Jump to content

Talk:Stephens City, Virginia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial review

Resolved

I think this article has GA potential, but there are a number of things that need doing. On the plus side, there's a lot of good content, a couple of nice pictures (thanks Homer), and a solid set of sources. In terms of what needs doing, I would say the first thing would be to move to inline citation. Homer - do you want to tackle this since you have the books? It's a bit tedious, but I don't believe an article will get passed as a good article without inline citation.--Kubigula (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can give it a shot, if you would show me how to add one correctly. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The basic idea is to tie as much article text as possible to the specific source or reference that it came from. Ideally, each paragraph would be cited to the appropriate reference; if different sentences of text in a paragraph came from different sources, then each sentence may be tagged. There are several ways to do inline citations, but I will show you the way I know.

I'm anticipating that each one of your sources will be used multiple times, so you can give them reference nicknames to make it easier. Specifically, the first time a particular sources is used, you place the source's info after the text and surround it with ref markup. For example, <ref name="Bivens"> Bivins, John. “Isaac Zane and the Products of Marlboro Furnace.” Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts 11:1 (May 1985): 14-65.</ref> at the end of the first paragraph that uses Bivens as a source. "Bivens" then becomes the reference nickname for this source. The next time you want to cite Bivens as a reference, you just type <ref name="Bivens"/> at the end of the paragraph (or sentence).

Finally, you add a new section at the end of the article:

==References==

{{reflist|2}}

And it will automatically generate a list of references. I suggest experimenting with a few references first, to get the hang of it. However, keep in mind that the reference list wont show up unless you create the new section. Make sense?--Kubigula (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've busted this article down to Start class due to a necessary large revert. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Resolved

The reason I reverted massive amounts of this article is because they were lifted directly from http://www.newtownhistorycenter.org. They notified me of this and I have taken the necessary action (rewriting it was not an option right now). Contact me with questions. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Contacting you is not necessary as I have written permission to use that information. - NeutralHomer T:C 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Did we really rely on the long list of "Sources", or did we use just one source? It would dishonest to list these as sources unless we have consulted them ourselves. We could list them as "further reading". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've attributed the text and chnaged the "Sources" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Those are the sources that the Newtown History Center lists as their sources. If we are going to include the text, then the sources should come with. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
They weren't represented as such. They should be moved into the history section and marked as the sources for their material. We only have one source - the website. I dont' know what the Communications Committee will decide to do with this material. But if it's copied verbatim we need to attribute it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
If need be, I will rewrite it. I don't want to, since the Network History Center allowed me to use the info on this article, but if I have to, I will.
Now, I do count the Newtown History Center as a source (which you have changed to History Sources), so do we still need the attribution at the top? - NeutralHomer T:C 04:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand your question. Do you mean if you rewrite it, what's your source? If you simply re-word the History Center's text then they are the one and only source. If you actually consult other materials then those are also sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn'ty write that very well. There were two seperate points. One, if I have to rewrite it (if ComComm says no to the permission from Newtown History Center) then I will. Two, and my question to you, since I added the Newtown History Center as a source (which you have renamed "History Sources") do you we still need the attribution at the top? It would be like sourcing something twice. - NeutralHomer T:C 04:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The History Center is not "a source". It is "the source". The list of sources that they used is informatiive, but it's not our source. Until someone re-writes the material, we need to note its attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Any news? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I had checked the status of the confirmation on Sunday and I was told that the confirmation as submitted was not formatted properly. NeutralHomer should have gotten a note from them telling him to try again. I will be checking in again on Sunday/Monday to see what the status is. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I haven't gotten anything. How was it not formatted properly? - NeutralHomer T:C 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to that. He just said that it was not formatted properly and that he'd send a note to the sender. I'd poke at it some more today, but I don't have the time. I'll check in and get more detail after the weekend. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I would appericate it, cause at the moment, I have put everything on hold til I get that approval. Don't want to add anything the article that might be removed if the submission of permission is not approved. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no permission has been noted on the talk page, I am removing the copied text. Please do not replace it unless permission is received; thank you. --NE2 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As stated on your talk page, I submitted permission, it was obviously recieved, because I was told by User:Mufka that is was "not formatted correctly", but was given no further information and recieved nothing from ComComm. User:Mufka was supposed to find out more, but again never got back to me. I held up my end. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Our last discussion was that you were going to Newtown History Center to get the proper permission. Remember this and this? I just don't want it to seem like I dropped the ball or something. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I never said you dropped the ball. I was waiting for something from ComComm, a more detailed message from them, but never recieved it. Also, I had some problems in offline-world that needed taken care of and were more important as well. But I was waiting for ComComm. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. When we receive the proper permission we can add the material back again. In the meantime, anyone can write a history of the subject using their own words. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Part 2

Resolved

I removed the information again that was copied from http://www.newtownhistorycenter.org/Default.asp?page=504. No rewrite was attempted, simply copy/paste. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you actually took the time to read it, you would see I did my best to rewrite it. Since you failed to get ComComm to re-email me (or post anything to my talk page) I don't think you have room to debate this. - NeutralHomer T:C 22:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The material is clearly copied. Some sentences are verbatim:
  • It had all started over a week earlier on the evening of May 23, when partisan Confederate sympathizers from Maryland fired on a Federal wagon train from horseback as they rode away, shot one Union soldier and escaped.
  • It had all started over a week earlier on the evening of the 23rd of May, when partisan Confederate sympathizers from Maryland fired on a Federal wagon train from horseback as they rode away, shot one Union soldier and escaped.
Changing "23rd of May" to "May 23" is not re-writing. Until proper permission is filed this is a copyright violation. The burden of proof is on the person adding the material. I'm going to remove it again. Please don't restore it until the matter has been resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Permission

Resolved

This is the email that was sent to ComComm, permission directly from the Newtown History Center allowing this to be used on this page:

[retracted]

"Tybois Uphold" and "Dayton T. Uphold" are one and the same and the name of this user. This the permission I was given from the Newtown History Center. It was sent previously to ComComm and no information was given in return. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the pages about requesting permission, including the one I posted on your talk page? This gives one person permission to use the material, not Wikipedia and any commerical or non-commercial websites that want to re-write it. This isn't a valid permission. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but I, Tybois Uphold, am a editor of Wikipedia? Full permission has been sent to the OTRS inbox. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you actually read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission? Do you understand it? Who is sending the permission to the OTRS - you or the copyright holder? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
OTRS has it, but it's not valid. Please see the policy and follow it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Resolved

Please do not archive this talk page. There is no reason to do so. I am certainly open to discussion if someone disagrees. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

All of these issues have bene resolved, so there is no reason for them to clutter the talk page. After a certain amount of time, they are archived. If you MiszaBot to do it, that's fine too. - NeutralHomer T:C 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
From your comments elsewhere I understand that you are still pursuing permission. Once it's obtained, or efforts to obtain it are dropped, then it will be resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Will, read your talk page. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you say you've asked for the permission and that the copyright holder told you he'd send it. That's about where we were some months ago. Once the permission is actually received, is in an acceptable format, and has been properly noted then I think we can say the matter is resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Oy Vey! Three months ago, I forwarded the permission sent to me. Not them sending it, I forwarded the permission they sent me. I think we discussed this. Since you never told me the "acceptable format", I had to get someone else to help me. If it doesn't work this time, I am laying blame squarely on you for this one my friend. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. When the matter is resolved we can archive the discussions of it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
See, this is that lack of patience I was talking about. The matter is resolved as of about 1:30pm EST this afternoon, hence it can be archived. If you want to clutter a page, that is up to you. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
What part of "Once the permission is actually received, is in an acceptable format, and has been properly noted then I think we can say the matter is resolved" was unclear? (my emphasis) -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Since I am on the "sending-in" side of this, I call it resolved. I have done my part, it's up to you now. You go to ComComm and sit on them until they accept it this time. I've done my part, you do yours. If you'll excuse me, I have a Vicodin to take...another migraine again. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You are correct that your part is done. Now we wait. When you say "you" I assume you don't mean me. As far as ComComm is concerned, I ain't doin' squat. You can sit on them all you want. If I try to help, you'll just poop in my potatoes. I'm just an observer now - unless the copyrighted material gets posted again without the stamp of approval. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
..."poop in my potatoes"? Ooook? - NeutralHomer T:C 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the OTRS received a message sent 11/04/2007 23:22:39. It is not from the NHC, and appears to just re-forward the (inadequate) email from the NHC from July. That may not be the new email message we're waiting for, but it if is it still doesn't give the proper permission. It'd be best if the copyright holder mails the OTRS directly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Do me a favor, forward it to my email so, if it is, I can correct it tomorrow. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's not make this any harder. I got the guy's email off of the website and have sent him a request directly, CCing you. If he responds affirmatively I'll file it with the ComComm myself. Hopefully we can settle this matter once and for all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Just got the CC, but I don't believe that I said anything about GFDL (hell, I had to look it up to see what it was). I didn't expect anything from this guy til probably tomorrow, if not Wednesday....and I really didn't want to annoy the crap out of him. He does have the power to say "No" to the whole thing. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, according to one of the people in WP:VA, he said last night it should be filed under "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 United States". - NeutralHomer T:C 03:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The email I sent included links to the full text of the GFDL and to other licenses. If you want to advise him on which license is best feel free to send a note of your own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Permission has now been granted by the copyright holder using the correct format. We are free to add it to the article and edit it as necessary. When we add it we should still give credit in the edit summary to the original author, as required by GFDL. We should also list the NHC as the source in the references section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

While we are now permitted to add the material verbatim, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that we should edit the material to conform to internal standards, such as linking significant terms, formatting dates, and maintaining NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Verbatim version has been readded. This version is from the NHC website and last added in July. - NeutralHomer T:C 20:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephens City, Virginia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues to resolve; it has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include:

  • Too much information is unreferenced, including but not limited to the following:
    • "Beginnings, 1732-1783"
    • "Growth, 1784-1860"
    • Second half of "Civil War, 1861-1865"
    • "Reconstruction, the railroad and a name change, 1866-1899"
    • "The 20th century & today"
    • "Stephens City Tornado"
    • "Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District"
    • "The Old Stephens City School"
    • "Demographics"
    • "Roadways"
    • "Attractions"
    • "Festivals"
    • "Notable residents"

Once these issues have been resolved, please feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable residents

  • Mark Affleck - Former Quarterback for the Bunker Hill Bobcats of the Panhandle Football League. Affleck graduated from Sherando High School in 2002. He would play for the Bobcats for five seasons from 2003-2007.

Do we have any source for this? I tried to track down the team and the league, but couldn't find any information on them. What kind of football league is it? Professional or amateur, tackle or flag?   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I can find (and it ain't alot) it might just be a amateur football league. Nothing really about it online. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 13, 2009 @ 01:55
So how is it verifiable? WP:V.   Will Beback  talk  03:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Since this doesn't appear to be verifiable ( and if verifiable doesn't appear to be notable) I'm going to delete the entry again. We can easily restore it if we find a source.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

History

I was about to comment on the fact that the history section was far too detailed for an encyclopedic article and that it drew too much from one source, but in reading that one source, what was here was cut-and-pasted (minus a few "click here"s) from the website Town History so it had to be removed per Wikipedia copyright policy. Please do not revert this as restoring a copyright violation is considered vandalism. The website has plenty of good, verifiable information that can be written into a properly sourced section. Additional sources (like printed books) would also be a big help in writing it. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems and possible solutions

This article suffers all over from too much detail. I can sympathize with wanting to include details and be thorough, but as a Wikipedia editors we have to make sure the details we add are needed, appropriate, and truly add to the understanding of the main subject of the article; otherwise it's WP:FANCRUFT.

