Talk:Louisville Museum Plaza

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Museums Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Architecture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Kentucky / Louisville Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (assessed as Mid-importance).

Note there is no official method for citing sources, per

, as they are not required per policy. "They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text. Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus."

Let's come to a consensus first before changing reference styles. It adds a considerable amount of text and space that is wasted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaner formatted references are more important than "wasted space", which is rather minimal. Using the templates has become the norm, and that's what we need to use, wherever applicable.

Talk • Work 16:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no norm, per

WP:RFC if you want additional comments, but edit warring over this would not help (and would be more fodder for your 3RR page). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Why are you being so nasty (all of a sudden) on this minor matter? Clearly, the references as they stand now are very dirty. Why do you want dirty references in this particular article?

Talk • Work 16:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

There are a variety of formatting options available. Removals or changeovers require consensus, which you failed to achieve. Plus, with additional edit warring, I did not want this to be another addition to the 3RR page that's still active (better to play it safe). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask for my assistance on any future matters. What you are staking out is untenable and indicates a

Talk • Work 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry if you don't want to play by the policies at

WP:CITET. Too bad they are well defined. You have an equal chance to achieve consensus and debate. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry that there's a lack of reason on this minor matter. As I said, keep your dirty references.

Talk • Work 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I see you don't want to abide by

WP:RFC if you want comments. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Continued at

User talk:Stevietheman#Citing sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

What is with all this drama? I think we should use the standard citation templates. Currently they look bad for no apparent reason, primarily because they seem to be displaying the date the article was published twice. We shouldn't have to discuss endlessly every time we want to cross a T or dot an I... --W.marsh 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set standard for citing sources. As explained, there is a wide variety of citation methods. Per policy, a consensus must be reached before a changeover can occur, hence why I requested an RFC, to which he refuted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a need to make such a case out of every time someone wants to use the citation templates? This is rules lawyering and silly... 2 editors want to use the templates for a stated reason, 1 doesn't apparently for no reason except that "per policy" they don't have to... using the citation templates is supported by rough consensus, and just makes sense here. --W.marsh 02:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...make such a case out of every time..." This is the first instance, and I am only following by what it states. If you want to debate that, do it there, not here. Using the citations is not supported by "rough consensus" or else it would be clearly stated there. In fact, it is partial either way, but consensus must be reached before a changeover occurs. It's very clear in that. Once again, debate that there, not here. Let's leave this for Museum Plaza-only topics, not whether you want to debate what's clearly stated on that page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that two editors here support using templates on this article, with a reason. One editor doesn't, apparently without a reason. We're supposed to go to the citation talk page to talk about whether we use templates on the museum plaza page? I am not sure you're really understanding my point here. You wanted an RFC on this page about using templates, now you're saying we should only discuss the museum plaza here? I think you're just paying too much attention to doing what you think some page says you need to do, rather than actually figuring out what's best for the museum plaza article. --W.marsh 03:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be a reason to use one method over another? I don't have a problem if Stevie uses his system, as long as he doesn't elaborate on expanding mine. Did you check just the amount of space the templates used up? It was quite extensive and broke up the page in editing. When you use a smaller monitor (15") at a library, it can take up the entire editing window...

And there is no "Seicer" editing per what Stevie states. It's Harvard referencing, sans me italicing, and straight from the Modern Language Association format (MLA). I prefer to use automatic Wikipedia footnotes system instead of the Harvard footnote method for sheer simplicity.

Now, while all this bickering has ensued, I've updated the page with very important content regarding its financing and the future of the project. I've rearranged a section, and edited sections for clarity. Can't we go back to editing content rather than bickering over this minute issue? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having an RFC on this matter is a ridiculous notion. The way I see it, if Seicer doesn't even agree to use a standard format (instead of the 'Seicer' format), even without using the template (which isn't the ultimate issue really), then I would say there's a clear violation of

]

You went to college. You know all about the Harvard referencing method which is fully supported on Wikipedia. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a Harvard journal. Please change the references to the Wikipedia standard. Standards help with readability in a body of work. Why do you insist on being different from everyone else? And no, I'm not going to stop "complaining" here, nor have I stopped editing other articles. Why don't you just look at this matter fairly and allow the cite templates in? After that, I promise I won't complain any more. Again, you're violating

Talk • Work 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you still ignoring

WP:CITET

? Let me reiteriate what they have posted as options for referencing -- and note, there is no one "standard."

From

WP:CITE#How to cite sources

--

* Embedded HTML links

* Harvard referencing

* Footnotes

* Full citations

* Citation templates (which you wish to switch to)

From

WP:CITET

, which was clearly explained to you --

* "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines. They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text. Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus."

