all of their suburbs, whereas STL City oaand our suburbs are two seperate entities. Gamer83 02:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

From the 2000 census, the St. Louis MSA (2,603,607) is larger than the Kansas City MSA (1,776,062). Furthermore, the Missouri component of the St. Louis MSA (2,003,762) is larger than the Missouri component of the Kansas City MSA (1,070,052). See http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab01.xls. Therefore, the statement about St. Louis being the largest MSA in Missouri is supported.Cynic783 17:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We could then simply say that the Missouri portion of the St. Louis metro is the largest metro in the state. Ryancarnated 21:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

disambig

there's a trillion things called St Louis. St. Louis should not redirect here, it should be a proper disambig page. thx 128.250.37.103 08:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately Astuishin appears not to agree. I asked him to explain his rationale, but he chose not to respond. I'd be all for changing St. Louis back to redirecting to Saint Louis (disambiguation), which is where Saint Louis currently redirects and where St. Louis redirected until recently. Is there a consensus? Dabarkey 05:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
People are more likely to be looking for some of the things named St. Louis than others, so I don't think redirecting right to a disambiguation page is most helpful. It seems to me that all of the people and places listed at the Saint Louis (disambiguation) page are all ultimately named after St. Louis IX. If any subject has the best claim to the St. Louis and Saint Louis name space I think it would be he. TMS63112 05:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sir:

I was the force (recently) behind getting the article at Wikipedia known as Saint Louis changed to St. Louis. If you will go to the discussion page prior to this one, you will see lengthy discussion about it. Briefly: the spelling: "St. Louis" is the official and legal one. Various sources were searched to see if St. Louis or Saint Louis was preferable. It became instantly obvious that the geographic term is St. Louis. Below is the WikiCityPages statement of "nameing conventions:

"Structure (format for city template)

Each city shall be called by the common name of the city, e.g. Jackson, Mississippi, Des Moines, Iowa, New York, New York. All other possible common names for the city should re-direct to the main city entry. Ideally, it should be that every city has an entry titled in the CITY NAME, STATE NAME manner. New York City, for example, or other such instances should at least be in some way associated to a CITY NAME, STATE NAME entry so that a common linking standard can be maintained. (The proliferation of New York City entries shows, I think, the need for a naming standard specific to cities). In the event of a naming conflict (e.g. a township and a borough having the same name), it should be called by its city, county (with the word "County" removed), and state. Also if the location is a township only, you should attach the word "Township" to its name. (Example: Manor Township, Lancaster, Pennsylvania)." Mark Preston 15:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, thanks for helping to get the article title changed to reflect the correct spelling of St. Louis, Missouri. The problem this user raises is that someone typing "St. Louis" into a search box will get the article for "St. Louis, Missouri." They might be looking for some other place or person called St. Louis (or Saint Louis). Currently our only disambiguation note on the St. Louis, Missouri article directs people to an article on St. Louis County, Missouri. At very least, we should probably add a line to the top of the St. Louis, Missouri article directing people to the Saint Louis (disambiguation) page. Personally, I also think it is a little confusing that St. Louis and Saint Louis redirect to two different places. TMS63112 17:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, not this again. I am switching it back to point at Saint Louis (disambiguation). — GT 10:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Crime and Social issues

The section in this article on social and crime issues is not a summary of the main article Crime and Social issues of St. Louis, Missouri...it IS the main article. Either way, both of these need to be cleaned up. Could someone lend a hand in doing that? I'm not an expert on St. Louis, especially not its social/crime issues. So if soemone could pitch in with that, it'd be much appreciated. Metros232 14:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The crime section is a lame ass attempt to downplay the crappiness of the area. Is there a "absurd use of caveats" tag on wikipedia? 71.121.72.114 20:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on St. Louis either, but it seems that the whole section on crime and social issues does not follow NPOV.

Population

I updated the population with the actual 2005 Census estimates. According to the Census, St. Louis has an estimated population of 344,362. This information can be found here Ajwebb 14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

St. Louis sucessfully challenged those estimates back in March. The confusion on the population stems from the fact that the original 2005 figures were only just made official a few weeks ago. I've reverted the St. Louis population back to it's 350,000+ state. The challenge can't be found by following links, but can be found here. --Millbrooky 15:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds good :). Thanks for the information. Ajwebb 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
For consistency purposes, I added a sourced citation next to the figure. --Moreau36 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Colleges

This is an article on The City of St. Louis. McKendree College is not inside STL City boundaries (25 miles away) and is of no note nationally. It doesn't need a blurb dedicated to it on this wikipage. Please no self-promotioing of your minor Universities 20+ miles away on the WIkipage. Thank You. Gamer83 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC).