Here are the main problems I see here:

  • 1. The intro is actually too short, but in my opinion, since the intro is supposed to summarize the entire article, it should be written last, so that can be addressed later.
  • 2. Order. While the guidelines at WP:USCITY are guidelines and not requirements, they were developed over time with much discussion and thought to some kind of consistency. I'd say try to follow the ordering guidelines as much as possible.
  • 3. I've addressed the history section; it is too long and is currently an allowed copy of another website with a few additions at the end. It needs to be far shorter, actually written by editors, and draw from more sources.
  • 4. Subheadings. Subheadings should be used to help break up long sections. They shouldn't be used on just one or two lines of information. Even small paragraphs often don't need a separate subheading.
  • 5. Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District doesn't need its own section. MANY towns have NRHP districts. It should be mentioned in either the history section and/or a general Culture or Parks and recreation section.
  • 6. Stephens City Tornado should be mentioned in the history section, not the climate section. Climate is a general section, not a history of the weather other than the record high and low. It's supposed to give readers an idea of what kind of weather to expect in that place. The tornado is weather, yes, but it was more an historical event since tornadoes don't happen every day or even every decade in a town. Most of the details (especially the large block quote and the commentary in parenthesis) aren't appropriate for this article.
  • 7. Schools The schools section should be a paragraph about the public schools that serve the town, highlighting any significant accomplishments they may have with a Main Article link to the school division. Private schools should also be included if they are within the town limits.
  • 8. The Festivals and Attractions should be combined in a Culture section with the Historic district also being mentioned.
  • 9. Notable natives only need the name of the person and one line about why they are notable (two lines at the most). A paragraph about each person is not appropriate here since they have their own articles. If people would like to know more about them, they can click on the link to that article. Kelley Washington would need a source too. Simply graduating from the high school near Stephens City doesn't mean he's from the town itself. Considering the high school draws from far more than just Stephens City, there's a good chance he isn't from there and is from the county or another town. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Have started to edit to reduce too much detail, editorial language and inappropriate tone for encyclopedia article. Will continue to work on it tomorrow. Agree with comments above.--Parkwells (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Parkwells for your help. I look forward to your continued edits after some sleep...for all of us :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I like most of the edits that you made to the Stephens City page last night....but the one that bothered me was this one. It was the one that kinda edited the story about the name change of Stephens City. I think it was a good story (backed by reference). Would there be anyway to add some of the information back to the page, but keep it concise, so the story remains intact? Other that than, alot of really good work done last night. Look forward to seeing what is done tonight. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your comments, Neutralhomer. The city naming story was interesting, but too long for a condensed version, and still too long with too many editorial comments ("heavy bureaucratic hand") even for the long version. Let me think about how to get more back. You've reminded me that what I probably need to do is copy this whole section to a sandbox and work on it separately there, rather than on the page, as there are really two sections being edited/written. Hard to keep straight.--Parkwells (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at the section (and the page at a whole). If you have any questions, please let me know and I will be glad to answer them. Oh and please use any of the pictures placed on the page. I took them about 2 years ago and released them (via Commons) to Wikipedia, so they can be used and there are more where those came from. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The way I approach histories is generally being familiar with the detailed history, then starting from scratch with a very broad summary. From there, more specific details can be added as well as appropriate sources. It's time consuming, but worth it and since you can use the sandbox, you can have others help or go back to it later. With reducing the current history section, because so much of it is still directly copied from the website, you're going to get a lot of POV statements simply because what was copied here wasn't wrtitten for an encylcopedic article; it was written for a town history website. I'm going to be less active for the next week or so (out of town), but will help as needed when I can. I still think the best course is to remove most of the history section that is still a word-for-word copy or close enough to it and start over. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable natives

I removed most of the excess detail from the Notable natives section as I explained in an earlier post. Kelley Washington still needs a source stating he actually lived in Stephens City. The section here previously said he was born in Stephens City, but his sourced bio has him listed as having been born in Winchester. The sources that had been included mentioned he attended the high school "in Stephens City" which, according to info I can find, isn't actually in the town limits but is near the town and has a Stephens City address. Attending the high school near Stephens City doesn't make him a notable native or resident of the town automatically since Sherando High School serves far more than just Stephens City (the school's enrollment is more than the entire population of the town). Only people who lived inside the town limits of Stephens City (or any city for that matter) should be listed in the Notable natives and residents section. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Internet access in Shenandoah Valley

I seem to recall that the county or regional consortium planned to build a high-tech fiber optic network (maybe with state support) to provide Internet access in the entire valley. This would be more important to note than simply that Stephens City was the second to have its own website.--Parkwells (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard this, but then again I don't read the local newspaper. I will do a Google search on it and see what I can find. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Found it via Reuters, but I think it is ValleyNet, but this goes from Johnson City, Tennessee to Carlisle, Pennsylvania and west to Huntington, West Virginia. It crosses Stephens City, but there wasn't really any local coverage and it is only for businesses, not residents. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC):
OK, thought it might be useful.--Parkwells (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Listing all the streets in the historic district in the lead is way more detail than is usual there for that purpose; that's why I moved it down below in the section on History. Recommend you go back to my version for that.--Parkwells (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, I thought you did that cause I accidently put two sections at once there. I edited that last night at 5am, so it was goofed up. My mistake. If I will change it back and add both references. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Corrected. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City, Virginia History

Hello, I am needing some help and am not sure which board to go to. I am needing help writing a condensed version of the History of Stephens City, Virginia. I have tried and seriously failed. I am trying to get the Stephens City, Virginia article up to Good Article status and the reviewers have said that the current history section, while very good, is just too darned long. So my plan is to move the longer history section to History of Stephens City, Virginia and have a condensed version on the Stephens City, Virginia page. I typically write radio station articles, so town/city history isn't my forté. I tried asking for help at WP:CITIES, but that talk page hasn't seen any edits since March 24th. I requested the help of a couple editors from WP:CITIES, but they didn't do much writing either. Is there anyone who could help on this? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Park, I was wondering how the editing on the History section was going. JonRidinger and I have been working on the page in bursts, but leaving the history section to you. Let me know how the progress is going. We have an open thread going on my talk page. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I made some changes, answered some of your questions posed on the Stephens City talk page and mine. Give 'em a look for you have a couple moments. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Just want to mention it, if I haven't already. The curator of the Newtown History Center is giving me sources (from books he used) to back up some of the statements on the history, is it all doesn't get sourced to the NHC History page. We are going paragraph by paragraph, so I don't flood him with work. Should I continue to add them or wait until you finish editing? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, how great to have your own researcher! maybe you should wait, as I might delete some paragraphs altogether (of course you could use the cites for the longer article, but even that needs to be edited, I think.)--Parkwells (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
He isn't mine, but it is nice. He wrote the version of the history that was originally shown on the Stephens City page, which we have via OTRS ticket. But he didn't have any inline sources, just book listings. So I talked with him and he and I have been communicating daily (he lives in town and works in town as well) and he has been giving me the books he used for the history section he wrote (the one we have via OTRS). So he is a good source to have. I told him to feel free to give the page a look-see when he has time, he said he might just do that. He is really excited (as am I) about one day getting the page (and town) out to Featured Article status.....but gotta get Good Article status first. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, please see my talk page for some responses from earlier (morning?) today. I completely forgot to look for pictures of the buildings of the town as you requested, I will do that now. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the award. Also, Route 11/277 probably gives the best sense of scale of the town. If you take more photos, try for one from across the street to show the Flower Center within its row of buildings - looks good.--Parkwells (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know when I will be out and about next, so I will use the Image:StephensCity Route11 277 Xing.JPG image for the time being. All the others that aren't used are just sitting in Commons file, so they can be viewed anytime. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Done and Done. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You had suggested that I add some Ancestry information to the page. I have the Census link to the information, but I am wondering where would I put that information. In it's own section or in a subsection of Demographics? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes the demographics section would be the right place. I would recommend just telling the four largest categories and show percentages of how people self-identify: German, English, Irish, Other, as I recall. These are pretty closely related to the 18th century settlement population.--Parkwells (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

It's unusual to have so much detail about veterans in this section. It is not notable enough for a general article.--Parkwells (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it was JonRidinger‎ I worked on with that and he said to move it from its own section to Demographics, since it is Census based information. If it should be under a subsection, I can fix that. I would like to keep it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Remember, my original advice was to remove the info completely because I felt it was excess. If you felt it should be included, the best place would be in the demographics section if at all. What Parkwells is saying is that in city articles, there is only so much detail that is appropriate and this detail seems to be a bit much for the article, not just the section. Simply saying "I like it" isn't reason enough to include info. If you can find examples in featured and good articles, then mention them. I haven't seen any that mention veteran numbers. In looking at other census stats, the number of veterans in Stephens City is no more significant than in any other town in terms of percentage. The only time a stat like that would be included is if it were significantly (like several percentage points) different from the norm. Again, it's the whole "thinking like a Wikipedia editor" thing. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I looked, I honestly did. All I found via Google (of the 40,400 listings I could have searched through) were Veterans Parks, Memorials, and Halls among other things. The only thing I see listed for Veterans, was a single sentence in Demographics of Minnesota#Occupation which reads "Veterans of the armed forces account for 10.8% of the adult population, which is 40th in the nation." So, out of the 100 pages I looked at, there was one. I could have kept looking through all 40,400, but that would have been kinda nutty. :) So....what do we do? I know the information isn't notable and is just standard information, but (and I am thinking like a Wikipedian when I ask this) do we have to make every page look the same? Could we have one little difference in one? Probably not, then everyone would want to be different and being different would be the norm. I just wonder if there is a way to include it in some other page (not Stephens City). Like Veterans in Virginia or something. There has to be a page for this information. But I could be dreaming big on that one. :) So (again)....what do we do? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Every article doesn't need to be the same but they do need to adhere to certain standards in content and organization. Wikipedia runs on consensus and precedent, which is how the various policies and guidelines were developed (and continue to be developed). WP:USCITY#Demographics explains it pretty well how the initial generic demographics section all city articles have can be expanded with comparisons. I don't think a Veterans in Virginia would even survive a deletion debate as it isn't that significant in terms of coverage (just being in the census doesn't make it notable). There are a TON of statistics that the census report keeps track of that are interesting, but lack major importance for a general encyclopedic article. Like I said, if veterans made up like %50 of the population, then yes, I would totally support inclusion of a statement about that because it would be something unusual about the town. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't I know it. I am running into the whole "Wikipedia runs on consensus and precedent" on a discussion on radio stations right now. I will remove the section. I really with it could be kept, but I see your point. If we included everything in the Census, Demographics would be longer than the original History section. I will do that here in a moment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Town History

