Talk:Quad Cities/Archive 1

Nearby cities considered part of Q.C.

I live in Bennett, just a few miles away from New Liberty. I don't know where the author got this from, but New Liberty does not consider itself part of the Quad Cities by any strech of the imagination--just a town that's somewhat close. You really have to drive through a lot of cornfield and a couple tiny towns (one of which isn't officially a town anymore) even to get to northwest Davenport. The QC is definitely the closest metro region, but saying New Liberty is part of them isn't quite accurate.

Good thing this article doesn't try to claim that Bennett is part of the QC (though saying New Liberty is isn't that far away from being able to say Bennett is...), although I would find the idea quite hilarious. :)

Clarifications about the Q.C.

The Quad Cities spans two states: Illinois and Iowa. Although some would argue, it consists of Davenport, Bettendorf, Moline, and Rock Island. The former being in Iowa and the latter in Illinois. Other cities like to say they are in the QC as well: East Moline, Milan, Silvis. The Quad Cities area lies on the Mississippi (on a section of the river that runs east to west) about an hour and a half away from Iowa City (when traveling via I-80). Having been a resident for a couple of decades, I must say that it is pretty boring here. Exspecto 02:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Four

It is incorrect to say that the four cities are Davenport, Rock Island, Moline, and Bettendorf. When the term Quad-Cities began to replace Tri-Cities, it was for the benefit of East Moline. If you are going to name four, the fourth should be East Moline, not Bettendorf.

However, I would argue that it is more correct not to identify the four at all, because what "Quad-Citians" consider the Quad-Cities is much more than any combination of those four cities.

I-74 Bridge Photo

I seen that the image of the I-74 bridge that had been on this article had been removed from the article because it was an unsourced image. So I added an image of the I-74 bridge that I took myself. The image I added is licensed under both the GFDL and the Creative Commons license.
JesseG 05:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No demographics section

What is the population of greater QC area? we have the peoria area at 300K+. Just curious.George 04:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Population

Along with demographics, approx. population would be nice, even though it would involve a little estimating.

Highways

I went here to try to find out why why so many highways are needed for a 4-mile (6.4 km) X 8 mile area. [1] That's interesting. As you zoom out, the pattern looks like a blip along 80.

Template

I created a template for Quad Cities articles I've only posted it on this one so far. Irate velociraptor 08:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, good work, IV. Might it be possible to a) shrink the size of the heading bar? On my browser it's wider than I-88, and b) select a slightly less florescent shade of color for the background? Many thanks.HuskyHuskie 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've narrowed the title bar and toned the color down. Irate velociraptor 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How about adding "area attractions and landmarks" and universities to the template? Looks great so far. [[Briguy52748 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)]]

I've put the colleges in, I like the area attractions idea but I'm at my max for rows. Irate velociraptor 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

what is this doing in the geography section:

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Davenport serves the Iowa portion of the Quad Cities as well as the southeast quarter of Iowa. This diocese has its headquarters in Davenport. The Diocese of Peoria serves the Illinois portion of the Quad Cities.

Weather/climate section

Someone needs to verify the weather section because I know those records are not right. In July 2005 it was 103 here and in the 30's it hit 111 one day. 12.217.72.240 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

they are verified per weather.com...if you have different temps, from a reliable source, post here, and we'll see whats going on. Ctjf83 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

80's-Current too negative?

It seems like there is a very negative undertone to this section, which doesn't seem objective to me, nor representative of the progress made in the Quad Cities during the last 7 years. 12.202.6.5 (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)QuadCityImages

I don't see how it is negative? If you have better stuff to write, feel free to do it, while adding a reference. Ctjf83^talk 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Drawing inferences

Ctjf83,

Well, no, you're right, it doesn't actually say that EM was named as a QC by the 1960s. But given that it takes five[2] to ten years to build a nuclear power plant, and given the fact that the plant went online in 1972, then it seems fairly clear that the term "Quad Cities" had come into vogue at least by 1967.

I was always told was that the term dates back to the early 60s. I admit, I'm not old enough to remember "Tri Cities", thus I also don't remember when QC was first used. I first remember first hearing "Quad Cities" in 1969 on a trip to Iowa City, which means that EM was a Quad at that time (no one seriously considered Bettendorf as a Quad until at least the mid-70s). And actually, circa 1978 was when the term "Quint Cities" was being pushed most heavily, as I imagine you recall.