It seems to me that having the University of Missouri, St. Louis in the colleges section would be most appropriate as it is a public university in the city of St. Louis. I thought having Webster University as a historical private school in addition made for relevant content in this section. I was disappointed at the deletion of my addition to the section and feel that having only St. Louis University and Washington University listed is a disservice to both the article and St. Louis. --Kenneth M Burke 02:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Think maybe there needs to be talk about the university section so that it represents and says something everyone can be happy with. People keep adding and deleting then adding something else before it gets deleted. --Kenneth M Burke 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

All because there are disagreements over the St. Louis vs Greater St. Louis article scope issue discussed below. --Millbrooky 17:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lots of vandalism

I corrected some vandalism on this page, for some reason it's getting a lot of attention. If this continues, does anyone support a temporary disabling of editing by unregistered users? ERTBen 20:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


I will be more than glad to support the disabling, but I must know what you are specifically referring to on this "Discussion" page, please.Mark Preston 01:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just look at today's edit history and it should be obvious what he is talking about. I have reported the offending IPs to Admins, however we should request protection/disabling of unregistered edits.Gamer83 21:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well as of 28th Sept a huge chunk has disappeared including half the info box Kert01 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the difficulties of Wiki-ing is delay from contributors. In order to stifle vandalism, I vote AYE for a temporary halt to editing.Mark Preston 14:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh...that happened over two weeks ago. The vandalism has ceased. We're not halting any editing anymore....Gamer83 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Gamer83. --Millbrooky 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Link Spam Discussion

I removed this link because it was a link to what appears to be a personal project "Wikipage". After looking at the Wiki it is very incomplete and it is not the only STL Wiki out there. I think it is linkspam and if anyone disagrees feel free to discuss it here. *WikiLou - St. Louis' Very Own Wiki Gamer83 01:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't mean to make anyone think that I was advertising a personal project. WikiLou is a new wiki for the St. Louis area. It is encyclopedic, and a great tool for the local people here. It's new, I'll give you that, but that's no reason to take it down, in my opinion. I have no personal stake in it, so I've got nothing to gain or lose here, but I thought it was appropriate on the St. Louis page. Especially seeing as there are links to a site about St. Louis history, and one to forums about St. Louis. It doesn't seem inappropriate to me. And I think it is important to note when a city or area has a wiki of it's own. The site has been live for about 48 hours, and has grown greatly since then. I'd love to hear other views of the issue. Thanks. --Mijunkin 02:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, in every article for New Paltz there is a link to the last wiki I worked on: WikiPaltz, and no one has ever objected to those links being there. I think the free exchange of information that wikis foster is important, and being exclusive of local wikis seems to prevent this. --Mijunkin 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I have anything against your specific Wiki, it's just that I have seen multiple STL Wiki's that are each someone's own personal project. Once you post the link to yours, they'll feel the need to post theirs and it will snowball. We've had problem before with the STL wikipage becoming a linkfarm to people's personal STL blogs, websites and yes other wikis. This is why lately it's been somewhat restricted to official STL pages, or unique websites that are highly relevant to STL, like urbanstl.com, a one of a kind forum of massive scale with over 900 members and where many members of the city government post.Gamer83 03:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm just wary of excluding links to other wikis on any city's page. I've experienced the good a wiki can do for a community (in New Paltz, with WikiPaltz), but the only way to make these sites viable community resources is to do two things. The first is to advertise to the local community, of course. The second is to get other wikisavvy people to get to the wiki and make it the best wiki they can. The way to do the latter is to make it known on Wikipedia, in my opinion. And to be honest, I think that all the links to all the wiki's about STL should be on the St. Louis, MO page. Why hide them from the public? Maybe on their own page, something like List of wikis for St. Louis, MO, and link to that page from the main city page. I'd actually love to see that. Lets find a way to list them all on here. I think the public should know whats out there for them. And it's not like they're sites trying to sell them junk, it's other wikis trying to give them information. --Mijunkin 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The way to do the latter is to make it known on Wikipedia, in my opinion. — Your opinion is wrong. Wikipedia is not a soapbox . Uncle G 11:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the wikis having their own page is a good idea. Set that up and the put a link to it in the article where you think it would fit. Otherwise in short notice the external link section will become cluttered.Gamer83 00:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

