Talk:Chattanooga, Tennessee/Archive 1

School system[edit]

Doesn't the comment that the schools "are greatly underfunded" lack NPOV? emw 16:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you consider the fact that there are severe budget problems. If the language of the statement is what you take issue with, what would you suggest? Jaimetout 19:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't live in Chattanooga (anymore), so I don't have firsthand knowledge of the situation. As I read the article, that phrase just stuck out to me as an opinion, not encyclopedic in tone. Your statement that "there are severe budget problems" seems less subjective to me. Are the budget problems within the school district or with the county or state? I think it could be made more clear, but I don't know the facts well enough to do it myself.emw 15:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree. Maybe the schools are well funded, they are just spending too much money. I do not know enough about the situation to modify but it should be modified.--Mercnboy3 15:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a talk page, I feel free to say this: Have you EVER heard of a public school system in the U.S. that is adequately funded? That said, I'd be willing to admit that Chattanooga's school budget problems are probably not any worse than those of anywhere else. Thus, this comment is superfluous and should probably be removed. Everyone agree with that? Jaimetout 21:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for deleting.emw 14:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to work this out. Most of the debate stems from from the citys' private schools. A good fraction of the population (no cite, but I'd guess 7-13%) goes to a private school: the result is going to be a subconscious comparison since the child will probably know at least two other children in private schools. I don't think the underfunding is any different from Knoxville, but the angle is worked up because of the disparity with private schooling. T K E 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph[edit]

Someone needs to completely overhaul the initial paragraph in this article. As a Chattanooga resident, I think it's highly unrepresentative the city we Chattanoogans know and love. I hardly ever hear a train, let alone see one, and that's not why people live in and visit Chattanooga and its surrounding mountains and river. Our downtown is vibrant and fun without obliterating the scenic and environmentally-minded aspects of our city. I moved to Chattanooga for college, but the longer I live here, the more I don't want to leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.182.198 (talk • contribs)

It would have been nice if you had left your name and possibly some concrete suggestions on how to improve the article other than just saying "it sucks and I hate it". --ZekeMacNeil 19:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm also a Chattanoogan, and I don't have a problem at all with the article. I think it's fine and informative, and whether you like it or not, the city is well known for it's history with trains. It sounds like you'd prefer if there was a lavishly written essay on the beauty of the city.--[[User:]] 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Chattanooga also remains one of the largest freight rail hubs in the South. If you don't hear trains, you likely live on the eastern or northern part of the city, the rest is covered by rail. TKE 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph is kinda crappy because there's no mention of any distances from any major cities, such as Nashville, Atlanta or Birmingham. I've lived in Chattanooga all my life and when people from out of town ask me where do I live, they are confused to where Chattanooga is. I feel it's important for people to be able to know roughly where Chattanooga is. Also, some of the information have grammatical errors. Jay (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the first paragraph slightly to tell the distances from Chattanooga to major cities, such as Atlanta, Nashville and Birmingham. I have also modified the grammar slightly. Please do not edit this or remove this from the article. Thanks. Jay (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm repeating my warning to not modify any information I have added to the first paragraph because I feel the information clarifies things for people who are not natives of Chattanooga or people who do not know of Chattanooga very well. Again, please do not remove the word "near", as in near the state border with Georgia. Thanks! Jay (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had trouble trying to add citations for the 2008 city and metro population update in the sidebar. If you can help me and the readers of this article out, I thank you in advance! Jay (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the cite,and see if I can fix it. It takes a while to get used to the cite formats used,and there are actually several ways to do it, to even make it mor confusing.\

Again, please stop asking people not to change your work, especially if it's wrong or incorrect - If you make edits to WP, you accept that they can be changed - read the disclaimer on every edit screen. I have no problem with you adding the distances, but that's not what I've been trying to correct. Also, Chattanooga is not near the Georgia State boarder, it is actually on it. Also, since Nashville is linked in the first sentence, it does not need to be linked again in the reast of the Lead section, per WP:OVERLINKING. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I have had trouble trying to move the population density below both the 2008 population estimates for the city and metro area. I think it would look more aesthetically pleasing if the population density was below both the city and metro area populations. If you are able to help, I thank you in advance! Jay (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the citations for any of this? It's good and useful knowledge but I'd love to know where it came from? (Morgan Ausbrooks, UTC, 2018)