Now that the town has its own website, maybe the long town history can be put there - that's far more appropriate than in Wikipedia, and would allow the many names, dates, businesses, etc. which have little place here.--Parkwells (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Another place where you could contribute detailed town history would be the online American Local History Network (www.alhn.org/) - Frederick County, VA website, and/or the Rootsweb (www.rootsweb.com)- Frederick County, VA website. These are great sites for family and town research, which is where people want all the detail.--Parkwells (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Well remember, virtually all of the text from the History section was copied from an external website (the town's own historical society) so it already exists elsewhere. No need to post it again. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Yup, it is all from here, which the Newtown History Center graciously allowed us to post on Wikipedia (via an OTRS ticket, look at the top of the page). I looked on those sites a couple days ago and I didn't really see a place to post anyway. Since we are trimming it considerably and it is linked by source, most people can just link via Wikipedia to see the full version. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The history section is definitely on the right track...what is there now would probably work for a History of Stephens City, Virginia article, though it still has a town history feel rather than an encyclopedic article feel. I will try to edit more once I'm back in town, but in the meantime, my best advice is to organize the sources better (you don't need three sources for one fact unless it is highly challengeable or controversial) and don't really need to cite the main source so many times. If the printed sources support the statements, then you only need to use them, not use them together with the online source to reference the same info. I'd also take out most of the blockquotes as they are far more suitable for a town history than an article. There are still a lot of tangential details about the various wars and some of the people that really have nothing to do with the town directly. The history should focus on the town itself. Again, not to be critical, but just to help. Rewriting a section like that takes a TON of time to develop and it is much improved. Like I said, I will try to do more once I have more time to sit down and look at it more. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I was going to see how the on page history section played out, see what it looks like and then figure out if we really need a page like History of Stephens City, Virginia. If we have the information on the main page, then having a secondary page would be unnecessary. But then again, it would be nice to see some of that information back. Question is, would it be cut again? I do like the journal readings and quotes and such, as they give a view of 1700s and 1800s Stephens City. They can all be cited, just going to take some time with the curator of the Newtown History Center, who is helping me with the sources. There would be some I could like to keep for the larger article, but then some we could toss as just copy. I think that is something that we (Park, You and I) could discuss at length when you are back at home. Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Have been out of town but agree with Jon on deleting extra references - three are not necessary for most of the facts. You can do that. I have to be out of town, so won't be able to work on this for several days.--Parkwells (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Brief comment

I'll give the article a workover when I get the chance, since I've been asked. I would suggest that you not wait for me, but change every reference to the town as a "city" to "town" or "municipality". As you probably know, a city has a specific meaning under Virginia law, and Stephens City does not qualify.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City refers to themselves as a "town". I will go through here after dinner and make sure all the references to "city" are changed to "town". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Stephens City is legally a town, yes. My point was, it is not a city. Should I just go through and see if I can touch things up a bit? It is probably simpler than me posting comments. Also, has thought been given to getting early pictures from the local historical society or from the state library in Richmond?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd say the biggest issue facing this article is the history section, so if everything else can be in good shape we can then focus on the major task that will be rewriting that. The vast majority of it was copied here directly from the town's historical society website via an OTRS ticket and even after another editor went through and edited content and wording, still contains a lot of excess detail and unencylcopedic tone. The only caution with historical pictures is that while many times they are public domain just by age, I have seen copyrights placed on them by historical societies in order to sell them, so we just have to be careful that if pictures are uploaded, they are properly attributed and if they are copyrighted then have a direct need in the article (i.e. illustrating something that is no longer there). --JonRidinger (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Look for ones that were published before 1923, those cannot be copyrighted. Key word there is published. I'll go through the history section in the next couple of days. Lede is still a bit tattery.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I've done a little work on the initial history section, but have questions. Is Stephensburg the early name for Stephens City? And is "the Baron" referred to Lord Fairfax? Please feel free to revert or modify my changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my slow reply, was taking a bit of a nap. Yes, Stephensburg is the early name for Stephens City, that is sourced I do believe, if not, it can be, but I would need to contact someone on that source. As for your second question, I think they called him both names, I am not for certain. Again, I can ask for sources on this from my contact at the Newtown History Center (he is kind of our book man) and get back to you in the morning, if you like. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, if you are going to casually mention "Stephensburg", don't you before that have to mention that this was the name given to the settlement? Same goes for the Baron. I imagine that is Lord Fairfax, but I'd only be guessing. Continuity is very important in an article, as we all know. I'll do more work on the article later on in the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
That could have been the way the previous editor, Parkwells, edited the section. I wasn't active in the editing of the history section due to my lack of long form writing ability. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It could also be a result of the original text from the town historical society since that's where it all came from. I am planning on writing a new condensed version of this history because the vast majority of it just needs summarized. Most of the details are tangential as opposed to vital and many of them deal with events and people outside of the town. Most town/city histories I've read have the same structure and are usually full of commentary and levels of detail not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. A history section in a city/town article should be about 3-5 solid paragraphs long. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It has the read of a historical society rendition, informational but a bit informal/chatty. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that is where the original history (per the OTRS ticket) comes from. It was, at the time, the best version of the history I could put up. Now I understand that it was far too long, especially for a GA quality article, hence my asking for help on it. There are plenty of sources at the beginning (as far as I gotten before Parkwells started changing it and I stopped getting sources from the Network History Center, more can be gotten though), so feel free to use those at will. If other sources are needed, please let me know via this talk page (I have it watchlisted) or my own and I will get them from the NHC. Also, let me know if you have any questions on the page as I am happy to answer them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I can easily take a shot at boiling it down, now that I see what is wanted.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie....I be here as needed. Might break away between 9pm EST and 12am EST for TV watching, but will be back after that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I've done through the Civil War, it still needs to be shortened a bit more but it is a good start. I'll resume work later or tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie....at the moment, I think my only concern is it feels very bare bones. Will more be added back to it or will this be what will make up the final draft? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

<----Well, remember, the history section in this article should be very summative for the most part. There's still a lot more that could be shortened or dropped all together (like the block quotes). It's going to seem very "bare bones" compared to what was there, but that's because what was there was FAR too long and detailed. The WP:USCITY guideline seems to suggest anything beyond 10 paragraphs is too long for the main article. Every featured article I have seen has around 5-8 paragraphs with some directing to a "History of..." page and some not. Most don't even use subheadings. The key in history is to bring out how the town developed, who were the main players in that development, and why it is the way it is today. For this article, you basically have the early settlement period including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War era including Reconstruction and Antebellum, and the 20th century leading up to today. You really don't need a lot of today stuff because that will be covered in the article. What has been done so far is a good start and it's moving in the right direction. It will be more than just removing stuff, but also rewriting and summarizing to get some kind of flow. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. Damned cable/internet/phone went out on me for a couple hours (got a credit though). As long as it has the bare bones details of the history of the town, I am not too concerned. We could always go make a History of Stephens City, Virginia page and mainpage link it after the fact for more information. We could put some of the pictures that will undoubtedly crowed the main Stephens City page there as well. I think my main concern was losing too much information, but if we can go and make a History of Stephens City, Virginia, then that will get that information in a more "causal" format. So this will be good for GA and history buffs like. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good. I'll keep working on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie....I will be up for awhile (damned insomnia), so I will tinker with some things as needed, but mostly I will be leaving it up to you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Tinker away, I probably won't look at it again for several hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
After a bout with insomnia, it is finally going to let me go to sleep, so I am heading in that direction in just a couple minutes, so tinkering will be done late tonight or tomorrow (depending on when my brain finally gets enough sleep). Edit away when you get there. Anything you need (sources, questions, etc.) please feel free to ask here or on my talk page. Good Night :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephens City, Virginia/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, I am reviewing this article and will be adding my comments below. Also, I am doing some copy editing and please feel free to revert any errors I may introduce.

General comments
  • According to WP:Overlinking, it is not desirable to link to common terms or places that an English-speaking reader can be expected to know. Too many links decrease the value of the important and informational links in the article.  Done
  • I notice that the article has many very short paragraphs. It is desirable to combine many of these paragraphs to increase the fluidity of the prose and decrease "choppiness".  Done
  • There are two dead links according to the toolserver.[1] One of these can be replace can be replace by a Web Archive link (ref 42). http://web.archive.org/web/19960101-re_/http://www.user.shentel.net/ccrkcr/drivein.html Ref 2 is a 404 error and will need to be replaced.  Done
  • There are two wikilinks that need disambiguation.[2]  Done
Lead
  • In general, it is not necessary to have references in the lead, since everything in the lead is from the body of the article and can be referenced there. Per WP:Lead, the lead is to be a concise summary of the article.  Done
  • I stuck a little more into the lead, and I think a little more could go in, say about the history, geography, etc. Give a little snapshot of the article.  Done
Founding and early days
  • You might explain more about the Ironclad oath, and any more info you have on the town's role in the Civil War.  Done
20th Century to present
  • "The 20th Century brought improvements to energy and domestic systems." - I'm not clear what a "domestic system" is.  Done
  • "Stephens City is now an exurban community for commuters who work in major urban centers." Some context could be provided here, such as what major urban centers the town serves as an "exurban community". From the map, it is not clear what urban centers it is near. (ok, I see it is added below.)  Done
Government
  • "The person to succede Shull on Town Council, will be decided at a May 5, 2010 Town Council meeting." - This sentence refers to an event that has already taken place.  Done

All in all a very nice article. Xtzou (Talk) 22:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I was wondering if the Overlinking would be the language Wikilinks in the last line of Stephens City, Virginia#Demographics. I have taken some out like Hurricane and United States Post Office, but those are to actual languages. I, of course, could take those out easily, just want to make sure that is what would be considered overlinking. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, the seperate religions on Stephens City, Virginia#Religion, would those be overlinking? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course, it is a matter of opinion, but I like the links in demographics. And it is helpful to the general reader to see the variety of demographic groups in an American town. I was even thinking you should link terms like "Union", since I wonder how many people are familiar with the American Civil War. Xtzou (Talk) 22:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, fixed everything (even my goof on Government...knew I would goof that :)). I updated a couple sections as requested, delinked somethings that people would know (US Post Office being one) and finished all the requested changes. What should I do next? (never done one of these before). Thanks for your help :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Further comments
  • I think more could be summarized in the lead, per WP:Lead
  • Also, in the lead it says ""Crossroads", the first free black community in the Valley in the antebellum years, was founded east of town in the 1850s." But the antebellum years started in 1789. Also, it is interesting that there was a "free black" community there before the Civil War. I notice that in the current census there are very low percentage of African Americans in Stephens City. Xtzou (Talk) 22:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I didn't write that section of the history, but I can change it. There was a "free black" community before the Civil War, ironically in the area where my house is. When the Civil War started, some of the free blacks escaped to West Virginia or Maryland or even further north, while same were captured and put back to work, some to fight for the Confederates. So, it probably was one of the few (can't confirm this though) "free black" communities before the Civil War. I will change that though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I would be wonderful if you had references. That is the kind of contradictions that exists in American history! Xtzou (Talk)
        • To the one part about it being a "free black" community before the Civil War, I can source that. The part I can't, is my thinking it is one of few pre-Civil War "free black" communities. We took a lot out of the original history, but we are going to readd it when we do a History of Stephens City, Virginia for the history buffs. If you look back in the history of the page, the history section was insanely long and took up half the page. That was reduced by some good editing.
        • I did finish the editing. Added more to the lead, added more about "Crossroads" in both the lead and the body and took out the reference/Wikilink to the Antebellum years and made it "pre-Civil War years" and tied in the information about the recaputured blacks being forced to fight for the Confederates and some free blacks escaping to the North. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Oh, I left one reference in the lead to confirm the town is part of the "Winchester–Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization" as it isn't talked about in the body of the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Very nice job! I love that picture of Hulls Store! Xtzou (Talk) 23:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Thanks! I just went around town and snapped pictures during the Summer of 2007. It was a hot couple days and even though the heat was playing havoc with my camera, all the pictures turned out great. I want to go around sometime in Fall when the leaves are changing and get some more pictures on a clear day. So I might switch them around (same shot, different day). Thanks :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality: Clearly and concisely written.
    B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MOS
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources: Reliable sources
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: Sets the context
    B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Good job. Xtzou (Talk) 23:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Free black communities