      • How many wikis about St. Louis do you think there are that it needs its own page? If its a valid thing to link to, it should be linked to from this page. If its not, then it shouldn't be linked to from anywhere. Anyway, I've put it up for deletion (discussion here). Wickethewok 04:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Creating its own page was a compromise. If It cannot be its own page then it should not be listed on wikipedia at all. Uncle G is correct. It is against wikipedia policies to have such links to personal projects in the external links section. Wikipedia is not a soapbox Gamer83 19:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A consensus was reached theat the independent page should be deleded, NOT that wikilou is a valid link for the external link section. Actually to the contrary wiki policy has been shown that the link is innapproprate. See Uncle G's post above. For these reasons I have re-deleded the link.Gamer83 19:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Wikilou is of no note per Wikipedia:Notability. Website fails test for linking, Wikipedia is not your soapbox for promoting your new, unknown, site. Please stop Gamer83 03:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

        • Please note: I have removed all wikipedia external links to articles on my website. When I first added them, I was unable to find the appropriate policy for external links. I eventually found the policy have determined that my adding the links, however relevant, was inappropriate. A suggestion would be to make that policy a little less difficult to find. Clicking the link to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines at the bottom of the Edit External Links page take you to a very unhelpful page that doesn't address External links at all. Fixing this might prevent more honest people from making the same mistake I did. *Anonymous user who removed his own links ;-)*—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.218.89.102 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 24 January 2007

St. Louie Louie

  • "St. Louie Louie" does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (web). It is a new forum with 13 members. Currently the site has no pertinent information about St. Louis. It appears to be a cheap clone of the existing forum link. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote your new personal site. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Please do not re-add the link. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising agency. Gamer83 19:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Cheap clone of the existing forum link? If you actually check the forums, you'll see they are set up very differently from that other forum. Urban St. Louis forums offers an appreciation and showcase of St. Louis' residential architectural heritage, so the forum there deals mostly with architecture and the buying and selling of property (which is why most of the forums have to deal with "Residential Development" and "Projects and Construction"). In fact, I started this forum as an alternative to that other one, because the other one is very strict regarding content. Recently, a topic arose where users were discussing the similarities and differences between St. Louis and Chicago, and the administrator LOCKED IT simply because it wasn't 100% St. Louis-related. My forum will give people an opportunity to discuss this stuff more freely, without fear that their posts will be locked if they dare to veer a little off the beaten path. Maybe if you'd actually investigate things more closely before pulling the trigger on deleting links you would have noticed this. It's people like Gamer83 that make Wikipedia annoying as hell to use. kopper 06:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoa a little intense response ! I'm sorry I'm making Wikipedia "Annoying as hell to use" for you. I am just enforcing the rules. I think it's great that you started your own forum, but Wikipedia is not a vessel for you to use to advertise/promote your new forum. The other forum link is only allowed to remain because it is the current dominant forum for St. Louis. Evidence was shown that various city officials post there, and it is widely known and the best source of information on St. Louis. Wikipedia is a source for information, not advertisements/self-promotion. It is against Wikipedia policy to post any external links to sites you are affiliated with, check the links I posted for confirmation of that rule if you wish. I apologize if you feel my enforcement of the rules has upset you. Gamer83 06:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Saint Louis (disambiguation) recently moved

I do not know how contraversial this action will prove to be but if it is accepted there is some cleanup that needs to be done. Double redirects need to be fixed. And the Disambiguation page needs to list St. Louis, Missouri high enough that it will appear on the screen without having to scroll down. All the same, I am thinking it is better to see if people are going to try and have this changed before we get into all of that.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As the person who moved this, there is some additional discussion at User talk:Bkonrad#St. Louis move. Basically, both Saint Louis and St. Louis were already redirects to the disambiguation page and had been since at least late April 2006, so there is no additional cleanup resulting from the move. And I already checked for double-redirects (as I usually do whenever I move a page), although of course more eyes looking is always a good thing. older ≠ wiser 02:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You missed double redirects; for example the hatnote on the attached article. Since it was not quite the case I orginally thought I think the people should focus on cleaning up St. Louis so the most likely wanted pages are at the top instead of the arbitrary order the links are now in.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Those aren't double-redirects, they are simple redirects. A double-redirect is where the target of a redirect page is another redirect. Those are bad because the redirection stops after the first redirect. older ≠ wiser 02:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
OK Sorry. Nevermind about those.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on the inclusion/exclusion of the Morgan Quinto study