Anyway, so while no, this doesn't actually say that the term QC was in existence in the 1960s, it's a pretty obvious inference that when they announced the building of the Quad Cities Nuke Plant in the 1960s, that the term Quad Cities was in vogue.

I'm sorry, but I've been on cold medications all day, and I feel like I'm both repeating myself and yet not saying what I want to say. I think I should stay away from the article right now; I do hope you get my point. I certainly have not tried to get into any kind of a feud with you, and I can see that you're engaged in honorable editing. I guess I'll just withdraw for a while. Have a nice one, Ctj. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means, please continue to edit. Your first sentence was OR though. Also, I'm only 24, so I don't remember anything circa 1978, lol! I'll see what I can do about finding a reference to when the term QC started to be used. I'm sure the Quad City Times website will have something. Ctjf83^talk 18:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Web media in the Quad Cities

I respectfully disagree with Ctjf83 that QCANews.com isn't important enough to be listed in the media section. I feel that just because a media outlet uses new media (internet) as a means of publication doesn't make it any less important than traditional media. The quality of content is independent to the means of publication or broadcast. I intend to undo this edit unless there others that significantly disagree. Thoughts?

Who is this QCAnews.com? Where do they get their information from? For all I know it's some Joe Smoe at his house writing stuff up. Also, in the future, sign any posts you make on any talk page by typing ~~~~ Give me more info on this website. Ctjf83Talk 07:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that website is a piece of junk. Apparently they only take stories from the Times and news channels, and make links to it, which don't even work. I clicked on 5 different stories, and none led me to a story, just a messed up Times page that just lists the menus from the Times page Ctjf83Talk 07:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bettendorf and "Quints"

Husky Huskie obviously hasn't seen any Broadcasting magazine issues from the early-to-mid-50s. In one 1953 yearbook, WOC-TV (now KWQC) ran an ad promoting the "Quint Cities", with Bettendorf included.

So the area was probably known popularly as the "Quad Cities" long before 1953, IYAM.192.220.136.75 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I certainly have not seen any such issues. And I gladly defer to the anon's greater knowledge of the subject. I rely on what I was told, growing up in the area, as well as the references that I have encountered over the years. I agree that, if KWQC was promoting Quint Cities in 1953, then logically it must have been "Quad Cities" long before that. But when I left the area, in the late 1970s, I recall most people regarding the Quint idea as a fairly recent moniker interloper. I suppose they were as wrong as I.

Might the anon have the means to take a digital photo of such a page for us all to see? I ask, not out of disbelief (I have no intention of reverting), but just simple curiosity. Thanks! HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bridge photo

My single biggest disappointment with this article is the photo of the I-74 bridge. Yes, it's near the geographic center of the Quads, yes, it does represent the unity of the Quads, but friends, it's an ugly picture. I've tried to be more subtle in my criticism earlier, and I know that for those who have lived here, it's potentially a neat sight. But to the outside world, I'm telling you, it looks absolutely dreary. What does the viewer--who has never before visited the Quad Cities--see in this picture? For openers, she sees a low-resolution photo, so we can't expand it to see any bridge detail. Worse yet, she sees a virtually empty parking lot in the foreground. And though the picture is looking in an upwards direction, there's not even a hint of blue in the sky. It looks like a new History Channel series: Quad Cities: After People.

Please consider removing this or at least taking it down into the Tranportation section of the article. If I still lived in the area, I'd do something--anything--else, but that's not an option for me now. Hell, a screen capture from Bing Maps bird's eye view would look about a hundred times better than this. I mean no offense to the photographer--when the picture was taken, over four years ago, our standards were lower. But this picture not only fails to make the region proud, it fails the basic expectation that Wikipedia has of its photographs, that said photographs enhance the articles in which they are used. I'm afraid that the bridge picture, at least where it's used currently, does not do this. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest I take for a photo? That isn't my photo, but I can retake a 74 pic...not sure where a good spot would be, besides the middle of the river, which with no boat, I can't do. Perhaps from the Abbey Hotel? CTJF83 pride 05:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Another 74 pic would be fine. The Abbey would be okay from a height standpoint, but think about the angle you're getting there--won't you basically be looking down the roadway? Doesn't seem to show the bridge so well. You know anyone who can get you in to RICC? Maybe a little stroll off grounds could end up on the shoreline and yield a picture just like you were on a boat. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