I'm in Cleveland right next to Chatt and i think the article is (for the most part) fine. Chewie1138 (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chattanooga's History[edit]

I was rereading the history section and I realized that there was no information about Chattanooga's incorporation or anything of Chattanooga's early history beyond the American Indians affair. I and others would like to know more about Chattanooga's history before the War Between the States. Many other cities have that kind of information; why not Chattanooga, too? Jay (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bms4880 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional info, Bms4880. Jay (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Could anyone add a map of Chattanooga within Hamilton County? Thanks. Jay (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Could someone add a map of Chattanooga within Hamilton County? That would be cool and also make the article similar to other articles about cities and would be even more informative about Chattanooga for non-residents and residents alike. Jay (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last half of the last paragraph under History is badly mangled with long sentences and fragmented delivery. For example:

"in addition to winning various national and regional awards, Chattanooga was the profile city of the August 2007 edition of US Airways Magazine, Volkswagen announced the construction of its first U.S. auto plant in over three decades, the Volkswagen Chattanooga Assembly Plant, in July 2008, Chattanooga was ranked 8th out of America's 100 largest metro areas for the best "Bang For Your Buck" city, according to Forbes magazine, which measured overall affordability, housing rates, and more, in December 2009, and got the first one gigabit a second Internet service in the United States in September 2010 through the city-owned utility of EPB, among other major events."

What the hell does this mean? Please translate to proper English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packzap (talk • contribs) 20:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section "20th" century, they could be in order so it's easier on the eye. Also this could be added to much more about how much Chattanooga is expanding. You could talk about the river front festival, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganausbrooks (talk • contribs) 22:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City Size[edit]

After the last edit in which a user changed the beginning text to state that Chattanooga is the 4th largest city in Tennessee rather than the 2nd, could someone find some supporting evidence for one or the other? Are we measuring city size by population or by area? ElfWord 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Population. Memphis, Nashville, and Knoxville are bigger. Mike H. That's hot 04:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under geography the neighborhood section could use a complete overhaul if you were trying o find something. I know Highland park is drastically expanding and being renovated *gentrified* (Morgan Ausbrooks, 2018, UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganausbrooks (talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regards to population therefore it is the fourth largest after Nashville, Memphis, and Knoxville. Chewie1138 (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline pic[edit]

Shouldn't the skyline pic be near the top, like other city articles? Jacksonville, Miami, New Orleans... Mike H. That's hot 06:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone find a better skyline shot, that one is not representative at all. I can't even tell where that was taken from... Kerry W 15:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no skyline shot before, and I took it from Ruby Falls, so it isn't going to have a good focus. My motto is "Work with what you have," so I don't really appreciate the criticism. Mike H. That's hot 20:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's better than my cellphone picture of FEMA trailers rolling through on rail that I almost uploaded! Happy editing, T e ke 19:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetization to conform with Wiki standards needed[edit]

Someone needs to alphabetize the Notable residents section to conform with Wiki standards. Although this article is relatively well-done, there are other Manual of Style issues with it as well.--Hokeman 16:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime[edit]