  • I do not believe that this "study" has any place on this page. The methodology of this report has been called into question by many people, including the FBI, the supposed "source" of their data.

http://www.kmov.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=98157 This ranking compares full metro areas like Houston to St. Louis City, not St. Louis Metropolitan area. The result is nearly every other city in the study gets to use their suburban areas to "pad" their overall crime stats, while cities politically independent of their suburban neighbors get stuck holding the bag( St. Louis, Boston, and DC). The crime statistics are already included in the current version of the page, readers can look at the raw numbers and form their own opinions, a slanted study violates NPOV. As such the inly conceivable way to include the study, would be to have it followed by a counter point explaining the studies many flaws. But that would turn this page into a place where the validity on the Morgan Quinto study is debated, and that has no place here. If anything a new page should be created for the Morgan Quinto numbers, and then a "criticisms" section should be added explaining the flaws in the study there. Gamer83 00:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what edit you are talking about, but the crime section talks about how all these sorts of studies are skewed for St. Louis. It is hardly this one study. It seems to happen twice a year so I feel we should talk about why these things always rank St. Louis deceivingly high. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW I see no reason to mention this most recent study in particular. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding this link to put this issue to a final rest. [2] Gamer83 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Cuisine

There has been a proliforation entries into the cuisine section, recently, and I would argue that not all of them pass the notability test for inclusion in this article; and some seem more like advertisements for particular brands of food than unique St. Louis cuisine despite their separate wikipedia articles. Entries (entrées?) that caught my attention were 1) Amighetti's Special sandwiches, 2) Red Hot Riplets, and 3) Gerber sandwich.


I gotta vote for Red Hot Riplets' inclusion. It's only sold in STL. I missed those chips dearly when I left for college. Gamer83 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


"I'm not sure if this would be considered unique saint louis cuisine but these places are family owned, not some big chains that you can get in other cities/states. And there food is great to boot. I would recommend these places to a person visiting Saint Louis to go and eat.

Gus's Pretzel Shop[3] - 1820 Arsenal St St Louis, MO 63118 (314) 664-4010 - Bratwurst Pretzel Sandwichs are a killer. Great place to pick up something to eat that you can easily carry with you when site seeing.

Hodak's[4] - 2100 Gravois Ave, St Louis, MO 63104 - Cheap place to eat but you would not know that by how good there food is. Two people can get out of there for less then $15 easily.

Seamus McDaniel's - 1208 Tamm Ave Saint Louis, MO 63139 - There sandwichs are so big you could split them. They got a good roast beef sandwish and a good salad(as a meal). I personaly stick with their chicken sandwish myself but I do enjoy a salad every now and then too.

Also I've never heard of Red Hot Riplets even tho I have lived in Saint Louis all my life. All 21 years of it. - Freyr 08:45, 13 November 2006(CST)"

See Red Hot Riplets - these chips have been covered in multiple independent media and were the subject of a song on a major-label recording. They're notable. They stay. Jasontoon 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's it! I can't let it slide any more! This section has become not much more that an advertisement for various local brands and companies. Local brand of chips, local brand of root beer (as good as they are) have their own local variations in every major city. I don't care about magazine and local newpaper writeups: if the majority of people in the St. Louis don't know about it, it probably doesn't deserve mentioning in the St. Louis article. --Millbrooky 05:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't get to make up your own criteria for notability. Per Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." Again, see Red Hot Riplets. If it's notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article, and it has a distinctive relationship with St. Louis, it should be mentioned in the St. Louis article. Whether "the majority of people" know about it or not has nothing to do with notability (and how would we establish that, anyway?). By this "majority" criterion, most of the information in Wikipedia would be deleted. I am continually astonished at Wikipedia editors who assume that, because something falls outside their own knowledge, it must not be notable. That's not the way it works. Jasontoon 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got to agree with you. Whoever that last guy was added Pevely Ice cream and Switzer Licorice(sp?). It was getting ridiculous. Best that we cut out all local brands that are not genuine across the board known as STL cusine. Good edit in my opinion Millbrooky. Gamer83 09:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on Pevely, Switzer, etc. Red Hot Riplets are a distinctly St. Louisan style of potato chip, not merely a different brand. They are very popular in the African-American community, which might explain some editors' lack of knowledge about them. A given editor's unfamiliarity with a subject has no bearing on its notability. Jasontoon 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa man calm down. I love red hot riplets. I eat them all of the time and I actually don't mind them being in the article. At the time people were adding more and more nonsense to that section of the article so it was necessary to do a clean sweep. Your case has been stated, no more need for the combative tone. Gamer83 16:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the cuisine section. As a list, the sections acts as nothing more than a link directory and that characteristic is being abused. If the section is to be restored, it should be converted to prose and the list severly culled to only a select few items. I've pasted the most recent list below with my own comments on whether they should be mentioned in future prose. Other items should be relegated to an offshoot article or a mere category listing.

