Talk:Marysville, Ohio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject United States / Ohio (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

How to find a job to marysville if we speak not very well english and also came from another country?

Thank's

Appropriate place for non-geopolitical details?[edit]

Just wondering what the practice is to document things about a city that are more cultural, economical, etc. For example, Marysville and Union County are home to Honda mfg, Scotts and Goodyear mfg, TRC, a number of covered bridges, a good economy, etc.

Error about Honda Accord[edit]

It is untrue that Marysville is the only place Honda Accords are manufactured. The vehicle is also manufactured at additional Honda factories around the world, though the Marysville plant is certainly the leader in production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.108.109.116 (talk) 14:47, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Response to above comment[edit]

The goal of the article is to portray Marysville in as accurate a light as possible - nowhere does the article claim that Marysville is the "greatest community." If you believe there are political, economic, educational, and social problems worth noting in Marysville that have not been represented in the article and you have evidence you can cite, please feel free to edit the article as you wish. Do not complain if you will not take action to rectify any errors or misrepresentations you find in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Mage Az (talkcontribs) 21:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo of the courthouse[edit]

Hello everybody. I have added the photo of the Union County Courthouse, is that right for the article? I have been to Marysville when I come there on a schoolar exchange with my High School in Spain, Europe, to Marysville High School. I also have added some information and the school seal to the high school article. How do you think this article can be improved now? M.Jovellanos (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

An edit I made that removed the banner at the top of the page was reverted, with the reverter (Wiki Historian N OH) citing "This is a rare honor bestowed on American cities, warranting the special recognition through the banner." I checked random other cities with this distinction and none of them have the banner. If it's so special, either ALL United States cities must have the banner or none of them should. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Anything new has to start somewhere. Other editors have had the same position, and have ultimately left the banner in place after reverts. The visual has an impact in drawing attention and curiosity to the whole page. It also makes it more fun, like pictures. Ultimately, if the Wiki folks don't like it, hardly can one object, but they've yet to. If there is a proper policy for introduction of such a thing, please do inform, as everyone can agree it is proper to follow guidelines. Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but in my opinion, this clearly violates WP:NPOV. NPOV is not just to keep out the negative, it's to keep out the plaudits that fans would (and do) throw on the articles that are important to them. While you'll still see it from time to time, there has been a largely-successful movement to withdraw "Academy Award winning actress" and other such plaudits from the opening sentence of articles, as it lends too much weight to that honor. Closer to this, do you remember the Nobel icons that used to be placed on the Nobel prize winners near the top of the page? That looked "fun", but they're gone now, and I'm guessing that that's because it was decided that it placed too much weight on an admittedly important award. So this, as I see it, is no different. 65.80.246.160 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there a place where I can make a submission or nomination for the single most hilarious edit summary of the year on Wikipedia? My nomination goes to the edit summary left by an editor when reverting my removal of the banner at the top of this article. Here is the edit summary, verbatim:

please acknowledge this debate has been had and editors have left it in place [1]

The only "debate" I see is right here, in this section. One editor requested its removal, another editor suggested his reasons it should not be there, and that's the "debate"? Setting aside the fact that consensus can and does change on Wikipedia, who in his right mind thinks that the above exchange constitutes a "debate"? And calling it consensus is only possible if you assume that the other editor--who never returned with any comments--actually concurs with our WikiHistorian (which is quite possible but not certain). In any event, this topic was certainly not hashed out enough to say that the matter is closed, and I am once again going to remove that tag until consensus for it is achieved. And if someone insists upon reverting me, then I will plant a big ugly POV template at the top. I expect a conversation, not another joke. 98.82.83.227 (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The banner is neutral. The banner is unbiased. The banner is factual.

The banner is not a plaudit; it's a federal designation, unlike an Academy Award or Cy Young Award. This city didn't win an award, it received a designation.