This section's statistics need to be verified. The latest I can find is 2004 with 23 murders. The part about gangs needs a reference or it should be removed. Besides, it's doubtful Chattanooga didn't have gangs until the summer of 2003. Also I found this quote from a local news website; Mayor Bob Corker, Chattanooga: "Crime has been reduced by 26% in this community in three years...maybe even more importantly, violent crime has been reduced by over 50%." Jan. 5, 2005. http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_60621.asp Upon further review, all edits (including demographics) by 68.59.202.190 seem to be vandalism and need to be reverted. This user has a history of vandalism. --70.126.38.53 21:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else think this section is ridiculous? I have no problems with actually putting crime statistics up, but 'There are thought to be over 50 separate sets of gangs in the Chattanooga area, ranging in size from 15 members to 100 members' is ridiculous. Who thinks this? I have lived here my whole life and have never heard this. 'There has been a very high number of gang related murders in the Summer of 2006' What... two, big deal. I am deleting it right now, comparably sized cities have no crime sections. Mercnboy3 13:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no crime section at all now? There are plenty of cities smaller than Chattanooga that have sections on crime. The Crips article even links to Chattanooga, so one is left with the impression that gang violence is a big deal there... Thanks Dubc0724 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a link to Chattanooga from the crips article, must have been removed. I have lived in Chattanooga my whole life and I have never seen any signs of gangs ( besides graffiti ). The fact that we are even discussing this is ridiculous. I would walk around downtown at any time of the day with no fears. Mercnboy3 11:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, you should first come to a consensus before completely removing the Crime section. If anyone wants it back, feel free to revert it back, I feel that we should first get a consensus. One person's opinions, although heard, don't prove that a whole section should be removed. Also, the person who removed the section is a previous (unverified) semi-vandal (all I could find was "your test worked, and was reverted" on his talk page) and although I am not convicting him of being an all-out vandal, maybe we should see if the deletion of the crime section was constructive... And, to the guy who made this section (70.126.38.53), I recommend you get your own account if you want to start convicting other IPs of vandalism (although we appreciate it, I've seen personally IPs don't get as much respect around here as registered users). StonedChipmunk 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

A few days ago I added an external link that was removed (for reasons I can understand - previous removal is not being questioned) but I would like to propose replacing it. The link is chattanooga.tennessee.com and I believe it contains useful information about Chattanooga. Yes, there are commercial links contained within - but when visiting a new location, whether as a tourist or relocating, it's important to know what hotels are in the area, what restaurants are there, etc. The site also contains a lot of highly interesting (and useful) information such as a map pointing out places of interest, some text on the town, government contacts and demographics information, as well as a yellow pages directory. At this time, also, a lot of work is being done to improve this site, to make it more informative and user friendly and I believe as a link it would be beneficial to wikipedia viewers. --Lspitz 19 Jun 2006

Please review Wikipedia:External links. -Will Beback 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Climate[edit]

A climate section is conspicuously absent from this page. Anyone care to add it? --dm ^(talk) 07:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC) §§[reply]

Overall as a resident of Chattanooga, I would have to say that the tone of this article sounds more like promotional material than legitimate encyclopedic information.

Railroads: Union Station[edit]

Considering there's a blank page for Union Station (Chattanooga), do all the railroads tht go through Chattanooga(CSX, NS, ect.) use this station? ---- DanTD 10:38, 1 November 2006 (EST)

Union Station doesn't exist anymore. It was destroyed when Ninth Street, now Martin Luther King Boulevard, was widened back in the seventies; Chattanooga hasn't had passenger service since 1970. The Krystal building stands approximately where Union Station once did, directly across the street from the Read House; its address is One Krystal Plaza because it's owner, Tommy Lupton, vehemently opposed the renaming on Ninth Street and refused to have his address be on a street named after an African-American.

Second oldest?[edit]

The second sentence reads "It is the state's second oldest major city behind Knoxville." -- but I'm not sure what this means exactly. The history section gives quite a few dates. If we're talking about the date of incorporation/charter as Chattanooga, wouldn't that be after the Trail of Tears, making both Kingsport and Memphis older. If the date is of Cherokee occupation, shouldn't the comparison be to Chickasaw occupation of Memphis (Chickasaw Bluffs), Kingsport as the Cherokee Long Island of the Holston, etc etc. If it is settlement by European-Americans, then Nashville's "French Lick" settlement dates back to 1769 (History of Nashville, Tennessee). Just wondering. Pfly 03:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports[edit]