--Millbrooky 17:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Just a note for those interested, someone has flagged the article St. Louis-style pizza for deletion simply because they have never heard of it. If interested, go weigh in on the issue. Gamer83 19:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion/Exclusion POV

It has become increasingly clear to me that the litmus test of what is included or excluded from the St. Louis page has nothing to do with notability, or any other wikipedia standard. It seems to be the personal sentiments of a small group of people, particularly Gamer83, who make decisions about what to include or exclude based on their own POV of the item/link/anything and wrap their decision in the ambiguous guise of a "notability test" when they exclude things. Things like St. Louie Louie forums and WikiLou are excluded because they aren't "notable" enough, while things like Red Hot Riplets are included because Gamer83 likes them. I live in St. Louis and I've never heard of or seen Red Hot Riplets...
So, to be clear, I'm complaining both about the ambiguity of wikipedia policy, and its questionable implementation on this page. I wanted to make my feelings clear, and hear the opinions of others on the issue. --Mijunkin 09:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're bitter. I never said red hot riplets HAD to be included. I didn't even add them to the article in the first place. I simply VOTED for their inclusion because many people have heard of them and do eat them. The VOTE was started by another userer and you are free to VOTE however you want. If you want to VOTE for their exclusion, then do so. No way is St. Louis Louie notible enough to be placed in external links...that's obvious to anyone who looks at the site. It's a small time site and the owner placed it here days after it's inception to gain publicity, that is STRICTLY against Wikipedia policy, just as what you did with your wiki was. Wikipedia is not a link farm for every STL site. Only the most prominent ones should be placed in the external links section. It's clear to me that you simply are upset because you cannot get free advertisement on this site and you are directing your furstration at me. I suggust you get over your personal vendetta with me and become a worthwhile contributor to Wikipedia. Gamer83 18:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Gamer83. There is very little "ambiguity" in the Notability (web) policy - it lays out three specific criteria for inclusion. Mijunkin, if you think the exclusions are unjust, make a case based on the criteria listed there. As for Red Hot Riplets, they have been the subject of an article in Esquire, won awards from the Riverfront Times, and lent their name to a song by major-label rapper Murphy Lee. This certainly seems far more notable than either of the forums whose exclusion you object to. Please refrain from the personal sniping and do a little research. Everything I mentioned in the post took me a total of 5 minutes to find. 70.129.106.222 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was logged in. The above comment from 70.129.106.22 is mine. Jasontoon 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said, my complaint was two-pronged. If the majority feels that the two sites I mentioned should not be included in external links, whaterver the reason may be, then so be it. As for the second part of my complaint, I don't understand why Wikipedia policy seems to err on the side of excluding information. Personally, I'd much rather err on the side of inclusion, which would present the user with as much information as possible. It hasn't been my experience on just the St Louis page that has made me feel this way. But this discussion has little to do with the St. Louis article, so I'll end it here. Honestly, I'm sorry to have attacked Gamer83. He was merely the most recent example of a user implementing a policy I feel to be silly. --Mijunkin 07:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Crime and social issues

I restored the removal of things from this section. It does seem to be anything that should be removed without dissusion. I think the people inrested in those issues should work on Crime and social issues of St. Louis, Missouri and then make a proper summary of the end result a part of this article.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Main Photo Issue

The current main/skyline photo for St. Louis (at the top of the page) does not include the signature architectural symbol for St. Louis, i.e. the Gateway Arch. It's obvious the current photo was taken FROM the Arch. Surely there is a royalty-free skyline photo of St. Louis and Arch SOMEWHERE, or perhaps a Wikipedian with a digital camera would be so kind as to head across the river to Illinois to take a snapshot and upload it. Not having the Arch in the main photo for St. Louis would be like having a photo of Paris without the Eiffel Tower.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.168.146 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 November 2006


Second biggest city or metropolis?