The article is on a political entity with the federal designation highlighted through the banner. The political existence of this city is attached to the political designation it received. Everything in the article attaches to the banner as the designation is for heritage, unlike the role of an actor which is merely a few months in their entire existence (although one's life experience contributes to artistic development). Thus, unlike an actor who wins an award for one role filmed over a year, or a scientist who wins an award for one aspect of his life, cities receive federal designations for their entire existence spanning centuries. The only weight the banner places in the article is the weight of the entire article itself, not just one aspect of it lacking an attachment to everything else. Therefore it is neutral, unbiased, and factual concerning the arguments you have put forward.

Approach the debate from that deduction and explain your reasoning since your arguments proffered above really don't hold up

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Preserve America Community" is a designation that communities apply for. Based on the information on the government website, there is no indication that any community that applies is turned down.
(From http://www.preserveamerica.gov/overview.html) Preserve America recognizes and designates communities, including municipalities, counties, neighborhoods in large cities, and tribal communities, that protect and celebrate their heritage, use their historic assets for economic development and community revitalization, and encourage people to experience and appreciate local historic resources through education and heritage tourism programs. Since the program began in 2003, 814 communities have been designated as Preserve America Communities from throughout the country. Participants come from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories. Newly designated communities are notified by a letter from Mrs. Michelle Obama, First Lady of the United States.
Benefits of designation include White House recognition; eligibility to apply for Preserve America Grants; a certificate of recognition; a Preserve America Community road sign; authorization to use the Preserve America logo on signs, flags, banners, and promotional materials; listing in a Web-based Preserve America Community directory; inclusion in national and regional press releases; official notification of designation to state tourism offices and visitors bureaus; and enhanced community visibility and pride. Preserve America Communities are also featured in National Register Travel Itineraries and in "Teaching with Historic Places" curricular material created by the National Park Service. There are quarterly deadlines to apply for designation annually on March 1, June 1, September 1, and December 1. Application forms are available at www.preserveamerica.gov/communities.html.
I only took the banner down once and I won't take it down again. But I don't think it meets any reasonable standard for staying up. Based on the government website, the designation is meant primarily as an economic development and tourism promotion tool (The qualifications are "use their historic assets for economic development and community revitalization, and encourage people to experience and appreciate local historic resources through education and heritage tourism programs." The emphasis is on benefits to the applicants). It's the equivalent of a participation ribbon. That said, I'm glad people in Marysville are interested in preserving and celebrating their historic assets. I just think it belongs on the chamber of commerce website, not on wikipedia.

Ohioreader (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

An ambiguous issue. A banner "The Shaded City" to highlight the nickname would be considered unreasonable.

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Replies to Wiki Historian N OH[edit]

I will list some of your points, italicized, and reply.

  • The banner is not a plaudit; it's a federal designation, unlike an Academy Award or Cy Young Award. This city didn't win an award, it received a designation.
I think you have correctly identified a distinction here that had escaped prior notice. Yet, even as a designation, there is something positive in getting that designation, is there not? Would a town object to this designation? I agree that it is different than an award, I'm just not as certain as you appear to be that the distinction is completely stark.
  • The political existence of this city is attached to the political designation it received.
I cannot for the life of me understand what this statement means. It sounds as if you are saying that, without this designation, the city would have no political existence, and I'm certain that's not what you are trying to say. So what does this mean?
  • The banner is neutral. The banner is unbiased. The banner is factual.
Yes, it is certainly factual. And I would not characterize it as biased. However, as I indicated earlier, it is something that a city would like to have, right? So it's not, by definition, neutral. If we were to ask Her Honor, Ms. Schmenk, if she would prefer to have the designation, not have the designation, or if she has no preference on the matter, I imagine she'd consider it something she'd like to have. So it's not neutral, it's positive. Now the fact that it is positive doesn't mean that it can't be included in the article. But it needs to be included, taking into consideration WP:UNDUE. And the argument being made here by at least some is that the placement of this unusual banner at the very top of the article (as opposed to mentioning the designation elsewhere in the article), violates WP:UNDUE.
  • The only weight the banner places in the article is the weight of the entire article itself, not just one aspect of it lacking an attachment to everything else.
I'm again a bit confused. The first part seems to be saying that the banner summarizes the article by presenting this federal designation. But, as comprehensive as this designation is, this designation is not a substitute for a properly written Wikipedia article. The second part of this statement just totally loses me, you'll need to explain a bit more.
  • And, regarding your reply to User:Ohioreader, I think you dismissed him a bit too easily. Even supposing I grant you your point that the matter is "ambiguous". Well, then. Ambiguous matters on Wikipedia are settled by discussion and development of consensus. Thus far, my friend, you stand completely alone on this matter; not one editor has supported your stand and several have opposed it. If the matter is inherently ambiguous, then it is settled, but not your way. 98.82.23.93 (talk)