There were several other free black communities in Virginia before the Civil War, of varying sizes; the largest was in Petersburg, VA, where Pocahontas Island was settled almost exclusively by free blacks (the first two Baptist churches in Petersburg were started by black congregants) and the industrial economy had a variety of jobs; Richmond had many free blacks; Charlottesville had numerous free black families, including for a time those of two of Thomas Jefferson's sons by Sally Hemings, both of whom married mixed-race women. Norfolk probably had numerous free black; towns were the places where artisans and craftsmen could work. In addition, free blacks (including those of mixed-race, in colonial times mostly families descended from unions/marriages of white women and African men - see Paul Heinegg, [3] Free African Americans of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland and Delaware) often migrated and settled in unincorporated frontier areas to farm, where racial strictures were less important than in the Tidewater area. They appeared in county censuses. The percentage of free blacks in Virginia increased markedly in the first two decades after the Revolutionary War, up to about 10%, as some slaveholders freed their slaves, based on the revolutionary principles of equality - and influenced by Quaker, Baptist and Methodist activists. Parkwells (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that. Guess my ol' Virginia History book from Elementary School didn't teach us everything. :) I know the "free blacks" in Stephens City were Methodist, that I can tell you. They build, the still standing Orrick Chapel Methodist Church in Stephens City and may have had a hand in building the original Stephens City United Methodist Church. That I got from the Stephens City history. But I guess I just didn't know that much about Virginia history to know about the other communities. Thanks Park :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi, congrats on the GA article status. It was good to have others looking at the history; although I'd taken out much, was still too close to it.Parkwells (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. :) You were a great deal of help and insight during the process. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I was asked by NeutralHomer to look at the GAN because of subsequent events involving the reviewer. The article appears to meet all GA standards and I see nothing untoward in the GAN.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ironclad oath

Regarding the mention of the Ironclad oath in the article, ref 10 (the reference given) does not cover the use of the Ironclad Oath in Stephens City (that I could find). Do you have another reference for it? Xtzou (Talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was another word for that oath. My fault entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It's plausible that it was used. It just needs a reference. Xtzou (Talk) 16:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
First off, sorry for my delay in responding. Just hopped online. The history section from Newtown History Center, which is referenced/linked to a couple times originally has the passage written as "Major Stearns required the people of Newtown to take the oath of allegiance to the Union". Parkwells changed that to "Ironclad Oath", but you are correct, the reference to the Ironclad Oath is not in the reference. I can change that back to the referenced version or something along those lines. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Did a little search around Google and found a Google Books reference to Stearns giving the Ironclad Oath (which they just say as "an oath"). (link). I will be adding it posthaste. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[4] Maybe this? Xtzou (Talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I could add both, since one directly talks about Stearns and Newtown (Stephens City) and this one references the numbers of people who had taken the oath. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up review

Congratulations on the GA. The article has improved since I last read it. In response to your request for more comments, here they are:

History

  • To be considered comprehensive, the article should include something about pre-history. What happened in this area before the arrival of Jost Hite? Who lived in the Shenandoah Valley before 1732? What is known about their history and about their interactions with Europeans? When did humans first arrive in the Shenandoah Valley? You mention Sherando and "the historic Iroquoian-speaking tribes" in the Education section; you should be able to find reliable sources for information of this sort.

Geography

  • To be comprehensive, the article should include something about the geology and topography of the immediate region. This is standard information in FA city articles. In some cases, editors add an entire section about geology and topography. However, it's probably more common to merge this material with the geography under a single heading. (See Bath, Somerset, or Ann Arbor, Michigan, for example. Is the land flat or rolling? What kinds of rock underlie the town? How far away is the Shenandoah River? Is the town surrounded by farms? What geologic forces created the Shenandoah Valley? How old is the valley?

20th century to present

  • "The town surveyed its older buildings to establish architectural significance and determined those that contributed to the town's historic center." - Maybe "determine" rather than "determined"?  Done

Culture

  • To the material about the memorial garden, I would add the distance to Virginia Tech.  Done

Layout

  • Try to arrange the images in a way that avoids creating "sandwiches" of text between two images. On my computer screen, the existing article has text sandwiches in the History and Culture sections. You can usually solve the problem by moving the images in relation to one another.  Done

Lead

  • The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article but should not include anything important that doesn't appear in the main text sections. The existing lead doesn't mention the Climate, Culture, Government, Education, or Religion sections, and it mentions things like the distance from Winchester (which could be added to the Geography section) that are not mentioned in the main text. After you finish with any other changes to the article, you might consider re-writing the lead to include mention of any new material and to add something brief about each of the missing sections.

I hope this helps. Best of luck with the project. Finetooth (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. I will definitely look at all these things in detail. I have to be offline for a couple, but when I get back, I will go section by section and check everything else. I might ask you for your input on some of the changes I make, if that is OK with you. Again, thank you for the review and I look forward to talking with you again soon. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I have updated two areas....the other couple I am going to need to work on, especially the first two. The layout/images part, I might be able to fix in most areas except for "Culture". With those two images there, I really have nowhere else to put them. If you have any ideas on that, please let me know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You might try moving both to the right side of the page. Finetooth (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If that almost but not quite works, you could shorten the captions a bit to free up another line or two. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried to make it work on the "Culture" section, but it just wasn't going to work, so I dropped the one I thought was the "less attractive" picture. Hopefully, removing two pictures from the page doesn't make me "sub-GA". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure it doesn't. It might be that the Culture section will be expanded later for one reason or another; then the extra image will come in handy. Finetooth (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I have plenty of pictures sitting in Commons awaiting some use. :) I will work on some of the other points tonight or tomorrow. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

"Stephens City celebrated its semiquincentennial, or 250th anniversary, on September 1, 2008. A large section of the center of the town, comprising 65 acres (26 ha), is part of the Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District, listed in 1992 on the National Register of Historic Places."

This paragraph in the introduction consists of two completely unrelated subjects. The 250th anniversary is already mentioned later in the article, so this sentence can probably be removed. The historic district sentence, then, could be incorporated somewhere else in the article. In fact, it is mentioned in the "20th century to present" section so maybe we can move it there. I will make these changes tomorrow if no one objects.

Also, as I mentioned in my edit comment, I think the word "semiquincentennial" should be removed. If a word is so obscure that you have to clarify what it means, why not just use the clarification instead? It looks a like a case of using a big word for the sake of using a big word. Again, I will make these changes tomorrow after giving ample time for comment. Thanks! FunBob1986 (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I object. The introduction is a blurb of the page you are about to read. It is what the page is about before you read it. The 250th Anniversary and the town being on the National Register of Historic Places are BIG deals for this town, so they should remain on the intro. Please remember, LOTS of people made this article what it is and LOTS of people reviewed it. It wouldn't have passed GA with anything out of place or any words that didn't exsist. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I suppose repetition is okay. My main issue, however, was having a two sentence paragraph in which both sentences are completely unrelated. I was taught that this is poor style. FunBob1986 (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we went IAR on that area. I actually didn't write that portion of the lead, another editor with far superior writing skills did and the GA reviewer (two in fact) passed the lead as great....so I didn't touch it but to tinker with some layout issues. You can find out more on what a intro should look like here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
TL:DR. I'll take your word for it. FunBob1986 (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Understandable. There is definitely ALOT to read on that page. If you ever get into making town/city articles or updating them, that page is a great source, so keep it in mind. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe reverse the two sentences and change the one about the NRHP to the past tense?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't sure what you meant by past tense on the NRHP part (since it appeared to me to be in past tense), but this is what I came up with. If you like, feel free to tinker away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that is what you meant. ZOOOM, over my head. Might be time for me to sign off and get some sleep. That should have been easy for me to see. Thanks :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Semiquincentennial

I am sure that I am missing something. You say that this has been discussed, but the only reference I find on the talk page indicates that another editor has objected.[5] I find his reasoning sound, and unless you can demonstrate that you have consensus on this matter, I intend to revert your revert on this matter. It's not a big deal, but I don't approve of people creating their own words (not that I'm saying you did this, but someone has, and you may not have realized that this is not a real word) and trying to pass them off into Wikipedia. The rule is supposed to be that the facts come from the world, and we record them into Wikipedia, not the other way around. 98.71.254.209 (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You voiced your opinion on this before and deleted it before. It was "calmly" discussed before, you edit warred before, were warned (and blocked if I remember) before and I am not going through it again. Both IPs come out of the Jacksonville, FL area, so please don't pull my leg. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if I am someone who has discussed this before. I am clearly not engaged in edit warring, since I have simply asked for you to show where it was discussed before. There is no evidence of any such discussion, as far as I can see. You appear to think that you can bully another editor with threats of a block, well, go for it. I've done nothing but ask for you to back up your claim that you have consensus to include this non-existent word, and you come out swinging. Again, I am stating my intention to remove this non-word if you are unable to show me this "discussion" and the consensus to keep it. Nothing unreasonable about that at all. 98.71.218.226 (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I am going to come out swinging when you are the same person who I discussed this with previously and we agreed to disagree and move on, if I remember correctly. You have no consensus yourself to remove it and removal tonight is just a continuation of edit warring in the past. You can find the Latin-derived numerical name (the same word on the article now) right here on Wikipedia. It can also be sourced, but this article has been through WP:GA and that word cleared users with very high writing standards, so I don't see how an anon, who has been here before, knows more than GA and FA reviewers. But that takes us back to "you have been here before". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
That the article has been through GA is significant and merits pause; that you can find it on another Wikipedia page is not. That was an unsourced addition to that page. None of the dictionaries which I have looked at list it as a word. The fact that it passed GA, however, does not mean that the article is perfect--if it was, we could lock it down, protect it from all further changes, and we don't even do that to FAs.
Instead of discussing this based on facts, you keep making references to this earlier "discussion". Look, friend, I don't see any such discussion and you are repeatedly ignoring my very reasonable request to show some links and/or diffs to such a discussion. And I don't need consensus to make a change, read WP:BOLD (though it's not actually very bold to delete a non-word). I'm sure that if I were to change the sentence The colonial town was founded by Peter Stephens in the 1730s to this: The colonial town was beginninged by Peter Stephens in the 1730s, you would object and would remove the word "beginninged", despite the fact that a reasonably intelligent person could likely determine my meaning. You would do this, without attempting to gain consensus, because that word is not standard, recognized English, which is something of a minimum threshold for an encyclopedia.
Look, what do you think is going on here? If the word existed in any dictionaries, I wouldn't have a case. But it doesn't, so I do. What's more, the article is in no way harmed by the word's deletion. What is lost with the non-word removed? Why do you have such a jones for a word that is not even needed? 98.71.218.226 (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This is the discussion where we "calmly" discussed it before.
That word I am "jonesing" for (as you put it) adds context to the sentence. Anyone can say "250th anniversary", but it is neat when you can say "Semiquincentennial". It adds a little "umph" to the sentence. Makes the user go "wow". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously I did not think to look through your archives for a discussion on the merits to an edit to Stephens City, Virginia. I've read that discussion, and I make the following observations:
  • That IP editor was blocked at your request, but
  1. that block appears to have had nothing to do with Stephens City (which I think your earlier comments deceptively implied), and
  2. that block was overturned when it was discovered that your accusations against that anon were full of shit.[6]
  • that IP editor made the same point that I made earlier tonight, that the entry in the Wikipedia article appears to be WP:OR, as it has no sources.
  • most importantly, that discussion from archive does no more to demonstrate consensus than what you have presented here. Everything you have presented tonight has been based upon nothing more than your say-so.
However, you finally (finally!) presented in your last post some type of rationale for your post--namely, that the word adds pizazz to the reading. I can appreciate that. Too many of our articles--even (especially?) many of the FAs, are full of staid, sterile writing. Attempting to make the article a more flavorful read is indeed an admirable quality and (on Wikipedia) in short supply. It doesn't necessarily excuse the inclusion of informal neologisms, but I've found the word used fairly commonly on non-authoritative websites, and its meaning is fairly easy to discern, even without the parenthetical explanation you provide.
So I'm going to let go of this one. It's not an important fight, and I am supportive of your aims. I have a bit more to say to you, but it's not related to the article, so I'm going to post it on your talk page. 98.71.218.226 (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If it has anything with me or my "accusations" being "full of shit", please save your breath. Also, I will be offline for the night, so your response will come in the morning or early afternoon. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Just reading this, I will say this: The only person responsible for a block is the admin who made it. It is his job, entrusted to him by the community, to ascertain the facts and act on them if necessary. I would suggest, IP, that you address your complaint to him.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no complaint with the blocking admin, because he recognized his error and even apologized (which is going above and beyond, I'd say). 98.71.218.226 (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Anon, let's keep the discussion to the article and not an unrelated block. No need to respond all over the place. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Religion statistics