The Chattanooga Steam is an AAU elite traveling Basketball program. This organization started in the late 80's. To date the steam has won 12 national championships and sent over 20 kids to division 1 college programs. The semipro football team start i believe around 2001 and the players actually pay money to participate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.140.180 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to the table in this section had replaced the Chattanooga Steamers, allegedly a basketball team, with the Chattanooga Steam, which seems to be a men's semi-pro basketball team. I don't know if the Chattanooga Steamers still exist. If they do, they should not have been overwritten. The Steam have a website at http://www.steamfootball.com/ which says they are affiliated with the North American Football League, but I cannot find them on that league's website. The earlier addition indicated (as does the team website) that they are part of the Southeastern American Football League, which has a website at http://www.seafl.net/, but it is not apparent that this league is active or that this team is part of it. This is making me think that semi-pro sports teams such as this one are too ephemeral to deserve Wikipedia articles. --orlady 17:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support taking them out for the reasons given. If proof can be shown that they are a significant contribution to city life, assuming they actually do exist, then they could be included with proper sourcing. I looked up the ABL website myself; it list many proposed/failed/defunct teams from the last few years, but no Chattanooga team of any kind was listed. - BillCJ 17:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chattanooga Steam is a semi-pro football team, not a basketball team. They are still active and members of the SEAFL and have been so for several years, if such information still matters. Checking the SEAFL website at http://www.seafl.net , you can clearly see their logo and the fact that they lost in the first round of the playoffs last season. Dark Lord Skippy 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Steam and other semi-pro teams are no longer highlighted in the Chattanooga article, but the topic probably is still relevant to North American Football League. However, I never did find anything that convinced me they are still in operation this season. --orlady 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their 2006 season ended in late 2006. The 2007 season wont begin until June. As semi-pro teams, they play during the summer and early fall with playoffs in the November-December range. They have current information on their site up to and including those playoffs and championships. The information I cited IS the most current information they can have. Newer information on the site wont start appearing until close for their season openers in June-July. Of course, all of this refers to the SEAFL not the NAFL. The Steam do not belong to the NAFL, which is most likely why you fail to find information on that site.Dark Lord Skippy 17:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for being confused, but I have been unable to find useful information on the websites referred to here as authorities. Today the SEAFL website appears to have been redesigned; unfortunately, the links on the homepage that are supposed to point to topics such as "Teams" do not work. The last time I saw the Chattanooga Steam logo on the SEAFL website, the most recent information on the page was from the 2005 season. However, today I did manage to find content on http://www.steamfootball.com/ which verifies that the team was active this past season. The website also says the team is a member of the SEAFL and a licensed team of the NAFL, giving me the impression that the SEAFL is part of the NAFL. I'm still very confused...--orlady 18:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does appear that the SEAFL website is already gearing up with a new look for the 2007 season, so the results of the season which ended just a few months ago seem to have already been taken down. I still fail to understand the source of your confusion since even you yourself seem to have found that the team is active. Of course, it may not matter at this stage, since the entry for their team has already been eliminated. Dark Lord Skippy 03:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Chattanooga, Tennessee → Chattanooga — The latter currently redirects to the former. Chattanooga, TN is by far the largest city with this name, and the most well-known use of the word, thus fullfilling the Primary topic criteria. The Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia pages have recently made similar moves, for the same reason. BillCJ 15:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

~~Survey[edit]~~
~~Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.~~

Move withdrawn in face of concerted opposition from non-editors of this page, who game the system to ensure their will is followed, and efforts to leave regular editors unaware of the process. - BillCJ 23:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is ownership of a page to the editors who regularly edit this page, if anything there is a conflict of interest by editors of this page because they maybe attached to the subject matter in some way. There has been heavy discussion on the naming convention page about the convention that this move request would have affected. I encourage your particpation in that discussion. This is not a matter of gaming the system but rather of establish consistency within the US naming convention. Agne 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand that no one OWNS a page. I was referring solely to the fact that no regular editors participated, nor is there any way to let them know on the article page. By "gaming the system", I am also referrign to such attitudes as if anything there is a conflict of interest by editors of this page because they maybe attached to the subject matter in some way! Thanks but no thanks to you offer to participate in the discussion, as my "biased" opinion would render my efforts fruitless, as I am "attached" to the city I was born in. - BillCJ 00:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - Support votes[edit]

Support. For the record... (next time, don't give up so fast). --Serge 22:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got overwhelmed, and just didn't see the point of holding out. - BillCJ 00:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - Oppose votes[edit]