WP:CITET? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Also from

WP:CITE

--

"Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor."

While I follow the Harvard referencing system, I apply them to footnotes, which is fully supported --

"Some publications use footnotes for both the full citation of a source, and for additional comments or information of interest to the reader."

I may actually switch new articles and all future formatting to the

footnote 3 system, which is supported by Wikipedia. It's a template-based system and is easier to use. After looking at it more extensively, it is the same as the current ref method, albeit more complicated. It is also depreciated in some uses. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

From

WP:FN#Converting citation styles

--

"Converting citation styles should not be done without first gaining consensus for the change on the article's talk page."

"Similarly, individual users may be forbidden to "manually convert citation styles on any articles." ... So, tread lightly, and seek consensus first, before converting citation styles."

Certain styles are forbidden, but they were replaced with updated versions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.marsh and I appear to be on the same side with this, making it a 2-to-1 consensus. Please change the references back to the template standard. Stop violating

]

Per

policy

--

"Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When polling is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus."

One 'vote' from Marsh is hardly a consensus. We need more in-depth discussions regarding this in order to build a stronger consensus. I'll open up a

mediation cabal inquiry tonight to solve this issue or at the very least, initiate more discussion. My edits to this article, in terms of referencing, are legitimate and are supported per guidelines on Wikipedia, as cited numerous times above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Please also stop the wiki-lawyering. The idea that we need some kind of deep discussion on this kind of matter, where this article unusually uses a kind of citation hardly any other article is using is ludicrous. When will you be changing the citations back?

Talk • Work 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

See

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Citing sources. "Wiki-layering"? You mean, citing policies and guidelines? How is that so bad? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You are clearly abusing policy and guidelines to foist an unreasonable position on others. That is wiki-lawyering. I have full confidence that citation templates will be what will end up in this article, no matter what path we take. So why keep wasting our time with this? I will check back tomorrow to verify you have changed the citations back.

Talk • Work 01:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Has the mediation case been opened yet? By the way, I think almost anyone would agree that my vote counts too, so it is indeed 2 to 1 at this time. Perhaps I will grant you that 3 to 1 would be a better consensus, but you cannot discount my vote. The issue is not that the citations provided aren't valid, it's that they are unusual, and unnecessarily different from that used in most articles. There's no special reason to use Harvard style citations in an article about a future building. You have not to date provided a rationale for using this style over the common one.

]

Yes, it's been open for quite a while. I encouraged you to participate in it above a while back. An agreement was reached - please see the case. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wasn't informed of it, I don't quite think this is appropriate.

Talk • Work 16:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Brochure quotations

The overall structure and content of this article (except the cites) is of high quality, but the quotations give the article a brochure feel, and I don't think this is appropriate for the Wikipedia. I think they should be removed.

]

I added them in at a time when the project was a "sure-go" from the developers. They can be removed without any content-harm; feel free to go ahead. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this dispute still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 01:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it still is. I'm seeking an explanation as to why the Harvard-style citations are being used instead of using the standard cite templates -- certainly there is a rationale for it but it hasn't been offered as of yet. Further, I believe there is currently a 2-to-1 consensus in favor of using the templates. Thank you for your assistance.

Talk • Work 16:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It's been covered in the Cabal. As far as I know, since I submitted the request, I will consider it closed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was never provided a link to the case, so I didn't even know it was open. I just provided responses to the case.

Talk • Work 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

On deeper review, it appears a link was given, but because I'm not concentrating much on Wikipedia lately, I just didn't realize that it was a link to an open case. I was thinking it was a link to a former case or guideline. That's what I get for going on wikibreak.

Talk • Work 17:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Since the original submitter wants it closed, I will close it. If you want it reopened, leave a note on my talk page. --Ideogram 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This project is dead and they're trying to sell the site. Why is this page not reflecting that? AEGON will remain Louisville's tallest for the foreseeable future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.217.124 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to back up the assertion that the project is dead?

Talk • Work 02:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe there was a C-J article that stated that financing was holding up the project (the same story we've been hearing for months), but "dead"? For now, yes. I'll see if I can find it on SSP. seicer | talk | contribs 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's official. The project has been abandoned by its planners. Here is the link to an article where the obvious is finally admitted: [Developers scrap plans for Louisville's Museum Plaza, Louisville Courier-Journal, August 2, 2011]

What is the point of this statement in the article: "it would also be taller than any building in Cincinnati, Columbus, Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City (until completion of Devon Tower in 2012), Jacksonville, Baltimore, San Antonio, Austin, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Kansas City, San Diego, or St. Louis."? Phizzy 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]