  1. These figures add up to 100 percent. Are there no atheists in the town? They are also oddly precise. The source should be noted as dubious at best unless an independent verification is somehow possible.
  2. This source lists six churches in the town proper. Google finds others.
  3. The US Census data doesn't speak to religion.

LeadSongDog come howl! 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I know of no atheists in Stephens City, but that does not mean there are some. The address "Stephens City" extends far beyond the town limits. I live in "Stephens City", but not in the town limits. One can live in nearby Winchester, but be some 20 miles from their town limits. It is very odd. So yes, there are other churches with the address "Stephens City", but not directly located in Stephens City proper, which is what I tried to focus on to the best of my abilities. In the FAC process, the source was checked and an Ohio friend actually ordered the study (which comes as a book and CD-ROM from what I am told) so I will have more information hopefully from him (when it arrives in the mail) once he inputs it in the article he is working on. At the moment, there is no reason to mark it as dubious or otherwise as the sources passed extensive checks by the FAC reviewers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Two things to keep in mind: 1st, of course, is that the data is for Frederick County, meaning it was taken from a population of about 60,000 people as opposed to the 1,100 or so in Stephens City in 2000. Second, in looking at the data on city-data.com you'll note the first graphic states "Percentage of population affiliated with a religious congregations [sic]" and gives 31.8% for the figure (which is again for Frederick County, not Stephens City), so the 100% total for those affiliated with a specific group doesn't necessarily mean 100% of the population, but rather, 100% of the population affiliated with a religious group. I also think it would be best to combine the two sources for that paragraph since the city-data.com source is simply sourcing the Glenmary study. It's not like the city-data.com source is giving us any additional info (plus city-data.com by itself is not a reliable source). --JonRidinger (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand your point on the combining references, but my worry in doing that is if one company or the other sees the reference (a very unlikely prospect) they might complain that I am mixing up the two companies or worse misrepresenting them. Let me pass this past someone just to get a third opinion (tiebreaker) and I will be right back. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, NH asked me for a third opinion but I just don't have time to study this right now, I am involved in some nasty math work involving templates and don't want to break my concentration. Can you get someone else?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure Wehwalt, no worries. Asking someone else annnnd GO! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I did what I was talking about in my sandbox, at User:JonRidinger/sandbox#Religion in the second paragraph. In order to see it, you have to click "edit" because I currently have that paragraph it's in blocked out. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand the idea (seen your post), it is just the idea of combining City-Data and Glenmary into one reference bothers me for some reason. I don't know if it can be done under referencing rules or not, which is why I want to make sure, but it seems the three people I have asked two are offline and one is busy (that being Wehwalt), so I might have to wait on that third opinion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You aren't really combining sources. It would be one thing if city-data had its own information, but it doesn't; everything in their religion section is from the Glenmary study, so in reality that's all you're sourcing. The link is more for convenience of anyone who wants to see it themselves. You could even just have the Glenmary citation with a "see also" in the citation rather than integrating them (which is something I did on the Kent article during FAC) using the url and accessdate parameters. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The delay in response was me thinking. It is a good idea, you do have a good point, I am just worried about it being potentially considered misrepresentation of both companies. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I know and I've told you why it isn't. You're citing the Glenmary study. Whether that's from a book or on another website, it's still the Glenmary study. Citing city-data which is in turn citing Glenmary means you're citing the same thing twice. It's the same concept as citing a book that is available through Google books. You're still citing the book, but the link is via Google. You aren't, however, citing Google. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, when you use the Google Books analogy it makes more sense in my head. Mind if I use your markup version? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
You can use whatever you feel is best, either that way or just putting a "see also" within the Glenmary citationn (make sure the Glenmary citation is a "cite book" and not a "cite web"...cite web is for websites and the Glenmary study is a book). --JonRidinger (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Changed and updated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of clarity as to the meaning of the figures, one should question whether they belong in the article at all, and all of this ignores the rather obvious problem that the Glenmary Research Center is a self-declared Roman Catholic missionary organization publishing a primary source. Even with the best intentions their perspective will be skewed: they call an area with an Episcopal presence "No-Priest Land", for example. An independent secondary source that validates the data would be best, but failing that the para should at least make an in-text clarification so that readers do not think assume Glenmary is a neutral opinion polling organization like The Gallup Organization or The Nielsen Company. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, for secondary sources, I have 1, 2, 3 (a massive site). There are others, but I think that is a good start. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The cautionary words about self-reported data in the csmonitor piece seem useful. That they credit the Glenmary work as the best available is helpful too. Still, I see no evidence of a reputation for fact checking that would justify treating the data as if it were coming from a secondary source.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Adherents.com also cites Glenmary in some of their work (and in a positive light), right alongside other typical surveys. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, a nap happened. I am willing to put all three secondary sources beside the Glenmary source. Though I think source #1 from above is the better of the three. It is a map version, from Glenmary data, have various religions (including "non-Christian" religions) and is from Valparaiso University. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I think if there is a question about reliabilty or lack of neutrality, then that should be taken to WP:RSN. Adding additional sources to show that Glenmary is neutral won't make any sense at all in this article since those secondary sources do not have anything specific to the data in this article. I think what needs to happen here is that the data needs to have a little more explanation and detail, which will happen once the study comes in. And if it's just county-level data (which I'm pretty sure it will be), then it won't even be an issue and shouldn't be in this article at all in my opinion. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I with you on the assumption it will be county-level data. Nothing I have seen from other websites show any town-level data. If that is the case when you receive the study, I will remove the stats with no question, as you are correct, county-level data shouldn't be in a town article unless it is something like schools. If you or LeadSongDog want to raise the question about reliability or neutrality of the Glenmary data before then, please feel free to do so, just link the conversation here so other can see it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Stonewall Jackson in 1864?

There seems to be a minor error in the article, as Gen. Jackson died in may 1863. Maybe someone know the correct name of the commanding confederate officer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.207.4 (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked back at my sources and it should have read 1862, not 1864. Thanks for the correction. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Crossroads

The cited source doesn't support the claim that "The community lasted until the Civil War began, when some of the free blacks left for the North; others were captured and forced to fight for the Confederates." It's doubtful that everyone would leave the community, and very few blacks 'fought' for the Confederacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamish Son (talk • contribs)

Actually it is. I checked. I did write the article ya know. I wouldn't have put anything in there that wasn't sourced. It was checked over by 20+ people in editing and another 15+ in GA and FA reviews. Nothing was left to chance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps to put fears to rest you could point to the exact quote or quotes. I'm not sure this source is online or not as I haven't had a chance to go through the entire history. Quotes can be included in the citation using the |quote= parameter in any of the citation templates and they need not be long; just enough to get the point across. I've done that on a number of citations in my own articles to not only erase any doubt but provide a bit more detail. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
At this link: "Throughout it all the African American community in Newtown and its suburb of Crossroads were both observers and participants in the local events of the war." Also, African Americans were in the Confederate armies as shown in Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
1.The quotation doesn't suggest that the community ended at the beginning of the Civil War 2. To 'participate' in local events is not the same thing as fighting for the Confederates 3. According to the wiki article you link to, "The number of African-Americans, both slave and free, that served in the Confederate Army in a direct combat capacity was minor, and was never official policy."(I'm sorry about botching the signature.) Beamish Son (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Beamish Son
Until someone can come up with a better sentence and source, this is what we have, sourced and on the page. Reviewed by 20+ at GA and FA and edited by another 20+. I see no reason to change it now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
How about "After the Emancipation Proclamation, most of the newly freed slaves and many of the already free blacks left the area." That sentence is supported by the source. 98.223.76.74 (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Beamish Son
NH be careful just using the "it was reviewed by 20+ at GA...etc." as a reason to leave as is. That doesn't actually answer the question or address the concern. Remember GA is not nearly as thorough as FA and even FA missed some major things (like the whole religion thing...and how many changes have been made since FAC that weren't related to vandalism?). Simply being reviewed in FA and passing does not mean the article cannot be improved further or that editors read through every piece of information. A lot of articles have sources that are not online, so they can't be checked at all, so good faith is assumed. As for the source here, I have to agree with the anonymous IP that the sentences it supports could be worded better. The source cited does not say anything about the former Crossroads residents A) going to the North (it just says many "left the area") or B) being forced to fight for the Confederates (it says nothing about that, so we can't just assume that happened). The only mention of "forced" is where slave owners were "forced" to give up their slaves by the Emancipation Proclamation and the presence of Union troops enforcing it. If there is an additional source that backs up the claim about blacks from Crossroads going "North" and being forced to fight for the CSA, then it should be included right after the current source. But as it stands now, the source doesn't actually support the statement. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The way Jon reworded it is good. Personally I would have rather it be left as is, but that goes back to how I liked the history section previously. Still learning. With the changes, I think we can call this resolved. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS ticket

Surely it is no longer needed? Is there any remaining part of this article that came from the historical society?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tiny bits and pieces really. Parkwells trimmed a great deal, but it all comes from that page, some was added from other sources though. I left it since the bits and pieces were from the historical society. If you feel the bits and pieces are well sourced and don't require the OTRS ticket (which is also used on Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District), I have no problems with it being removed. But if it risks having those bits and pieces removed, then that could be a problem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You know the article far better than I do, and the situation. I will leave it in your capable hands.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, before I do anything, let me ask this, if I request the OTRS ticket removed, does the removal of the ticket mean that anything referenced to this source (the source of the OTRS ticket) have to be removed? Same with the Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why. It's all cited, right? Hasn't it all been worked through so it is no longer verbatim? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs)
Yeah, definitely. Parkwells, you, and several others sliced and diced that section up so only small sentences remain and those are sourced, along with other sourced like books. Really the books are more the primary source I am using and the historical society was the secondary. I do believe some of the historical society sources could even be removed when they are just secondary (grouped together with other sources). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Asking User:Guillom, an OTRS admin, to confirm that the information won't be deleted if the OTRS ticket is removed. Not that I don't believe you, I just want to make absolutely sure. If he says it won't, then I will have him remove the OTRS ticket. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that is wise. You are learning that admins don't know everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