Do National Register of Historic Places infoboxes place undo weight on a particular designation in an article? Wiki Historian N OH

That's an interesting (and, admitedly, relevant) question, I'll grant you. And I don't have an answer right now. But the simple fact that the NRHP banner is confined to the side, in an infobox, makes it inherently less obtrusive than your banner across the top of this article. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which . . .[edit]

I strongly advise you to sit back and do a bit of self-examination. To wit:

  • Although several editors have placed sincere arguments on this page disagreeing with your placement of the banner, you have chosen to characterize these attempts as vandalism.[2]. This is not a civil approach, and definitely indicates that you would benefit from reading WP:AGF.
  • I also think, as you are in the clear minority on this matter, that you might want to stop reverting those who have removed the banner pending the establishment of consensus. It would demonstrate good faith.
  • You might also want to read WP:OWN. I notice that about 15% of your approximately 2000 edits have been to this article, and, even more significantly, you are the top contributing editor to this article, with nearly 50% of the article's edits being by you, and that you have seven times as many edits as the next most significant editor (another IP anon). You are doing nothing wrong, of course, by being so dedicated to this article, but it does lend some credence to the idea that perhaps some fresh and (dare I say?) objective thinking, might be needed here. Your inability or unwillingness to concede any valid points to the nearly universal opposition to you on this matter, as well as lack of good faith to the same persons, does seem to indicate that you may not be wholly objective regarding the content (and banners) of this article. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As the guidelines state, no one owns an article, therefore lacking any definitive authority to remove something rivals vandalism and compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. Wiki Historian N OH
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this sentence means; it strikes me as a total non sequitur, but maybe I'm missing something. Could you reword this thought? 98.82.23.93 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Summation of the Great Banner Debate, to date[edit]

Wiki Historian N OH's sincerity is obvious, as is his devotion to this fine hamlet. But as I see it, he's not even standing on ice, he's imagining himself walking on water. Look, I posed a number of questions and made a number of arguments, and he's largely ignored them. More to the point, several of his points strike me as incoherent, not only logically, but gramatically. To wit:

  • The political existence of this city is attached to the political designation it received.
  • As the guidelines state, no one owns an article, therefore lacking any definitive authority to remove something rivals vandalism and compromises the integrity of Wikipedia.
  • The only weight the banner places in the article is the weight of the entire article itself, not just one aspect of it lacking an attachment to everything else.

Additionally, he has been mildly uncivil to some of his fellow editors, completely ignoring their points, making accusations of vandalism, and denying any possible sound reasoning on the part of anyone but himself.[3]. He often restores his banner without so much as an explanation,[4][5] even though everyone who has ever removed it (as far as I have seen) has provided an edit summary explaining their decision to remove it.[6][7][8][9][10][11]

Finally, and most importantly, he is completely outnumbered in this discussion, yet refuses to yield in any way. Here's my count on this issue:

Opposing the banner

  1. User:Jrcla2 — I just want to go on record and say officially that I do not agree with WHNO and think that the banner is superfluous and is only there to booster the town's appearance on Wikipedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  2. User:Nyttend
  3. User:Noktulo
  4. User:Ohioreader
  5. anon IP editor(s); (we'll count as a single voice)

Supporting the banner

  1. User:Wiki Historian N OH

Of course, my guess is that Wiki Historian N OH feels that since some of these editors dropped the argument after he reverted them, that they are conceding his point. This is an unsound conclusion. Not one editor has ever said that Wiki Historian N OH has convinced him of his points (such as they are) or that the banner should remain. I think it far more likely that they just didn’t feel like arguing the point further. The fact remains that his is a totally solitary voice in favor of retaining the banner in question.