True on the Abbey, RICC? I suppose I could try from the deck at the Isle of Capri Casino. CTJF83 pride 20:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

RICC--I don't remember what it's called, the golf course on the island next to the armory. Anyway, by the Capri might be good, too, as long as you can get up high enough. Can you walk onto the top of the levee, or is it fenced off? HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for moving the picture. Sorry if I sounded bitchy. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You made a good point about the photo, there was a lot of empty space. I don't know anyone who can get on the arsenal golf course, I assume is it restricted. I can check on the levy and see if it is accessible, and I will try the boat, which I know I can get on the 3rd floor deck. I'll take several and see which looks the best. Do you wanna help me clean up this article and get it to GA? CTJF83 pride 20:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:HuskyHuskie has been summoned to a secret mission in Siberia and will be unavailable for serious article work for an indefinite period of time. Sorry.
Sincerely, HuskyHuskie's answering machine.

Steps to good article status

I would love to see this move up to Good Article status. One of the first steps, it would seem to me, would be to pare down the lists, which dominate the article, in my view. The Landmarks list should not include anything that does not have its own article, for example. But even more importantly, the content of the lists need to be turned into prose, which requires expansion, which requires work, which I am not prepared to do. My time in the Quads was over thirty years ago, and it was not long, so I simply don't have the knowledge base to start. But I'd like to see it happen--this is a special area, and needs to be better known (which means, ultimately, I'd like to see it go to FA, of course). HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Small towns

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I want to put it out there to other QC editors: We've got a paragraph that reads as follows:

In addition to the five anchor cities, the Quad Cities area is comprised of surrounding smaller communities. Examples include the Iowa cities of Eldridge, Long Grove, Park View, Blue Grass, Buffalo, Montpelier, Walcott, Maysville, McCausland, Mount Joy, New Liberty, Pleasant Valley, Princeton, LeClaire, Panorama Park and Riverdale. The Illinois communities are Silvis, Milan, Andalusia, Carbon Cliff, Coal Valley, Colona, Geneseo, Hampton, Port Byron, Orion, Kewanee, Annawan, Aledo, and Rapids City.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think this is necessary. We can argue endlessly about which towns belong and which don't, but the article on Chicago doesn't list all of the "smaller communities" in its orbit. It's enough that in this article we list the five principal cities, and if all these other communities need to be listed, let it be at Davenport-Moline-Rock Island Metropolitan Statistical Area. That's my thinking, anyway. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

100% agree, the QC should just refer to the 5 cities, and the metro area would include everything else. CTJF83 chat 02:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

These communities should be listed somewhere. Unfortunately, at present, the proposal to list them under the MSA won't work because the MSA redirects to this very Quad Cities article (this may be anouther issue for discussion). If reduction is desired, we could list the counties as the census defines this MSA (Scott, Rock Island, Henry, and Mercer). These county pages could then list appropropriate communities or contain the link bar at the bottom of the page containing all tagged communities. In fact this QC page could use these tags as well, as appropriate.--Powerten (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why should these communities be listed here? Does the article on NYC list the suburbs in the tri-state area? As for the problem with the MSA article, well, then, fix it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've checked. Neither Chicago nor New York City contain anything resembling a list of their suburbs. This just looks so parochial. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Check out Quad Cities Metropolitan Area

 Done

I consider the problem resolved, or at least I will as soon as I delete the small towns from this article. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Executed

Just to make it clear, this edit was mine, and was based upon the above comments from six months ago. It was a big edit, and I wouldn't want someone to presume that it was an anon doing vandalism just because it was a big edit for which I forgot to sign in. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Quint cities info