They know some things. :) Guillom replied and you can read that in full here, but essentially he said that it is best to leave it alone. I think we could probably work on getting sources for where the historical society is sourced, like books and such, and that would push the historical society source out and make the OTRS ticket moot. That is if you want to and feel it is best, but since it is an FA, it isn't like more can be added. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You can always improve FA's, especially "ongoing" ones (Stephens City still exists and information should be updated from time to time). It does not sound to me like it is worth the bother regarding the OTRS tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, I am constantly on the look-out for information about Stephens City. When I get done with my little break from projects (2 1/2 years on one project called for a break), I want to get a page on the complete detailed history of Stephens City started, but that is in the works. I would be working with the Newtown History Center on that since they have all the books and information.
As for the OTRS, I do agree with you, leaving it be is probably best for now. We can always revisit the situation at a later date. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Reiterating what I said way back when, I think the OTRS ticket should've never been used anyway. Every other OTRS ticket I've seen has been on image or other media files that are used in an article (basically something that can't be reworded or presented in any other way); I have yet to find an OTRS ticket on a specific article's talk page like it is here. It looks like all the content in this article is part of the OTRS ticket (which would violate WP:MIRROR), when in fact, it is virtually none plus all of the content is properly cited. The main reason it was used was a quick fix to adding a history section. I only hope that the more detailed history article (which still won't be a complete history of the town; just more detailed and in-depth than the section in the article) won't just be a copy-paste from the town history site or that any such ticket will be used for content (it may be needed for photos). A "big city" FA example of a more detailed history is History of Miami. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
That is the real reason why I questioned it ... I did not want people to think the text as a whole was taken from elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. While it's probably specified on the ticket itself, many editors (myself included) do not have an OTRS account so are unable to access it, thus is appears the article itself was released through OTRS (or course it wasn't). There at least needs to be some clarification that it's for the history content. Personally, I think the ticket can be removed. If there are any direct quotes from the site, they aren't clearly obvious and they are most certainly properly sourced. If we find something, take it out or reword ASAP. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't imagine what. I basically pulped that History section, rewriting it in modern language and to encyclopedic standards. I will be happy to do the same for the other article. An article like this, which was closely gone over by several experienced editors, is unlikely to have had much of the historical language survive. Easy enough to check, just look at an old version. The fact that certain parts are sourced to historical society materials doesn't matter, we can use them as sources without needing an OTRS ticket, we just can't (and shouldn't!) reproduce their language.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of replies, have been asleep and out and about today. I think Parkwells pretty well beat this article to death and back and Wehwalt sliced and diced it, along with others and we just used the Newtown History Center as a source in very small instances (which is where the OTRS ticket comes in, that is essentially what is in there from what I have been told). I do believe with some editing, moving things around and rewriting, the sources to the Newtown History Center could be removed where other sources exist and where they don't, I see no reason why we couldn't source the Newtown History Center directly without the ticket or get the sources they used directly. Let me know which way you would like and I can send an email to the curator of the center or go up to there tomorrow (just a mile away from me). But really, the "History" section is nowhere close to direct copy from 2 years ago. It is a teeny, tiny blurb that barely used the Newtown History Center as a source. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Simply citing info in our own words from them does not require their permission, anymore than I would need permission to cite a fact from any other published work. The ticket was needed at the beginning so the entire history article from the Newtown website could be incorporated here to avoid any copyright issues (much like a ticket is needed to incorporate a copyrighted photo that does not have fair-use). There is no longer any potentially copyrighted material here from them, so the ticket doesn't mean much and as Wehwalt and I have pointed out is misleading and confusing as it makes the entire article look like it was released via OTRS (which would make the article a mirror). --JonRidinger (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry, was just being through with the ticket. Let me go talk to User:Guillom (an OTRS admin) again and ask him to be apart of this discussion. Not sure if he is currently online or not, so it might be tomorrow before he responds. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Btw, NH, there is no need to apologize about personal or other people's delays. People are not expected to make Wiki their top priority in life, so delays are expected.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Saying "sorry" about every 5 seconds kinda comes with the Aspergers, so it really is force of habit, one I am trying to break. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Undoubtedly if an Aspergers Party formed on Wikipedia, it would get a sizable percentage of the vote!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it would, same with people with a form of Autism (1 in 90 at last check). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above and under "External Links" in the article itself. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Image use policy

The image use policy is very clear about the technical issues experienced by the disabled and other users due to the manual sizing of images. It suggests that each manual sizing be justified with a technical reason (unreadable text, map detail, etc.) This is a Wikipedia-wide policy and is not overridden simply by personal preference or FAC review. Yworo (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I went to restore this as well. I believe Neutralhomer misread your comment. Can you be more specific about what you are talking about in the article though? Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the visually disabled have the ability to enlarge (if they are still sighted) or reduce (if they are blind and using a reader, or if they need to enlarge the text without distraction from images), the images in their user preferences. However, any manual sizing of images, such as reducing them to 175px, overrides the use of the user preferences. The technical details are in the image use policy. Yworo (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, the only image I saw that had a size parameter was the map. It was set to the default anyways so I removed it so it won't override the preferences. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Staying on subject

I removed the small section that mentioned the Winchester Royals since it really has nothing to do with Stephens City other than being in the vicinity. Unless there is a direct connection, like the team regularly plays games in Stephens City or has a lot of participants from Stephens City, then it really shouldn't be in this article since it's not about Winchester or the overall Shenandoah Valley. Once things from other cities are included, it opens the door to other "nearby attractions" and pretty soon you have an article that really isn't about the town, but about the general area. Seeing as Stephens City has a very small population, there is nothing wrong with having a small culture section. What is there is by no means incomplete without mentioning a baseball team in another city. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jon, long time, no speak. How ya been? Good I hope. The reason we put it in originally was cause it is a rarity to have a small baseball league anywhere anymore. Some do exist, but they are a dying breed. I do, though, understand that it would open that door to anything attraction wise.
The only real attraction Stephens City has (besides the Civil War cemetaries, the yard crawl and the historic buildings) is the Drive-In just south of the town limits (less than a 1/4 of a mile). One of just 6 left in the entire state, those are definitely a dying breed. The switch to digital killed off one of them and probably will take out a couple more. Thankfully, the one in Stephens City has a TON of business, so it will be around for awhile. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey hey! Yeah, sure has been awhile, and I am doing well, thanks! Anyway, in reply, like I said, Stephens City is a small town, so it makes sense that there's not going to be a lot in many of the sections, especially those dealing with business or attractions. There's nothing wrong with smaller sections for a small town and the culture section is fuller than I would've expected for a town this size to be honest. I get what you're saying about the independent baseball league, though, and I hope it's mentioned in the articles about Winchester and the valley. Again, if the team played regular games in Stephens City or had some kind of direct connection, I think a mention would definitely be appropriate. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I think at one time they were thinking about moving the Royals to Stephens City, but that was just a thought that never went anywhere.
Stephens City does try to have alot of stuff going on for as small as we are. Some things the town has started, like the Newtown Heritage Festival, some we have been made a part of, like the Route 11 Yard Crawl (it's been featured on a couple cable programs).
The Virginia Tech Memorial Garden, though, was something the town didn't technically have anything to do with (it was built by the VT Alumni Association), but it is in a park in Stephens City, so I mentioned it. Stephens City blows the fire whistle (which isn't used to call fire personnel anymore) 32 times each April 16th. I can't source that cause it is never mentioned in the news. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

factfinder2.census.gov

This article has the silly flaw that around eight references (not citations, mind you) are to various links at the factfinder2.census.gov site, and all of those links direct to a page that either displays no information, or by default shows information about the United States. You must allow me to replace those URLs with ones that direct right to the data pertaining to Stephens City. I have no idea why one editor rudely undid my edit to fix one of these links, and in his ignorance he saw no difference between the two links. I expect that most other editors to this page too saw Stephens City data because of their saved cookies for that destination on FactFinder. Yet almost everyone reading the page has no such cookies, and they'll end up seeing a useless and very different page from what the editors would see. If anyone doesn't understand my explanation, it's the difference between these two links: (should properly be viewed in an incognito or in-private browser)

Thank you.--ɱ (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Being that I clean out my cookies once a week and clicked on both links after cleaning out said cookies, the information would be different according to you. It wasn't. It was the same and was the same without cookies. So, your above post is incorrect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I realised that the FactFinder site keeps that data even when you clear cookies. In order for you to view the URL like any member of the public, either click on the first URL (the original one) using a work/school/library/friend's computer, or use an incognito window. Or you can try a browser that is not your primary one. With any of those methods, you will see, like any member of the public, nothing related to Stephens City whatsoever. You will either see a search bar to input a city or you'll see demographics for the United States as a whole. And that's not a proper URL for citation. The second URL (the one I found) will direct anyone and everyone to the data pertaining to Stephens City, I can assure you of that.--ɱ (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I realised that the current URLs are bad because I've been fixing up a draft of Briarcliff Manor on my sandbox, and I used data from FactFinder and found that the URL copied from the search/location bar is a generic one that won't specify either Briarcliff or Stephens City, and is identical to the URL that I replaced on this article. What you or I have to do is click on the tab on FactFinder that says 'Bookmark', where the site gives you a permanent and direct link to the information pertaining to that city.--ɱ (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ryan. Should I make these URL changes, or does any editor still object?--ɱ (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Image size

Discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Jeez, I didn't want to bring this up, but the images are all the wrong size. WP:IMGSIZE and MOS:IMAGESYNTAX both say to use the default image size, so users who set their default size larger can have the images larger. I have never seen anything saying FAs or any articles should have images set at 175px, and I've read many articles including many FAs, none of which have such small images set below default. In fact, in my FA review, I was told to set more images to the default size. So I don't get why the edit was reverted; please link a policy or guideline that states that rule; I've linked two that state otherwise.--ɱ (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