And, as the editor with nearly half of all edits ever on this article, he is a poster child for WP:OWN (but he apparently has some other interpretation of this that I could not understand[12]).

My inclination is to assume that Wiki Historian N OH is sincere, but misguided. But if he does not either a) yield to the clear consensus, or b) advance some more convincing arguments, I will need to bring this to WP:ANI. I'm out. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The specific question at hand, recognition of federally-designated Preserve America Communities through the use of banners in an article, remains an ambiguous matter concerning Wikipedia guidelines.
However, a precedent for the recognition of Preserve America Communities through the use of infoboxes is found through the National Register of Historic Places infobox.
If an infobox was available for Preserve America Communities, it would be properly employed here. But, a specific infobox is lacking and in that absence, a banner was injucted in the interim. As 98.82.23.93 has conceded their position has failed on the merits, based on a summation void of those aspects, a consensus ultimately should be formed based on the meritious argument.Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Incivility or bad faith . . . you decide.[edit]

I can't believe that Wiki Historian can read what I have here and then have the temerity to write:

  • As 98.82.23.93 has conceded their position has failed on the merits.

This is absurd, and I am at a loss to explain how WHist can write this. He has repeatedly ignored everyone else's arguments, and when I concede that he has an interesting point (note: not necessarily a correct point, merely an interesting one), he turns that into a supposed concession.

Wiki Historian writes in his edit summary that he is doing it "pending controlling authority". Sir, the primary controlling authority on Wikipedia is consensus. And it is against you. I urge you to cease until such time as you can show that someone else supports your position on this. I am reverting. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In some places it does take three people to change a lightbulb.

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In a situation where editors are having conflict, it would be prudent to avoid making your points through metaphors, and to just speak directly. Presuming that what you mean is that this cannot be decided by the two of us, you are correct. But it isn't just the two of us. As I have meticulously detailed above, everyone who has posted here has disagreed with you, and if you don't think five or six is enough to change a lightbulb, then you're living in a different place than I.
On a positive note, I see that at least you haven't reverted me, and I will take that as a sign of good faith. I think we can proceed a couple of different ways at this point. What I would like would be for you to start off either answering questions that I've posed or explaining some of the statements that have been confusing, as listed here and on your talk page. But if you are not so inclined, I am also open to any suggestions you might have regarding to solve this difference of opinion between yourself and the other editors who have opposed the banner. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It is now close to impossible for me to continue assuming good faith on your part. Why on earth, after the above entry, did you go ahead and put the banner on there? Is there no room in your world for discussion? I have no choice now but to go to WP:ANI. I can't believe I'm having to spend my time on this, but I guess that's probably what you've been relying on for the past year--that you can just patiently wear down others until you get your way, regardless of the fact that no one agrees with you. Well, I guess we'll see what happens next, but I sure would rather be doing other things. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

From an outsider's view, yes, the banner is completely out of place and inappropriate. Mentioning it in the article is appropriate, but care must be taken that it doesn't take up too much space or have too much detail, which this appears to. It could be summed up in just a few sentences in the History section to be honest. It really doesn't need its own section.

There are an enormous amount of point of view words, excessive detail, and boosterism abounding in this article. Editors need to remember that they are editing according to established Wikipedia standards, not simply as residents of a particular town. When we edit as "residents" it's easy to get carried away with details and making the town look good rather than providing a neutral, reliably-sourced, encyclopedic article. This article has tons of sources and a great foundation, but lots of unsourced boosterism/POV statements like "vibrant economy", for instance, that make this article read far more like a town promotional brochure than an encyclopedic article. Also watch out for excessive detail, particularly in the History section. WP:USCITY guidelines recommend that if it has over 10 paragraphs and uses subheadings, a "History of..." page might be appropriate with a much smaller summary in the main article. The idea of city articles is to give a thorough, but still general, idea of a particular town, not dive into detail about every aspect in the town.

