Jump to content

Talk:Peoria, Arizona

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

Untitled

[edit]

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Old Town Area.JPG

[edit]

Image:Old Town Area.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gl-peoarch27.jpg

[edit]

Image:Gl-peoarch27.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:City Hall Complex.JPG

[edit]

Image:City Hall Complex.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Challenger Space Center.JPG

[edit]

Image:Challenger Space Center.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Peoria, Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silly debate over line in opening

[edit]

No, it's not a debate as of yet, but I get the feeling it will be so I'll just jump in head first. So, gonna lay my cards out on the table. There is a line I have attempted to modify twice to add clarity to a statement in the article. The line is “Peoria is now larger in population than its namesake.” I added a short clarification as to why and it was reverted without no note as to the reason of the reversion. I added it again only to have it reverted, now with an expectation of a citation. Here is what I would like it to say that another user thinks is violation of WP:OR

“Peoria is now larger in population than its namesake, but this is due to being three times the size in land area, as it has approximately one third of the population density.”

I ask how that constitutes original research… I So, as for Onel5969’s request that I add an inline citation… Citation for what? Simple math? The statistical facts supporting my addition are right there at the side of the article. City sq. mileage, population, population density… All you have to do is read. And if that’s not good enough for you, then the line I am modifying should be omitted altogether as it has no citation either. The line is a statement about the comparison of the article’s subject in relation to the subject’s namesake. And while it’s even questionable why a statement is even in the article, let alone the opening, its information is misleading, as judging by the line alone, Peoria AZ seems like a “bigger city.” Almost seems intentional.

Which brings me to my next point. Why does it matter? Well, Peoria AZ is a suburb of Phoenix, which logically accounts for its size as it is largely a residential town. Its physical size (area) is three times that of its namesake. And, as population and population density are listen on both pages, it is easily seen that the IL city is nearly 3 times as dense, and covers about 1/3 the area. Peoria IL is a standalone metropolitan city with greater history and social, economic, and industrial importance. It is the central hub of Illinois, and one of the most important cities in the Midwest. It has what one may call suburbs like Chillicothe, E. Peoria, Pekin, Morton, Metamora, etc.

So, yes, I know all of this is irrelevant to the AZ page, but it is relevant to the connotation behind the line I have twice tried to modify. The connotation is such that, as I said before, and as the line is a lone statement of comparison, that the AZ city is in some way greater than its predecessor. While this may be true, it is not quantifiable, or qualifiable and to have the sole statistic of population within city limits is pointless. I am fine with removing the comparison altogether as I find it un-encyclopedic. But if it stays, it should clarified to remove what appears to bias. 73.51.83.101 (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, simple math is not WP:OR, but your commentary on that math is, e.g. "but this is due to being three times the size in land area". The fact, regardless of the area, is that Peoria, AZ now has a larger population than its namesake. Who is to say that it wouldn't be more populous even if it was five times smaller? Peoria is a city with a larger population. Period. No ifs, ends or buts. Simple fact. The prior statement is factual, without adding commentary. Your added comment was not clarification, but commentary, drawing a conclusion. An acceptable statement would be "Peoria is now larger in population than its namesake, but with a population density xxxx, as compared to yyyy of Peoria, ??." Those simply state the facts, without making assumptions or commenting on the data. The bias is in your commentary, not the facts. Onel5969 TT me 02:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Who is to say that it wouldn't be more populous even if it was five times smaller?" So, you're saying that if the borders of the city were to be pulled back to the inner-most third, it would still have the same population? Sounds rather illogical. Ahyway, I drew no conclusion. There was no "commentary." I didn't propose the reason that the residents chose to live there. And what I said was not untrue. Perhaps I didn't state it in a way that was as fitting as it should be, but, as I said before, the connotation of superiority is there. By the way, for the record, I claimed no bias in the line itself, but presenting some facts and withholding others is bias. To be quite honest, the "fact" of which city is more populous adds nothing to the article. I mean, I might as well go to Micheal Jordan's page and add in that he made more money in his career than LeBron James. It may be a fact... but as we know, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. But I am not a deletionist, so I figured I'd try to fix it.
Honestly, though, if someone is reading about the AZ city, they don't likely care too much about the IL city. And since "city x is more populous than city y" is actually just a retelling of the facts found on both pages, is it really needed in the heading?73.51.83.101 (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's off topic, plain and simple. A size comparison with Peoria, Illinios is in no way informative to someone seeking info on Peoria, AZ. Its absurdly trivial. Comparing the population of two cities based on their names serves no useful purpose. All the crap about density dies not matter. The into does not belong. End of story. John from Idegon (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But as I said, I'm not a deletionist. If something is there, and it's a poor read, I try to adjust. Obviously not always very well. However, in this case, it should be removed.73.51.83.101 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI Editor

[edit]

Hi PeoriaAZ - Please see WP:COI, there are steps you have to take regarding announcing your Conflict of Interest. In reference to the edits you attempted to make today, there are two issues. First, the edits to the body of the article were unsourced, and were promotional in tone. Those will pretty much be deleted every time. Second, the population numbers are not backed up with a citation from the US Census bureau, so they'll be reverted every time. Only US Census numbers can be used in Wikipedia articles, by consensus of the editors. My suggestion is that if you have information you would like added to the article, and you have a citation for it from an independent, reliable source, ask another editor to make the change to the article. You can do that one of two ways: either leave a message on the talk page of the article, and the next editor who comes along who is willing to make the change will do so; or you can ask an editor directly. But be aware that COI editors are scrutinized on Wikipedia, which attempts to keep neutrality in articles (we don't always succeed, but we do try), and COI editors many times have difficulty remaining neutral. Anyway, hope you understand. Onel5969 TT me 23:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. Please keep my content available for me to access so I can attempt to meet the guidelines. Thank you. PeoriaAZ (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Bo Larsen, city of Peoria PeoriaAZ (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, PeoriaAZ - to access your edits, all you have to do is to go the history page of the article, click on your edit and the edit before it, and your changes will appear. Onel5969 TT me 02:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peoria, Arizona. 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, 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) 03:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General Edits

[edit]

Hello!

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and I wanted to discuss some edits I plan on making to this page. I know a lot about the Metro Phoenix area, and I noticed that the Wikipedia page for Peoria is lacking compared to other cities' pages in the area.

First of all, I noticed that it states on this page that the actress Emma Stone is a "notable resident" of Peoria, AZ. This is something I cannot confirm, and though I can find sources stating that she is from Scottsdale, and owns a home in Paradise Valley, I can find nothing connecting her to Peoria.

Second, I was hoping to add minor details about the city's history that I will provide sources for.

Thank you for any feedback or advice that can be offered! Jcwalte3 (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Pleasant

[edit]

I just added to the article the year (1996) when Lake Pleasant was annexed by Peoria. I found that information here: https://www.peoriaaz.gov/government/departments/arts-culture/historic-preservation/peorias-history/timeline-late-1970s-to-1990s. I'm not good at doing references, or I'd add it myself. Could someone better at references add it? Thanks. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peoria,_Arizona&oldid=1231320798"