First, WP:BURDEN. Second, during my FA review, they were knocked down from 250px to 175px per the FA image size. If you can show me that is incorrect, then I will put them back to 250px no problems. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
What on earth does BURDEN have to do with this? Not only does it seem editors like to stick it in every argument, but in the least applicable cases too... I backed up my explanation not only to a policy and guideline but even to the paragraphs within them. You haven't linked to anything. What, you're supposed to ignore my arguments, and I am supposed to hunt around for why some editor preferred 175 at your FA review, or try to find what "FA image size" you're referring to? Look, I'll even write the sentences from those rules, way more than you've done to back up your argument.
  • "In contrast, syntax such as thumb|300px simply sets a fixed image width, ignoring the user's base preference. In general, do not do this without very good reason" (Wikipedia:Image use policy)
  • "The full set of options is more complex; however, the vast majority of images should be able to be displayed by using the above format." ([[File:Example.png|thumb|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]) (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images)
  • And, sure, "Images in which detail is relatively unimportant...can be smaller than usual" and "Images containing important detail...may need larger sizes than usual to make them readable", but the default image size is there for a reason - so logged-in users can set their image preferences. That would not work if every article was at 175px, and therefore they are set at the default. Why are you fighting this, and where does it say anywhere that images should be at 175px?--ɱ (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
BURDEN is there so editors can't come along and say "find it" (like you are now) that burden is on you. So, yes, you are "supposed to hunt around for why some editor preferred 175 at [my] FA review". 300px squishes the text too much and makes it unreadable in places, against FA rules. Probably why the prefered is 175px. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I forgot how much I dislike you. So far, you've ignored all of my referenced policies and guidelines and said "I like it because it doesn't squish the text". For the record, I can't find who changed the image size when this made FA four years ago (when FA was still very simple and easy to get). But it doesn't matter, whoever did it might've been right, but as of 2014, they're wrong. I'm reverting your edit; please provide a Wikipedia policy or guideline to back up any other changes or edits. I have.--ɱ (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
All righty then. I tinkered with the images, all of which created one-line sentences and FA issue problems. I'm not going to risk the FA to make you happy, especially after that little swipe at the beginning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
"Risk the FA"? It's not like someone's actively reviewing it for problems worth demoting it. If anyone is, it would be me. And I found that the images violate both WP:IMGSIZE and MOS:IMAGESYNTAX. You've responded to me with whining that you don't like it.--ɱ (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I should tell you we're both close to WP:3RR. Any change by either of us will result in a block.--ɱ (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I responded that it squishes the text and in one instance leaves a four word sentence break. You resorted to childish "I forgot how much I dislike you". Which is weird since you practically begged me to review your article. You are now up to 3RR, further reverts will constitute a violation of the 3RR rule. WP:BURDEN. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of it leaving breaks or squishing text, Wikipedia policies and guidelines say to set images to the default. You can't just ignore them because you want to. Also in reply to you, I'd do more than beg for my article reviews, it's tough to get reviewers, especially for a topic many wouldn't care about. Thanks for reiterating the 3RR in a fashion that sounds threatening; see above where I mention it as a friendly caution for the both of us.--ɱ (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
So, you wouldn't mind if I did the same to Briarcliff Manor, New York, eh? I see multiple examples where you haven't set images to default. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(←) "Images in which detail is relatively unimportant...can be smaller than usual" and "Images containing important detail...may need larger sizes than usual to make them readable" (MOS:IMAGESYNTAX). That applies to a few, and the rest (the large majority) are at the default size. I would say I'm not contradicting any policy or guideline with the Briarcliff article, and if I am, please address it with me so we can make the appropriate changes.--ɱ (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You just showed me exactly what I needed to see. "Images in which detail is relatively unimportant...can be smaller than usual". Since there isn't any important detail in the buildings, they can be smaller than usual. The only one that has detail is the Historic District sign and at 175px it is quite readable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
To add to the above, from MOS:IMAGESYNTAX: "Images should be large enough to reveal relevant details without overwhelming the surrounding article text." At 175px, the images reveal all relevant details and do not overwhelm the surrounding article text. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
A few select images should be smaller, sure, and okay that sign doesn't have to be as large. But for most of the pictures, I've been opening their description pages to see them larger; 175px is just too small. Remember, you may be familiar with those buildings, but I as well as most other editors aren't, so we need them larger. Plus if you have any architectural appreciation, you should know that most of the buildings shown in the article are actually pretty interesting and unique; thus they should be more visible, and show more of the intricate detail. I've driven by Woodlea countless times, but for its architectural mastery and unfamiliarity to other readers and editors, I'll gladly put it at the default size on the Briarcliff article, or even use that other argument to make it even larger.--ɱ (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, overwhelming the text means just that; don't read into it. Unless two images prevent text from being between them, it's technically okay. And raising the size to default makes it still very good and not even close to overwhelming. Remember that many read Wikipedia articles on their phones or on large Apple monitors, in which case small photos will be far too small. Many therefore will set their default image preference larger; but in your article that wouldn't help. I'm just trying to make it better for more people while following the rules (that are in place to help those people). So even if you don't like the look of it, I'd let it go, even if I were in your shoes.--ɱ (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I don't often try to be antagonistic, and when I do I don't like it, but I've never been so stubborn to not admit when I'm wrong: there were some images on the Briarcliff article that still should've been set at default; I fixed them a bit ago.--ɱ (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I use a 15 inch monitor and can see 150px images just fine. As for architectural appreciation, while brick and wood are neat, they are just that...brick and wood. We don't have any gargoyles or fancy stonework on any of the buildings in town. If we did, then even 222x170(ish)px (as most of them images are now) wouldn't enough. Plus, I would have allowed those to be larger. Buildings though, they can be seen at 175px, even 200px just fine.
The images, as they stand at 175px or even 200px, are fine. They meet MOS:IMAGESYNTAX and only one editor has had a problem with them....you. No one else has. Remember, this article has been FA for 3 1/2 years now, images at 175px for the same. This isn't stubborness, this is just showing you the reality of things. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You make a few valid points, but look around. No other page is Featured and has all images at your 175 size. That's an easy way to tell you're doing something wrong. And the 3-year thing you mention? The Briarcliff article sat for years with awful glaring problems that nobody fixed. Time is not an excuse; the problems aren't fixed because neither article received enough attention from the right people. And you saying it passes IMAGESYNTAX isn't true: it recommends most images to be at the default size. About the specific images: the Frazier house has good detail that was very hard to make out with the small size, the drive-in takes up such a small portion of the photo that I couldn't even tell what it is at 175 and hardly at 220; I'd crop the image, increase its contrast, or increase the image size on the article; the townoffices photo is a bit dark and therefore rather hard to see good detail. The larger image size helps with all of that.--ɱ (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
My point was, 3 1/2 years with no complaints and plenty of people looking at the article. The best editors went over this article with a fine-tooth comb...and still do. If they had thought the 175px images were a problem, don't you think they would have said something between then and now?
To your point about cropping the Widdows-Frazier House pictures, I can't because "Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image, may need to be larger than normal". The image is at default, so it can't be made any larger else it will start smashing text.
I concede the town offices picture isn't the best. As you can see from the picture, there are three very large trees around the building. With the shade those were providing and with the clouds that were rolling in, that was actually the best of the 12 pictures I took of the building. I can see if another editor can give it a go. He took the new shots of the Lutheran Church and the Commons, so he does very good work and can do the same there.
I'm all for improving the article, but I'm not for enlarging the images to a point that smashing the text and makes it tough to read. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your concept of 'smashing the text'. If an image size is increased, the text wraps around to a new line. Is that what you consider smashing and why is that bad? Also, I didn't think the Frazier House photo should be cropped, I thought the drive-in photo should be cropped (specifically on the bottom and left). To your point about nobody commenting - I had many people review the Briarcliff article through its various stages, but there were a few obvious things I was thinking 'duh!', things that we missed. Long articles make people miss things. In one case, right after making FA, I found "[[Christian Archibald Herter (physician)]]" just like that in the article. It's clear to anyone that it should be linked like "[[Christian Archibald Herter (physician)|Christian Archibald Herter]]", but it passed FA like that. Things fall through: "errare humanum est".--ɱ (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy break

An example of "smashed text" would be the three paragraph in the "Founding and early days" section. See how the eye has to zig zag around. That's because the text is smashed on one side by the infobox (can't do anything there) and the image (which had to be moved up one to avoid a sentence break).

On the Drive-In image, you clearly missed the second screen in the back. Don't worry, everyone misses it. They all see the HUGE first screen and miss Screen 2. As for the road, I tried everything I could to get the two screens in the shot and not the road, it just didn't work. I was actually standing partially in a culvert and partially in a lane of US11 for that picture. :) Another editor is updating some of the pictures for Stephens City, so that might be on his list.

As for other editors looking the article over, I sought out the best to review the article, to update it, to slice and dice, everything. When it went to FA, it was looked over and every part of scrutinized. If these best-of-the-best editors didn't think the images needed to be larger than 175px, I stand by them on that. Sorry, but you're a newbie, with only three years under your belt, they have much more experience, I trust their judgement on this one. Even if that judgement is 3 1/2 years old. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the "Founding and early days" text is that badly-formatted at all, and I'd take larger images giving more detail over the slight annoyance of moving your eye any day. On the drive-in photo, I actually did see the screen in the back, but the left could still be cropped 'a bit' and the bottom and top quite a bit, which would make both screens much more visible. As for other editors, I'm on my sixth year of editing and I'd say I have become quite proficient in that time. I read articles constantly for independent research, education, and work. Through that specifically, I have come across no instances of small images like this. And I have seen many editors on many articles I'm working on take the px off and make the image default in size. I'd say this is the time for a third opinion. Won't hurt, right?--ɱ (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Smashed text, while an annoyance, is one of them big no-nos when it comes to FAs. As for the six years, your edits only go back to June, 2011. So, unless you were editing for three years as an IP, I have to disagree there.
You want to bring in a third opinion, by all means.....
  • @Wehwalt:, @Brianboulton:, and @Casliber:: I would greatly appreciate your input on the above discussion. Short version: Should the images of this article be on default setting or is 175px or even 200px OK?
Those three are the best of the best when it comes to FAs and all three helped out on this article. If they say you're right, then I will accept it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, I await their responses. In response to my editing, like many (most?) editors, I've been editing for years before I created an account, which I did in 2009. But I don't consider these numbers a very good assessment; I've met some brilliant and talented Wikipedians who've only been here for a few mere months.--ɱ (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Ummm...huh? I never pay size much mind...have had other folks fiddle around with set sizes and then get reverted to default..or vice versa. Layout is important...but nowadays as lots of folks have widescreens everything is hard to standardize. I wouldn't worry about it. Whichever layout looks nicer I guess. When widescreen - in this version the widdows frazier house is jutting down too far in the section below so for that reason, Neutralhomer's looks better...but I suspect this is different on narrower ones....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Generally speaking I agree with Cas – it is harder to standardise these days, and sometimes the letter of MOS can be justifiably tweaked a little. In this case, I have to say that the 175px does render the images rather too small for my liking, for no particular beneficial reason that I can see except in the minor issue referred to by Cas. I don't think that the default size overwhelms the text, and this would be my choice. But I tend respect the decisions of the principal editors of featured articles, and not to alter them without discussion and agreement. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Are you having the same issues that Casliber was having with the "jutting out" of images? Pictures jutting out where they shouldn't be is another worry of mine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
On my display everything looks fine. If you have "jutting out", you could apply the upright parameter to that one image, rather than using 175px to all. It's really not a major issue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: I was meaning the "jutting out" on a widescreen or larger screen monitor. I'm using a 15 inch monitor, so I'm not sure how it looks on widescreen or larger screen monitors. Casliber had the "jutting out" issue on widescreen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(←) I never found anything in this page's archives recommending 175px; it's now my opinion that Neutralhomer or another dedicated person decided it looked better without concern for guidelines or policies. What I did find was that two years ago, two editors of very good standing agreed that the images should be at default size, at Talk:Stephens City, Virginia/Archive 1#Image use policy. They were even sterner in their resolve that the images must be default-sized, much more than I was. According to the article history, those editors attempted to fix the problem and were simply reverted by Neutralhomer without any further talk page discussion. Check for yourself; that's not the way to handle an issue, and another example of how Neutralhomer thinks he can ignore editors following policy; it makes me wonder if he's trying to establish ownership over the article; he certainly is fiercely defensive.--ɱ (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