Another issue is that of pictures. Pictures of Laura Bush and Al Gore are inappropriate for this article in the context they are used. This article is about Marysville, so pictures in the article need to be directly related to the town and the section they are in, not tangentially related because Laura Bush gave the designation or Al Gore used a product made in the town. Pictures of them tell us nothing about Marysville. The only time pictures of individuals are appropriate is in the Notable natives and residents section or in the History section for individuals who were directly part of the town's history. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of thousands of designations and honors that are awarded to people, places, and things. Wikipedia does not draw special attention to any of them by having a banner at the top of the article. The proper thing to do is create an appropriate category if the designation is notable and add the category to the article. --NeilN talk to me 06:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  • The banner seems less annoying than the numerous critical banners which other editors scatter in great numbers across our articles. I don't care for its dark blue colour though and there's no link to explain what White House Preservation status means. It seems best to integrate this information into the Infobox or to create a sidebar template which assists navigation to other communities of this sort like {{National parks in the UK}}. If this article is locked for a month, then the time might usefully be spent upon creation of such a template. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have removed the photos of George and Barbara Bush, William Henry Harrison, Laura Bush and Al Gore as they should not be placed on the page. Just linking to the person is fine. - NeutralHomerTalk • 09:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I trimmed some sections (when Walmart was built isn't needed) and removed others (the neighborhoods section was outright original research). Removed some weasel words, moved some things around and finally added {{Unreferenced}} and {{NPOV}} templates to the top of the page. I have serious doubts about the references on this page and the neutrality of the page. I would recommend that this be brought before Peer Review so more eyes are on the page and others can look over the page and see what else needs removed and what doesn't. - NeutralHomerTalk • 09:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have reverted all of NeutralHomer's edits which I find to be overbold. For example, placing a banner at the head of the article which states This article does not cite any references or sources when the article has numerous good references seems to be a blatant falsehood. Another editor has now reverted back so he should now please justify this calumny. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You might consider going through an determining which changes are good and which aren't, rather than making wholesale reverts. I've removed the References tag, which wasn't good. I think NeutralHomer was wanting to get across that the references need some cleaning up, not that there weren't any. Wrong tag, it happens. Huntster (t @ c) 11:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Huntster. Many of Neutralhomer's edits were definitely appropriate, so just doing a wholescale revert doesn't help the article, it just restores items that shouldn't be here. Incorrect template, yes, but that can easily be changed. The purpose of the templates at the top of the page is to help editors fix the problems the template mentions and to help readers know that a particular article has problems. One template I added was the Citation style template as this article does not seem to follow a consistent style. Using a simple "Author (or title), p. xx" as a reference is OK when it's using something that was already fully cited previously in the article and the subsequent citation is simply a different page of the same book, but there needs to be one full citation with the author, title, date, etc. present. If editors aren't sure what items to put, please see WP:CITET. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the mistake on the references tag. My reasoning was that there wasn't a link to the actual book (Google Books are fine) and then subsequent corresponding references to that link. In the article I am working on, I have references that list the author, title, etc. for the first instance of the reference. That is what should be done. Make no mistake, I am not saying that books are not good references, just they need to be properly linked. - NeutralHomerTalk • 22:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

<----I think what you mean to say is that the references need proper attribution (title, author, publication date, etc.). A weblink is not necessary (though it should be included where possible) as many books are not available online. Not having a weblink doesn't make them any less reliable as sources. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You nailed it. Sometimes I don't speak clearly. :) But yeah, it needs proper attribution, links would be icing. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about a hack job on this article and weasel editing. Would some mind repairing it as the edits have completely thrown the article out of wack. Also please replace the notable residents removed. Complete disgrace. That is the sad thing about Wikipedia, even the village idiots can edit.