[5] I think this edit is misleading but the editor has changed it twice and I have no wish to edit war. What does everyone else think?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to cast a vote for metropolis. I think saying STL is the second biggest city is deceiving. It makes it seem like KC is larger than STL when it really isn't. It's a land area thing as you noted. I think it's clearer to say metropolis.Gamer83 04:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then we should probably take the sentance out entirely as the lead already says St. Louis is the largest metropolis in MO and 18th in the US. No need to say the same thing twice in the same section. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Have at it. Gamer83 06:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Shilling

From reading many of the American city entries on Wikipedia, I understand that many of the entries are somewhat factual, but have a lot of cheerleading and boosterism to it. Even with that unfortunate standard, I think this entry for St. Louis might be the worst one that I've seen. And I'm someone who has visited St. Louis numerous times and find it to be a great city! It would be nice if someone toned down the POV in this piece...it's really blatant. Asc85 04:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha! You should read the East St. Louis article. The main picture makes the place look quite delightful. Rklawton 05:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Rklawton...I went to the East St. Louis article and actually laughed out loud when I saw the picture! Looks like a place out of Norman Rockwell! But at least they appear to address the huge crime problem there in the article. Asc85 15:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a massive section on crime and social issues complete with a picture of a bombed out 4-flat in North STL, so I'm not sure what more you want. Everything else in the article basically just discusses what is in St. Louis, and some current events. I don't see much definitive POV in the article at all in fact, or I'd get rid of it myself.Gamer83 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course you don't see POV, which pretty much validates my first point. I won't go line by line in this entry as it currently stands today, but here are a few (not including of course some of the things that I softened earlier):

1. "the world-renowned Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra"? Come on now. Is this even considered among the best in the U.S.? Regionally-renowned at best. 2. gives the city a reputation as, "a top notch sports town." That's a very down-the-middle objective comment. Says who? The people of St. Louis? I have no problem with "The Sporting News" reference that follows, but that first quote is cheerleading. 3. "unofficial capital of professional wrestling." I'm not an expert on professional wrestling, but I know enough about it, and I seriously doubt the veracity of that statement. But I don't know enough to shoot it down, so I left it in there. And even if it is the "unofficial capital," is that even something important enough to mention? 4. The Crime and Social Issues section - This section OPENS with a virtual disclaimer saying that the crime data is skewed, implying that it shouldn't be taken very seriously. If one didn't know about St. Louis, you wouldn't even realize from reading that section that it has historically had one of the worst crime rates in the country for many years now. To be fair, the link to the larger article addresses that issue, but this section does not. 5. The Colleges section is ridiculous. St. Louis has "a unique place in the establishment of American colleges and Universities." What does that even mean? St. Louis certainly isn't Boston, and isn't even Philadelphia, New York, Raleigh-Durham, or the Springfield, MA area when it comes to higher learning, just to name a few places. Washington University is there. So what? Rice University is in Houston. Emory University is in Atlanta. etc. etc. Additionally, the entry talks about, "a vibrant and energetic college student population." How is that defined? How is it more "vibrant and energetic" than college student populations in Ann Arbor, Columbus, or anywhere else? The article says St. Louis has, "a plethora of institutions of higher learning." Huh? This isn't Boston. This isn't Philadelphia, etc. How is plethora being defined?