MJ, that had to do with the blind or folks who have a hard time reading. Had nothing to do with the images, it had to do with the added alt= text to the images for the blind.
You have two editors in good standing tell you the default setting is causing "jutting out" issues with an image on widescreen monitors. One editor tell you he tend to "respect the decisions of the principal editors of featured articles, and not to alter them without discussion and agreement." You haven't respected my decision and reverted my changes blindly. There has been zero agreement and as for discussion, I call this more of a pissing match than a discussion. As for OWNing the article, that goes both ways. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you think I can't read or if you can't read, but that 2012 discussion is primarily focused on the fact that the images should be at the default size. And in this discussion, one of the editors is saying it's not a major issue, and another is saying that generally images should be at default, although he won't go against an article's primary editor. But this is the important part - as said in the 2012 discussion: The image use policy is very clear about the problems with manually-sizing images. It is a Wikipedia-wide policy and cannot be overridden by personal preference or FAC review.--ɱ (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Plus what do you care about text 'jutting out'? It may jut out to you, but won't to someone else. And when it looks fine to you, it won't to others. Face it - resizing images for formatting text is futile. People will read the article on their small cell phones, and on everything from the smallest 7" tablets to 32" Apple or Asus computer monitors. And with such a variety of screen sizes, the text will jut out in many places all depending on the screen size. Therefore it's more important to allow those with poor vision to see the images at the size they want, by disabling the fixed pixel count that you have on this article. That is why it is a Wikipedia-wide policy and cannot be overridden by personal preference or FAC review.--ɱ (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you actually think I am going to take you or this conversation seriously with the snide remarks and insults? I'm not.
You have ignored two editors just above. Again, one said the default setting is causing "jutting out" issues with images on widescreen monitors. The other said to "respect the decisions of the principal editors of featured articles, and not to alter them without discussion and agreement." These are the third opinions you wanted and you are ignoring. Like this one from Casliber, "Layout is important". Which is why jutting images is important.
Now, I'm not going to engage you in discussion and we won't come to agreement with snide remarks like "I don't know if you think I can't read or if you can't read" and "I forgot how much I dislike you".
If you want to discuss this like a mature adult, listen to the third opinions you asked for, and drop the 'tude, I'm ready. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You're insulting the way I conduct arguments. In that case, I was seriously confused about the miscommunication. It is evident that the 2012 conversation was about image size. So either you weren't reading it right or you don't think I can.--ɱ (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You forget that Brianboulton stated that he can't see a benefit in the small images and he prefers the larger size. As well, you ignore my solid reasoning that jutting images is not important whatsoever, because every reader views Wikipedia on a different-sized screen.--ɱ (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
"You're insulting the way I conduct arguments"....please explain this because it makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.
You ignore Casliber's much-more experienced judgement that "Layout is important". You also continue to ignore where Brianboulton said quite clearly that you should have waited for discussion and agreement before making your forced changes.
Your last two posts were ripe with snide remarks. You are trying to argue with three experienced editors, two of which are far more experienced with FAs than I will ever be. You are demanding that we allow you to do things your way, exactly what you are chiding me about right now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
That is a completely unfair assessment of the situation. You've left off what Casliber said next, which contradicts 'layout is important', I didn't ignore Brianboulton's statement and disagree per wp:bold, and I'm trying not to make snide remarks, although I can't avoid your interpretation of my writing as snide; it's not a deliberate attempt to aggravate you. And yes, the two are very experienced, but clearly image size has never been a big issue, because neither editor gave a definitive "yes" or "no" and you know it. As an observation, your above comment seems very defensive, and does seem like an attempt to aggravate me, using terms like "ignore", "continue to ignore", "ripe", "snide", and "demanding".--ɱ (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Straight off, my above comment is actually not defensive, it's fed up. Your comment that you haven't tried to make snide remarks is laughable. In the first sentence of the three comment you made on this page you state "I forgot how much I dislike you". I'm unsure how to take that any other way than snide or an attempt to aggravate. This kinda went downhill from there.
At this point, I am not engaging you any further, as this is going 'round and 'round and isn't going anywhere. I have posted an RfC (at Drmies suggestion) and I will go with what the editors there say. For now, I am disengaging this conversation and continuing with my project. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me. I would like to set the record straight that I meant that my more recent remarks weren't snide; that comment was very early on in this discussion. Also setting the record straight, I feel that nearly every comment of yours has been snide and insulting to me, and counter-productive to this encyclopedic process. Please don't be fed up, we've both likely dealt with more disagreeable people, please keep your cool and respond logically rather than emotionally.--ɱ (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should the images on this page be in default size in line with policy or be smaller (also in line with policy) at the previous 175px to limit image "jutting" and smashed text? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Pinging those involved and mentioned: @Wehwalt:, @Brianboulton:, @Casliber:, @Drmies:, @Nikkimaria:, @Ryan Vesey:, @Skyerise: (previously Yworo), @JonRidinger:, and @Ɱ:. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions: Before answering the question above, I'd like to ask a couple of my own, if I may:

  • Neutralhomer, have you specified a default image size in your preferences?
  • Is it possible to crop a couple of the images? The government one in particular has too much lawn - removing some of that might make a smaller-than-default size more feasible
  • What is the significance of the Widdows-Frazier House? I don't see it mentioned in the article text - I was considering moving it, as at any size for me it is sandwiching text with the infobox
  • Neutralhomer, is this your preferred version with regards to images? ɱ, are you in favour of the current version? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Answering in order:
  • The government one might get replaced, I can crop it, but there is another editor who is updating the images. He might have an updated version soon, though.
  • The Widdows-Frazier House is one of the older houses in town, which dates back to the 19th century. It was showing the older buildings that still remain in the town.
  • That is my perfered when it comes to text. If we could find a "happy medium", I wouldn't mind taking them to 200px or even 225px. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
My one response: Yes, my preference is the current version over the linked old version. The images display as 220px for me, IPs, and most registered.--ɱ (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
What do you both think of this version? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
While the images are good, no smashed text, I am not a fan of the switched layout. The way I did the page was set to WP:USCITIES. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? USCITIES has Religion within Demographics. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - That's the current version, where you rearranged things and made a multiple image template from two images, but it's otherwise the version that Neutralhomer and I have written paragraphs about our disagreement over. I'm good with your changes, but I would assume that Neutralhomer still wants the images at 175px for his preferred text formatting; he didn't just argue all of this for the sake of discussion, did he? Because he says just above "I wouldn't mind taking them to 200px or even 225px". So why, Neutralhomer, are you okay with pre-set 225px but not okay with the 'default' setting, displaying to most at 220px?--ɱ (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I have added a different picture in place of the Widdows-Frazier House shot. The Stone House is actually the oldest in town and that photo is waaay better than my picture of the the Widdows-Frazier House.
@Ɱ: I mentioned 200px and 225px waaay above. I am not open to anything that will smash text. On my end, I have images that range from 220ish by 180ish px to 170ish by 200ish px. Nothing, in default setting, that is just 220px. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@All: I am going back to my project, ping me if you need me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Update

After discussions on two pages (both with snide comments), I have reverted to MJ's perfered version. This is in no way my conceding he is correct, it's just me being the bigger person and walking away from a discussion that will go nowhere. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

...Okay. I was trying to find a version that worked for both of you, but if you'd prefer to step back, that's fine. I am going to restore the multiple-image template, though, as both of those images relate to the Culture section. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the multiple image template works well. I'm a fan of big images too but sometimes there are limits to what you can do. Tim Riley's good at the multiple images, too. And the key to survival here is to step back when needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I understand, but I was/am just completely fed up with MJ. There was/is no getting through to him and no indication a "happy medium" would/can be found. Add that with the near-constant snide remarks and others that made no sense, it was/is best to just give him what he wanted and walk away, be the bigger person.
I have no problem with the double image in the "Culture" section. I had the Drive-In picture in the "Economy" section because it is a business, was trying to tie-in there. But the mention of the Drive-In is in the "Culture" section, so that works for me.
@Wehwalt: Which is exactly why I had to walk away. It was either that or scramble and retire. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment - The image placement for some of the photos in the current version looks odd on my 1600x900 screen. The Stone House photo is directly under the infobox and is causing a gap between the "Founding and early days" and "20th century to present" sections. The three photos in the "Culture" and "Government" sections are stacked on top of each other. If this is intentional, then ignore my observations. APK whisper in my ear 22:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

APK: I don't see that break, and the image stacking is intentional as those images belong in those sections. As well, it was chosen for all of the images to be right-justified. I'm not sure if there's a guideline for or against that, and it's okay, but it's not my preference. Neutralhomer, I apologise for the harsh words and I'll be calmer to you and others in future discussions. As for the other editors, having read their comments, I'd say only one of them was somewhat out of line, but it's nothing worth creating an issue over.--ɱ (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@AgnosticPreachersKid: With the Stone House photo, there should be a paragraph of text to the top and one to the bottom (as a buffer zone). On the Culture/Government sections, there should be a three sentence paragraph "buffer".
Is it causing any image jutting or the images smashing the section and subsection titles? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There isn't a paragraph below the Stone House photo and there isn't a paragraph buffer between the three photos in the Culture/Government sections, at least not on my screen. This may have been discussed already, so forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse, but why not left align the Stone House photo and Town Office photo? It would solve the issue on my screen and anyone else seeing the same odd layout. APK whisper in my ear 23:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I was meaning that is how it is supposed to look. With a widescreen monitor, this will, of course, be different. On a diffrent page (so no worries, you didn't miss it), a couple editors said images are perfered to be aligned right. I personally don't mind the left or right alignment, but I guess the community does. Consensus trumps personal perference on this one. :)

There is no reason that all the photos need to be aligned right. We have the option to align them left for a reason. Having the preference for aligning them right isn't a requirement for all pictures. Especially now as more and more people are viewing this on wider screens, when they're all aligned right, they end up stacking and we get more white space in smaller articles these. For instance, the Stone House picture can be aligned left. It takes nothing away from the article having it left and eliminates dead space on widescreen viewing, as others have mentioned. The Town Government offices picture is another one that can be aligned left. I don't think the picture size is an issue really. While I prefer a slightly larger size (I have typically used 250px with no issues...see Kent, Ohio), the current size is acceptable. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@JonRidinger: I am perfectly fine with having both left and right aligned images. I was told by @Yngvadottir: that is perfered by some editors to be all right-aligned. I'm officially confused. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stephens City, Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stephens City, Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stephens City, Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Population estimate

Should the population be updated with the 2014 estimate of 1,921 or left as is until the next official census? APK whisper in my ear 09:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I leave that open to other editors. I don't have an issue with it one way or another. My preference is the true population by the 10 year Census. But, as we all know well, what we perfer, what we have/don't have an issue with and what ends up on the page are three totally different things. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The infobox has a place for the estimate. If you look at the Kent, Ohio article, it has both the 2010 population and the 2014 estimate in the infobox. The key is updating it, but not including every estimate, just the most recent. I went ahead and added it. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure what the FA standard is. APK whisper in my ear 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll go BOLD and add it. I don't mind if it is added. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I did some rewording, mostly for clarity and flow. The way it was made it somewhat confusing as to whether the rest of the paragraph was talking about the 2010 numbers or the 2014 numbers (I know what it was talking about, but others might not). I also did some rewording so we don't have so many "As of 2010..." statements. The population table had the estimate referenced twice, once in the footnotes, and once in the "estref" parameter, so I removed one. The first paragraph of the demographics section also had the same source cited 3 or 4 times, so I did some consolidation there. If a paragraph all comes from the same source, it only needs a citation at the end of the paragraph. In that case, having it twice is necessary since the estimate mention breaks up the thought, though having the 2010 reference only once would still probably be OK since it's not making any outstanding or otherwise controversial claims. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I do get a little chronological when I write, don't I? :) Thanks for for the rewording and corrections. Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephens_City,_Virginia/Archive_1&oldid=1136231346"