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We need some evidence for their notability or relationship to Marysville. I've replaced one of them but had to fix his article first, with a cite. These sections often get used for self-promotion, and virtually all of them need attention. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

References[edit]

There is ALOT of references like "Marysville JT, City Receives" and "History, Union County, p. 274". These references don't list when it was published, who wrote it, when it was found, where it can be found, or anything. Just some vague reference. I don't find these as good references and they populate the page. What should be done? - NeutralHomerTalk • 09:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added links to sources above. Please use these to improve the references. For example, the History, Union County will be a work such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to, please feel free. It is waaaay past my bedtime. I was just about to click that red "X" when I seen your post. - NeutralHomerTalk • 10:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Does anyone think that we should add this to the Peer Review page at WP:PR for more eyes who focus on geography and towns in their editing can sift through this mess-of-a-page and see if anything needs deleted or added? - NeutralHomerTalk • 01:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea, but don't we first have to get it fixed up enough to remove the tags, before submitting it? 98.82.34.167 (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It's kind of getting a peer-review as it is with new people editing and commenting here who are part of WP:CITIES. Peer-review is backed up anyway, so I'd say leave it off for now. I don't think anyone there can tell us anything we don't already know. Just FYI, Peer-review, at least as far as I understand it, is just a way to help an article improve by having an experienced editor in a particular project look over the article and offer suggestions, not necessarily grade the article. The article doesn't need to be in relatively good shape to be submitted for Peer-review. It would need to be in good shape to be submitted for an Article Assessment or Good or Featured Article Nomination though. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, OK. That just popped in my head when I was thinking about ways to get more eyes on the page. 'Tis cool. - NeutralHomerTalk • 06:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of undos[edit]

I had to to leave before I could post my reasons for the undos (hopefully the edit summaries gave a clear indication) but here they are:

  • [13] - Presidents have many, many staff members with obviously many home towns. The connection of Harrison to Marysville is tenuous at best.
  • [14] - Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, city guide, or a front for the local chamber of commerce. The opening of stores and/or retail space is simply not notable beyond Marysville.
  • [15] - Per WP:NLIST, "Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above." and WP:INHERITED, "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits..." --NeilN talk to me 02:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Marysville,_Ohio#Banking.2C_financial.2C_and_insurance[edit]

Should this section stay in the article? Most decent sized towns have branches from various banks. --NeilN talk to me 04:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Remove - Just another batch of non-notable information, like the "when Walmart came to town" section that has since been removed. - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove - Unless there is something notable about a bank, etc in this town, it doesn't belong here, anymore than a list of supermarkets or department stores would belong here. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
In all honesty, most of the Economics section is like this and could use some reductions and improvements. Some of the largest and most notable employers should be mentioned, but not a comprehensive listing of every company that has a branch or franchise in the city. Unless it's headquartered in the city or is notable in some other way (like one of the largest franchises or something) it probably shouldn't be mentioned. This section needs to focus on what people generally do for a living using statistics and classifications (which are easily available from the US Census Bureau), not simply listing companies. How the economy has evolved over time can also be discussed. See also WP:USCITY#Economy. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted this section and trimmed others. Someone should look at the Parks and Rec section and trim if necessary. I'd also like to remove the POV tag if there are no objections. --NeilN talk to me 01:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
If someone has given the page a once-over and doesn't see any edits with weasel-words, peacock language, or (as it was before) one party only language, then yes, I think the POV template can be removed. - NeutralHomerTalk • 01:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Photos to Wikimedia?[edit]

There seem to be a lot of nice, but not necessarily relevant or helpful, photos in this article. Does anyone else think it might be worth moving all of them to Wikimedia Commons under a newly created category called "Marysville, Ohio"? That way, the photos that do illustrate or clarify topics in the article can be used, but the ones that aren't would still be accessible via a WM Commons link (e.g.: {{commons cat|Marysville, Ohio}}). I'm not too good with pictures so I'm not volunteering to do it, I just thought it might be worth discussing. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am always in favor of moving public domain photos to the Commons whenever possible and using the Commons template here instead of galleries. It cleans up articles and is so much easier to organize. I will try to move some when I have the chance. If anyone knows the quicker ways to move them, please do! :) --JonRidinger (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
That is what I do with my images. I personally feel that all images should be on Commons so all Wikimedia 'Pedias have access to them. I see no problem with moving the Marysville, OH images to Commons. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, freely licensed images should pretty much always be on Commons. I'll move them tonight. Huntster (t @ c) 06:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marysville, Ohio. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 13:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Marysville, Ohio. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 15:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)