I've spent far more time addressing this then I should have. These are just a few of the more egregious examples I've come across in this entry. When there's just a couple, OK. But eventually, things reach critical mass, and there's a tipping point. As I noticed someone had written in this Discussion section on a different matter, there should be a difference between a "tribute" to a city, and an encyclopedic entry. Asc85 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra, but it's not hard to figure out that it's more than just "regionally-renowned at best". In 1983, Time magazine ranked it as the second-best orchestra in the United States. [6] In 1994, the Japanese magazine Friend of Music ranked it among the top 20 in the world. [7] To date, the SLSO has won 6 Grammy Awards and received 56 nominations. As I said, I'm no classical music expert. But all this adds up to more than just "regional renown." Remember: just because something sounds counter-intuitive to you doesn't mean it's false. And it only takes a few minutes with Google to settle the matter. Jasontoon 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I never pay much attention to the sports area of the article nor whereever the orchestra comments are. I agree with you on those points. However I disagree about the comments on crime rates, the data is very largely skewed and always has been. Anyone who reads the Post-Dispatch knows this, as it happens every year. This year's hoopla over it is older than the stuff they archive on the internet so I don't have a link. But I believe is quite obvious that when you compare any statistical number from a city that is 66 sq mi to cities which are over 500 sq mi, the results will be skewed. It is not just the crime rate, but the literacy rate, unemployment rate, etc. All statistics comparing the City of St. Louis with other cities are skewed. Regarding the colleges, I think that while St. Louis may not be comparable to the Eastern Seaboard, it does have "a unique place in the establishment of American colleges and Universities" for half of the country. Granted this unique place happens to be in history, but I don't this is as much cheerleading as remarking on the prominent role St. Louis had in all things culutral when it was considered on the edge of the "frontier". I agree with you about the current student population stuff however.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful comments Birgitte. I really do like St. Louis whenever I visit. Not that I've visited every major city in America, but of those I visited, it is by far the friendliest...although I don't know how you mention that in a Wikipedia entry! Asc85 14:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bridgette, you pretty much hit my sentements spot on. Asc85, you do make some good points on some of the wording in the sports and education sections, but I too disagree about the crime ssection. The stats are skewed by an incredible margin due to not including the suburbs in STL rankings. And Bridgette, I was able to track down one of the links you mentioned. Someone archived it on youtube knowing, the local media doesn't keep things very long. [8] Gamer83 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you are both being so civil, I will try to be much better at that as well. I watched that YouTube video (interesting to say the least), and I think I know where you're coming from. I THINK what you're saying is that the Metropolitan area of St. Louis is not among the most dangerous, it is the City, only. But that many people confuse the two when this is in the hands of the media. (If I'm wrong in my interpretation here, please set me straight). Nevertheless the City of St. Louis being unsafe should still be mentioned in an article like this a little bit more forcefully. I went to the Morgan Quitno website, and to be ranked as more dangerous than Newark, NJ isn't a good thing. I grew up in a suburb of that area, still visit the Ironbound section (the ONLY relatively safe part of that city) for the best Spanish food in the Northeast, and trust me when I say that most sections of Newark are places you wouldn't want to be, either in the daytime or at night. Asc85 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Close but not quite. What I'm saying is that in Morgan Quitno's ranking, he compares apples to oranges. He uses "city" boundaries, which are arbitrary and randomly picked form city to city, to define how many people the number of crimes is divided amongst. Since STL is an independent entity from STL county , only DC Detroit and Boston are also like this I believe(see a pattern forming....), It does not have it's surrounding area's suburbs(STL County) in the rankings to water down it's crime ratings like almost every other city does. A place like KC for example with a larger land area designated as "Kansas City" has suburbs within it's boundaries, and that waters down the crime rates from their city core. This causes the stats for STL to be extremely skewed. In fact, if you look on that Quitno website, when STL is ranked as a metro area(like all the other cities), they drop to #157 most dangerous......Now do you see the problem? Quitno is a hack, and his stats deserve no mention in this article. And you can't say STL city's core is any more of less dangerous that an average city core of that size, because no study like that has been done. If you want to go to each city with 1m+ people, and circle around the inner most 350k people(STL's population) from the city's " downtown center" and then compare the crime stats, THEN you would have at least a semi valid ranking. Until then, no assersions of STL having excessive crime can be stated here. Gamer83 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I work in one the worst areas (63147). It is definately urban blight. Between a quarter to half the house resembles that picture. But I lock up the shop by myself many nights, and have no problem being here past sunset. I would not come by around midnight, but it is not like you are describing Newark. Things gets stolen if they aren't locked up but there are still a number of people living around here who have had a business and property in the family for three genrations. Blighted, yes; No-man's land, no.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Crime and Social Issues: Suggestive Claims

Though I dont believe it to be intentional, this section is suggestively racist. It's mainly because this section was copied from the main article (Crime and social issues of St. Louis, Missouri), and discusses demographic areas without an explicit reference to crime. Without some discussion that links the city's demographics to actual data on crime, this section (because of its title) is suggestively racist. I dont think it is intentionally so, and I'm not trying to start up a polemic. I just want to call attention to it so that someone can rewrite this section. It really isn't a very good article as far as WP standards go. NPOV is a big issue as some have already mentioned but there is not even a references cited section. Not to mention.... no citations! Yikes. greek lamb 11:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Performing Arts Section

This section doesn't even talk about its title as it is simply the copied section from the Peopl and culture about music. It is just music alone. These sections should summaries and overviews of the main articles. Not simply copied from the main article. greek lamb 13:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

St. Louis vs Greater St. Louis article scope

I believe some decisions have to be made on whether the scope of articles about St. Louis, Missouri should focus exclusively on the ~60 sq mi of the City of St. Louis or whether they should include information pertaining to Greater St. Louis. Some editors of this article have been excluding information, such as schools, that does not pertain exclusively to the city. Meanwhile, the economics section lists every major corporation or industry that does business in the greater St. Louis metropolitan area. Then there are topics, such as crime and social issues (eg Morgan Quitno), that simultaneously affect both the city and all of the region's surrounding communities.