I understand and respect the reasoning behind this edit by User:Patchyreynolds. However, given the history of editing at this article, I'm going to disagree. You see, this article has been the source of much confusion, since it is about a group of five cities who use an appellation which clearly refers to "four". Accordingly, there have been well-intentioned editors who have come in and tried to change this to read "a group of four cities", sometimes even removing one of the five from the list. The reason I think this section needs to stay up in the lead is because there needs to be an acknowledgement at the top of the article of a paradox that must certainly confuse anyone not familiar with the situation. So I'm going to put it back up there, but am open to further discussing the matter. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what feels extraneous in the lead right now is a lengthy section discussing this. Can we not cut that reference down to a helpful few words (thus dissuading any well-meaning but erroneous editors) and place the rest of the information in the history section? ThtrWrtr (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What specifically do you mean? CTJF83 17:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Right now 2/3 of the lead is occupied explaining why five cities go under the name "Quad Cities." The lead really isn't the place to go into this in detail. It strikes me that a very quick explanation (with the more detailed info at the approprite place in this history section) will weight it better. ThtrWrtr (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. Ctjf, my flaming friend, do you mind if I have a go at reducing the second paragraph, with the aim to preserve the explanation of the name? HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do, I won't be able to do much til Saturday afternoon. CTJF83 12:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

How are we looking now? HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Population

The population for the Quad Cities Metropolitan Area is listed as exactly the same as the Quad Cities, at 379,690. There must either be more people in the QC Metropolitan Area, or less in the Quad Cities. How can we fix this? Ericaparrott (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, the combined populations of the 5 cities adds up to 253,408. Unless anyone objects, I plan to change the listed population from 379,690 to 253,408 in the next few days. Ericaparrott (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am 110% okay with you doing that, and I don't think you need to wait. But you should be aware that there are moronic wikilawyers out there that may accuse you of violating the rules agains original research for undertaking this initiative. Having said that, I've got your back, and I'm guessing most fair-minded people will support you as well. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Did either of you bother to click on the reference I have for an explanation? [3] CTJF83 00:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the Quad Cities just the 5 cities, but the entire area. And since no one will ever agree on which cities to include/exclude, I just went with the US Census official metro area population. CTJF83 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, CT, no, I did not see that note. But CT, we did decide--about a year and a half ago--to count just the five. You were a big part of the decision. And that's why we ended up creating the article on the metro area in the first place. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Done! It may help to include the metro population as well, as seen on other city pages. Ericaparrott (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, forgot about that. CTJF83 02:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if we are just using the population of the 5 cities, we shouldn't be misusing the metropolitan table. It's confusing for populations. CTJF83 02:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I defer to your judgement. Go have at it. Oh, and thanks for this edit. That had always bugged me. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

? Get rid of the table or find a different one? CTJF83 03:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's a good question. Is there another table that could work? It's certainly an unusual situation. Where else does a situation like this exist? HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure CTJF83 23:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy: Number of bridges across the Mississippi

The article states "A total of six bridges connect Iowa with Illinois in the Quad Cities across the Mississippi River." However, I clicked on the provided citation and it was an article that said there were five bridges. Does anybody know which is correct? Kansan (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Having lived here 29 years, I know it is 5. CTF83! 00:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well there is a railroad bridge which would make the total 6. CTF83! 00:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Noteworthy citizens, Theatres, Noteworthy companies

I would love to see Quad Cities someday be listed as a Good Article, or even an FA, but the direction it's taking right now is the opposite.

Well intentioned editors are turning this into a series of lists, which is simply not appropriate.

• It started quite some time ago with the list of Noteworthy companies. I thought about taking some action on this before, and if I had investigated it further, I know I would have at least pruned the list of every company on the list that is not headquartered in the QC. In fact, I'm not even sure such a list should exist at all, but instead we should probably have an "Economy" section and whatever companies can be incorporated into the prose of such a section would stay. This would require more than just a sentence stating the company exists within the QC, perhaps stating given company's significance to the community, along with a source supporting this significance.

