Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:03, 12 October 2006

Arizona Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.

History Section

Just wondering if there were any good examples to illustrate this point: "Since that time, Oro Valley has created a legacy of responsible development, attempting to strike a balance between population growth and environmental preservation."

Sometimes I wonder if our suburban sprawl is totally responsible development, but I do enjoy how much desert there is in Oro Valley. Any ideas? NPPyzixBlan 06:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. Feel free to edit/reword that. I figure the town "attempts" to strike a balance, but it definitely isn't always successful. For a while Oro Valley was propelled by new housing starts, so the town council didn't have much regard for open space preservation. User:Danman083

I did not completely take note of your use of the word "attempting." I agree that it is a good way of wording that statement. Maybe we should include a little something about how Oro Valley is dealing with all the same issues that other sprawling suburban communities around the country deal with. Maybe? NPPyzixBlan 16:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea. There's a lot of growth issues debated in OV, from the new mall going in, to residential housing density, to types of retail establishments, to open space preservation. I think all these (and more) could be discussed.--Danman083 19:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the record population growth would be something that could be interjected in the current state of OV. however, the table belongs in the demographics section, because its a demographic table, granted an important side note in the history section. It does have historical relevance, but its a bit redundant to have 2 tables, when the person reading the article can fancy towards demographics and population growth if they want specifics, after they read the side note in the history section pertaining to the abnormal population growth. Somerset219 02:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Somerset219, please relax, we're all here trying to make the OV article better...it's nothing personal =) I agree the table can be placed in demographics, but the accompanying paragraph should remain in history...it's all chronological and flows. It refers to growth in the 1980s and 90s, bringing it to the 'current state' section. I think the table would be better in the demographics, and maybe you can write a blurb about it there. All the current written info in the 'history' section flows well and chronologically. I don't think that should change. Let me know what you think! Mxpc05 08:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

um... thats exactly what I did, and you reverted it. I understand where your coming from, it just gets frusterating to take one step forward and two steps back. Somerset219 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at your edit on 07:12, 4 July 2006 (just prior to my revert) you (Somerset219) had moved the accompanying paragraph for 'record growth' into demographics, and I didn't think that was the best move...or it at least deserved some discussion first. That's neither here nor there. I think the flow looks great now and the table is positioned well. Good work! Mxpc05 00:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the positives, on a side note, July 5th revision was what i was discussingSomerset219 01:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Arts Section

Do you guys think OV has a "vibrant" arts community? I mean, I totally admit to not even knowing about some of the stuff that has been mentioned, but I don't know if "vibrant" is the right word. Maybe we should write something up about the OV Jazz Fest? NPPyzixBlan 01:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

intro

did a lot of cleaning up to make it relevant and objective. Wanted to get rid of the references from number 1 city crap, but it has characterists that specifically pertain to the culture and lifestyle of oro valley. perhaps later on we could edit that info to a different section. Somerset219 05:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

current state of town addition

Whatever. I'm not going to fight with you and try to repost my addition in the main body of your Oro Valley article, as you seem eager to promptly remove (factual) information that you personally have no interest in or assume that others have, or should have, no interest in. I lived in the town on-and-off for several years until Ausust 2005 (and in Tucson for over a decade before that), and the observations I made in my submission are well-substantiated in the local media, including print, radio and, of course, the internet. This is all in addition to firsthand observations and accounts from associates.

Certain things I mentioned which you may consider irrelevant to your personal interests can nonetheless form an important component of what it is like to actually visit or live in a particular place, and therefore form part of the story of that place. Furthermore, it is not impartial or well-balanced coverage of a topic to present only uncontroversial items or to withhold unflattering or potentially embarassing ones. To engage in this type of writing is to engage in concealment and, essentially, whitewashing. (No doubt, the town government would be pleased with your style of 'editing,' however.)

Perhaps there might have been a debatable point or two of editing in the sumbission I made. And each publication or collaborative effort always has its own 'house rules' that it gets very attached to. But to indiscriminately delete entire sections of material which contains facts that may be of interest in understanding a subject in the totality of its context (and therefore the context experienced by people who actually come into contact with that subject matter in their everyday life) is not good service to readers who want to understand the entire 'big picture.' Moreover, it is rude. It shows a lack of respect for someone who puts forth an honest effort to add to the knowledge of a subject with facts and, yes, a brief discussion, as is also often found in more 'traditional' encyclopedias. Finally, this pracice is also explicitly discouraged in Misplaced Pages's own internal guidelines, which I have read several parts of. I invite you to reacquaint yourself specifically with the one that admonishes people such as yourself against wholesale deletions and requests you to move controversial sections to the talk page for discussion and editing, instead.

The perceived safety and quietness or Oro Valley, the peculiarity of law enforcement in the town, and the (rather extreme) irony of AZ SR 77 being a central drug artery running through what some people would, by turns, regard as either an idyllic location or as almost a police state (depending on their own inclinations), are all readily obervable aspects of that place, and if you are familiar with your surroundings (you identify yourself as being from Tucson), then you will be aware of these things as well. There was a lot of material to work with there, and for you to discard all of it even without any discussion is unjustifiable, and also unprofessional.

I hope that your disregard for diverse (but potentially pertinent and useful, and certainly interesting) types of information is not reflective of the attitude of Misplaced Pages's larger editorial teams. I think your actions would make a good case study for how useful information is suppressed just because it goes against the tastes of people who think they somehow know what information people should be exposed to, and what they shouldn't.

CC posted to OV article talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.245.166 (talk • contribs) .

You have to cite sources for things to be included in Misplaced Pages, per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, which says "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth."

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources says "If you can provide useful information to Misplaced Pages, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor. The responsibility for finding and adding references lies with the person adding material to an article, and sources should be provided whenever possible."

If you are citing your own observations then it still can't be included per Misplaced Pages:No original research, which says "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position."

Misplaced Pages:Citing sources will explain to you how you can cite sources to your text.

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is a core policy on Misplaced Pages, and it is not optional. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings, nor have I disclosed what I think of the information you've added. You have no right to make the assumptions you have made. Because this is Misplaced Pages, and because anyone can edit, anything without a source can be removed at any time. This is how it's always been, this is a core fundamental of how Misplaced Pages works. Before you accuse me of being unprofessional and "censoring" things, take the time to actually learn how Misplaced Pages works (you can start at Help:Contents). -- Ned Scott 07:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is wondering, he's talking about this. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed Arizona articles
• Unknown-importance Arizona articles
• WikiProject Arizona articles