Anyone have any ideas of ideas of how to fix or improve the situation? Is there any precedence for a metropolitan article taking precedence over the local article (Greater St. Louis taking precedence over St. Louis, Missouri)? --Millbrooky 20:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe issues that directly affect the City of St. Louis caused by the separation of City and County should be discussed(like crime statics) and that issues that do not directly affect the City of St. Louis should not be discussed(such as Schools or Businesses located in the suburbs). This means in the context of it's uses in the crime section, it is valid to the city, where as in the "schools located in STL" section it would not be valid, because they don't have a bearing on the schools being located in the city. I don't know if I've worded that clearly enough, let me know. Gamer83 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This Page Is In Arabic

The page is already in arabic but it is yet to be listed on the sidebar.

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA_%D9%84%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%B3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.217.239.222 (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2007 (PST) (from Ballwin)

ok, I just added [[ar:سانت لويس]] to the bottom. Was I fooled? It doesn't mean Smelly City in Arabic, does it? Also, you should put the code [[en:St. Louis, Missouri]] at the bottom of that article to link back here. —Wikibarista 00:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

horrible.

This article is horrible.

Why do we have to keep mention things in St. Louis, that are actually in St. Louis County? Oh, I know why, cause St. Louis City is A DUMP. I propose we move all St. Louis County stuff to the county article. Oh, wait then the city article will contain two things: the Arch and the "NEW" Busch Stadium. Hmmm...

Let's just delete the city article and be real people, the City of St. Louis, is OLD NEWS. VIVA LA WENTZVILLE!

J. Crocker 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sports List

Anybody else think the list of local sports teams in getting as crufty and out of hand as the cuisine list before it? --Millbrooky 04:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, the rollerderby link is the straw that is breaking the camel's back. I think the section should be trimmed to top teir major sports and D1 college teams. Gamer83 19:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Which college is largest?

The section in the city's page says that Webster is larger (by student enrollment) than University of Missouri–St. Louis, but the page for UM-St. Louis states that this school is largest. I think that the main page is incorrect and needs editing, thx.

Within the St. Louis metro area UM-St. Louis is the largest college, but Webster has many campuses around the world and includes all of its students in its various campuses.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

St Louis Magazine

I reading an old copy of St. Louis magazine where they had an article about "St. Louis independant city" vs. "St. Louis region". They actually cited Wikipedia in the article . . . but they cited fr.wikipedia. I imagine the article here did not deal with the issue in the way they wished to cite. Talk about cherry-picking. Anyways it just makes me again think about the elephant in this article (i.e. scope). Part of me wishes we cold simply scrap the MOS here because St. Louis, Missouri is horrible title since the post office (and most everyone else) uses that for the city as well 80% of the county. Honestly I don't believe most people in the area know exactly where the boundary lies outside of the Forest Park/Clayton portion. I really don't have an answer here but we need a creative solution. It really confusing to exclude UMSL and Monsanto from the St. Louis article but the MSA is to huge to pretend that people would commonly consider all that are to be "St. Louis". Any new perspectives on this issue?--BirgitteSB 16:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Shoe-Horning info into ref tags

If you want to add relevant information to various sections, rewrite those sections in an appropriate manner with proper grammar and punctuation. Shoving extra info into a giant reference tag is poor style. -- Davidkevin 18:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate pronunciation

If you listen to people in St. Louis when they pronounce the name of the city, you often hear "Sent" rather than Saint. This has been my observation for nearly fifty years and includes people of both European-American and African-American ancestry. Have also sometimes heard "Sent" rather than "Saint" when used in front of other saints' names, both in St. Louis and in other parts of the midwest. Probably some linguists have studied this kind of thing. Don't know whether it should be included as an alternate pronunciation in Wikipedia, without having done research on the linguistic work, and without knowing Wikipedia policies about pronunciations in general. Publius3 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It should not be included unless you can cite research on the subject. Your anecdotal observations are insufficient to warrant inclusion.Gamer83 18:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
IMO wikipedia is not a form for as Gamer83 aptly put it anecdotal observations, and scrupulous historical research on language patterns should be offered for those observations to be included.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've lived here for 22 years, and to be blunt, I can't say that I remember anyone ever doing that, so I'd doubt it's widespread enough to be notable.--STLEric 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St._Louis/Archive_3&oldid=1136381981"