• Now we've had Noteworthy citizens to the list. This is not the first community based article which has confronted the issue of whether to include noteworthy citizens. If you look at Chicago and New York City, I doubt you'll find such a list. Why? Because those cities are of such note by themselves that it would be beneath the article to add famous denizens. But if you look at Polo, Illinois, or Rochelle, Illinois, you will find a notable person or two listed. Why? Because they are tiny towns that no one would expect anyone to be from. So the question is, how do denizens of the Quad Cities think of themselves? As podunk villagers who want to boast about their famous residents, or as inhabitants of a sizable metropolitan area that doesn't need to aggrandize themselves in their Wikipedia article. I suspect that nothing I say will provoke a consensus to delete the section altogether, but if it does stay, I would still suggest pruning the list. Here's some things I would think about:

1. Persons whose claim to fame is based upon the very fact that they were residents of the Quad Cities simply should not be included, because it's simply too obvious and leads to far too many inclusions. For example, Ambrose Burke was probably a spectacular individual, and being president of Saint Ambrose does warrant a Wikipedia article, but are we going to include in our list here every collegiate president of St. Ambrose and and every president of Augustana, not to mention the lesser schools in the area?
2. Persons on the list should probably be people whose renown is national or international.
3. Persons on the list should add a "wow" factor to the article, as in, "Wow, I think of Bruce Springstein as being from New Jersey, I'm surprised to learn that his childhood was spent in Rock Island."

• The Theatres section should almost certainly be excised completely. I respectfully suggest that any list consisting of items that do not have their own articles is simply gunk. (As a matter of my own ignorance, I do hope that all the theatres listed are places where plays are performed, not where movies are shown. The latter would be no different than including a list of grocery stores.)

So those are my most objective thoughts on the matter. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

An example

Okay, so today to the "Noteworthy citizens" list has been added John Deere. Now that certainly would strike most of us as being not only a reasonable inclusion, but one of the most important ones, right?

No.

There's two reasons that I can think of why Deere should not be included on this list.

1. At the simplest level, there's the fact that Deere lived half of his life elsewhere. I don't know if Green Staters consider him to be a Vermontian, but I know that where I grew up, we took great pride in the fact that Deere's greatest advance took place at Grand Detour, Illinois; we grew up knowing that Deere a) invented the steel plow in our neck of the woods, b) founded a famous tractor company. In other words, there are other places that could call him a "noteworthy citizen" as well, though I readily acknowledge that Moline's claim is probably the best. But that's another thing--Deere was less a QCer than he was a Molinian (he was the mayor of Moline, but I don't even know if he ever crossed the Mississippi).
2. The second reason is a bit more complex, but I alluded to it in my post the other day. Any listing of "Noteworthy citizens" should abstain from the obvious names whose claim to fame is associated with the community. Deere IS a major figure in the history of the Quad Cities, but that fact should be included as a part of a section on the impact of John Deere, the company, on the economy and history of the QC, not as part of some long bulleted list. Anyone whose contribution can be written into the prose of the article should be included in that manner, not included in a list. I would reserve the list for people who come as a surprise to the ordinary (read: non-QC) reader. For example, if Elizabeth Taylor was from the QC, that would merit mention, I suppose.

I see no one has yet responded to my post from a few days ago. I know this is not heavily edited (which is disappointing), so I can be patient. But eventually, these lists are going to have to undergo radical change; they are not the way to write the encylopedia. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Noteworthy citizens revisited

Six months later and no one has even commented on this topic. Well, this list has simply gotten too long, period. As I've said already, these people should be on this list only if they have importance to the Quad Cities in toto, not to the individual citizens. As it is, this list is a pox on this article. I've waited six months, I'm going to take some steps today. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this list is really suspect. I just noticed that Ronald Reagan is listed as a Davenportian. Really? Really? Given that he was born in Tampico, was raised in Dixon, went to college in Eureka, and spent pretty much his entire adult life in California (from 1937-2004, minus, I suppose, 8 years in the White House), the five years or so that he spent in total in Iowa, doesn't necessarily make him seem like a Quad City denizen to me, you know?

So how do we determine who belongs here? People who were born here? People who were raised here? People who were on the Greyhound from Cleveland to San Francisco and took a dump in Moline? People who died here?

It seems to me that that there is really only one type of person that needs to be listed as a "Noteworthy citizen" of the Quad Cities. That is, people who, regardless of where they were born or raised, became noteworthy by virtue of whatever they did in the Quad Cities. But even this list grows too long. I think that someone famous for what they did in Rock Island belongs in the article at Rock Island, Illinois instead of here, unless what they did had an impact on the entire metro area of the QC. John Deere might actually be an example, despite what I've said before. Sure, he was a Molinian, but his plant had a huge impact on the whole QC. That's the basis on which I'm going to pursue this issue. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In the future feel free to put a note on my talk page, as I had missed your post 6 months ago, due to my infrequency of editing now, and we are really the only 2 who frequent this page. I've lived here 29 years and never heard of Cobham plc, so not sure why it is listed. I think it should be limited to either companies headquartered here, or major employers in the area, ie Alcoa. I'm not even sure Hungry Hobo needs a Wikipedia page, let alone mention here. The people aspect is a bit more tricky. They definitely need to be in paragraph form like I did for Davenport. I don't know what inclusion criteria should be. Reagan on the surface shouldn't be included, but his start at WOC lead him to Des Moines and then as an announcer for the Cubs...so did that launch is TV career? I'd say unless he was here several years and a source saying WOC launched his media career, he shouldn't be listed...other than that, let's figure out some criteria. CTF83! 01:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly busy right now, and editing minimually, but I hope to have some time around the upcoming solstice to spend on pet projects. You're not obligated to wait for me, but if we will be working together (which I would very much like), it'll have to wait until then. Thanks for asking. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, let me know. CTF83! 05:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't part of the above discussion, but it is about the Noteworthy residents list, so I'm putting it here. Someone removed Red Auerbach from the list, claiming he never lived in the Quad Cities. As can be seen from a simple Google search - and also from the Wiki page on the Wharton_Field_House, Auerbach coached the Tri-City Blackhawks from 1949-1950 - during which time they (and he) were based in Moline, IL. Here's an article quoting him directly, and even giving his address in Moline at the time. http://qctimes.com/sports/auerbach-enjoyed-tri-cities/article_08f720fe-f87a-52f1-9519-065fd09b26d8.html

Also by the criteria above - which I don't agree with entirely but assuming that were a consensus - that Auerbach coached an NBA team based in Moline, would certainly qualify his residency in the Quad Cities as noteworthy unto itself. Therefore I have reversed this edit. CleverTitania (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quad Cities. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100313010559/http://eastmoline.com:80/Mayor.cfm to http://www.eastmoline.com/Mayor.cfm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 12:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Straddling

Wikipedia apparently has a lot of articles that are secretly about sex. A few examples:

• Lake Powell
• Stanstead, Quebec
• United States Post Office and Courthouse (Texarkana, Arkansas-Texas)
• Sebewa Township, Michigan
• Plio-Pleistocene
• Llanymynech
• Florida State Road 852
• Palmerston, Northern Territory

And the list goes on. There are literally dozens of articles that use the word "straddling" in the same sense as it has been used in this article.

Now, I'm not wedded* to the use of "straddling" in this article, it can be changed if there's a good reason. But one person's misunderstanding of one word does not constitute a good reason.

* I apologize if "wedded" may appear to have a "slight sexual connotation". I didn't mean it that way.

Wow, chill out. I didn't say those articles or this one are "secretly about sex" or that anything secretive is going on at all. I'm just saying that most people are going to read that and snicker about how weird that sounds. There are several definitions of the word "straddle" (most words have multiple definitions), so I haven't misunderstood the word, but one of it's biggest uses is the sexual one. This isn't a war and wikipedia isn't about taking sides and winning. One doesn't need a ground-breaking reason to make a simple copyedit when "located on" works just as well (I'd argue better) and doesn't sound as awkward and weird as "straddling." Jeez, lighten up. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I apologize for placing a section here on talk and not checking back for responses. I've just been busy.

Now let's consider your comment, most people are going to read that and snicker about how weird that sounds. Really? Really? Then do you think that there are dozens, maybe hundreds of articles using that verbiage, for no reason? Or is it shared joke? If "most" people were reacting the way you are, if most people thought it awkward or snickered when they read it, how do you account for its widespread use? If your perception was shared by any significant number of people, I think these many, many instances of the usage in Wikipedia would have disappeared long ago. I have no desire to inject hidden meaning into our encyclopedia. I just want the articles to be accurate and written well.

Which brings us to your preferred term, "located on". I would submit that St. Louis, Missouri, is "located on" the Mississippi River and that Cincinnati, Ohio, is "located on" the Ohio River. Neither of them straddles those rivers because that term indicates location on both sides of the river. Your inability to see this distinction, combined with your personal invective against this term (in the face of abundant evidence that the perception that the term is objectionable is anything but widespread), force me to once again revert.

I said when I started this section that I do not have a need to keep this term in the article, but on principle I am not going to allow the editing of Wikipedia to be dictated by (what has the appearance of) prudery. I asked for a good reason, and all you did was share the contents of your own mind. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What I suggested was not "located on" but "located on both sides of". I don't see what the problem with that is since you yourself just said it was correct. But this seems like trying to "win" the game of wikipedia more than anything else. It's a single word and it's not that big of a deal. You didn't respond, so I went ahead and changed it. This might qualify for one of the lamest arguments ever, so I won't continue contesting the word straddling. I think we could both spend our time better on other things. And you should really take a chill pill with all these claims about "secret messages" or "injecting hidden meaning" and ""inability to see this distinction combined with your personal invective" and "share the contents of your own mind". Chill out. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason I said your "preferred" version was "located on" instead of "located on both sides" is because

1. that's exactly what you said in your edit of October 27: One doesn't need a ground-breaking reason to make a simple copyedit when "located on" works just as well (I'd argue better), and
2. that's what you did in your edit of October 22.

But I acknowledge that you did (after I gave a reason for objecting) change it to "located on both sides". My point is, however, that you have displayed a lack of appreciation for the difference.

I also note that you still have never addressed the fact that this usage is completely ordinary in the eyes of most Wikipedians. My point in talking about "the contents of your own mind" is that, in the absence of refuting my idea that this is completely unobjectionable (or even notable) to most people, is that your objection says more about you than it does about the article.HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This conversation would be funny, if it weren't so silly. There are easily tens of more common uses of straddle, than sexual uses. I'd roll my eyes at my 19 year old, if he snickered at the word straddle. I can't imagine anyone thinking that most English-speaking adults would instinctively associate the word with sex - you might as well argue that the word "mount" is more commonly associated with sex than any other topic, which would be an equally ridiculous assertion. CleverTitania (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have not logged onto wikipedia for a while but just want to correct the record a little bit here.

I think you two are hyper-focusing on the way that I described my objection to the phrasing more than the objection itself, and to be fair it probably wasn't the best way to object, but I still think it sounds weird all this time later. It's not really about the connotation, it just sounds forced or unnatural more than anything (if the connotation was about death for instance, that might have a similar effect). In my opinion, when the casual reader reads that sentence, it interrupts their stream of thought (and they may or may not think about other connotations - but that's not the important part, the interruption is). Would most people say it that way in a real life? You'd only write it that way in a medium in which you're supposed to use a certain tone. And that's inherently stylistic and linguistically dogmatic. I'd argue that that's not how wikipedia articles should be written (in this case at least, not every time an inherently stylistic and linguistically dogmatic phrase that probably wouldn't be used in everyday conversation is written). I'm pretty sure that if I perused the style guide again for the section that talks about euphemisms and idioms, I'd find something in the ballpark of what I'm talking about.

But at the end of the day, it was the most simple of simple copyedits. It's not even a small deal nevermind a big deal. I don't care if the phrase is changed, but my edit says nothing about me or my state of mind, or whatever else you two are intimating. What does it say about you that you cared to revert it and bothered to argue against it, while appearing to agree that the other phrasing works just as well, with the reason for the revert being a "displayed lack of appreciation for the difference." Yes, other editors appreciation of something or lack thereof is exactly what you should take into account when reverting, and maybe their brief explanation in the edit summary. Definitely not the article itself. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Alcoa -> Arconic Switch

Disclosure: I am a future employee of Arconic. Edits are entirely mine, and not done on behalf of the company.

Just made a relatively minor edit to clarify the Aluminum plant is currently owned by Arconic. Should I have switched both references from Alcoa to Arconic? I was torn because from founding until Nov. 1 2016 the facility was owned by Alcoa, so I kept the first reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toulmeet (talk • contribs) 12:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)