Strong oppose. New York City is probably a justifiable exception, as some consider "New York, New York" to only refer to Manhatten, while "New York City" more clearly refers to all 5 boroughs. But I would have strongly opposed the Chicago and Philly moves if I had been aware of the proposals since I believe the long-standing city naming standard should be adhered to, and DEFINATELY not violated on a case-by-case basis. Besides the many arguments others have made to conform to the existing standard, I like to be able to link to any U.S. city knowing where the article will be located. Where this is headed would require memorizing which cities do and don't follow one of the longest-serving Wikipedia standards. Since in all three cases the bare city name is/was a redirect to the 'city, state' version, moving the page doesn't change people's ability to access it without typing in the state. People working to overturn long-standing Wikipedia standards is one of the reasons my editting has dropped from hundreds per week to hardly any. Niteowlneils 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see a clear need to move the article. The naming convention works best when it is followed broadly and no reason for overriding it has been given. -Will Beback · † · 00:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as in the past the article is correctly named based on the current naming convention. There is no consensus on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) for a change in the convention. Likewise there was a request to not seek additional article moves while a discussion to see if there is consensus to change the quideline is ongoing. Vegaswikian 04:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've expressed my opinion before that NO city article should just have the city name (so Toronto should be at Toronto, Ontario for example). TJ Spyke 04:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Here we go again. The convention (despite Canada & NYC) is to qualify: city, state. The redirects exist and so do a ton of discussions about why. Sorry, too tired to point the way to them--RCEberwein | Talk 07:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another spin on the City Only merry go round set to the 80's classic You Spin Me Round (Like a Record). More seriously, I oppose for the laundry list of the reasons that have been discussed on WP:NC:CITY and what I've laid out before. Agne 08:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with all the above, including Vegaswikian, TJ Spyke, Niteowlneils and Agne. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose While Chattanooga is probably the only municipality of its name, it does require disambiguation from the Battle of Chattanooga. There is no argument here that it is known world-wide, like New York or Chicago, and the several proposals for exceptions to the standard convention do not list it. Better to have the predictable name and the redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Where I come from, "settlements" means its been settled, but you're telling to read it b/c it isn't settled? Hmm. Had I read that page beforehand? No, because it's not listed to any of the Move pages, which is where one goes to move a page. That's the problem with Wikipedia, some little group somewhere decides something, and they expect people to search out their ruling, and condem them if they don't know about it. Sorry, but it's just plain silly that Chattanooga is a redirect. And naming conventions are guidelines, not policies; they don't HAVE to be followed, especially if it's stupid. - BillCJ 04:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having city article names just at the city is stupid. "Chattanooga, Tennessee" sounds better and a more likely sarch term than just "Chattanooga". TJ Spyke 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BillCJ, I couldn't help but notice that for a number of your edits you cite "guidelines" and "naming conventions" so you don't seem to be averse to rulings per se? Also, one doesn't go to move a page just because one wants to. You check to see how similarly situated items are treated and then, if it will be exceptional, you try to find out why the norm is different--at least that's what slows me down when I think something isn't right. And believe me, I find a lot of conventions here that I don't agree with, but they require consensus to change.--RCEberwein | Talk 07:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Toronto, Ontario is at ... Toronto. - BillCJ 05:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it should be at "Toronto, Ontario" IMO. TJ Spyke 06:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Canadians use a different naming scheme to Americans. Its a different country after all. Frelke 10:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record[edit]

I did NOT break any policies or guidelines in requesting the above move. I followed all proceedures in requesting a move, including placing notices here, and on the Requested moves page.
I in no way obstructed anyone's participation in this matter, at any time, nor did I try to sneak the move in "under the radar". Had I been able to perform the move myself, I would not have, nor would I have done so against the consensus on the page.
I did follow existing precedent in requesting this move, tho I did know it was contrary to previous existing naming conventions.
I DID violate a REQUEST (not policy, not a rule, not a guidelne!) not to request further moves, AS I WAS UNAWARE OF such a request. At this point, I have still not found that request anywhere, no has anyone provided a direct link to it.
At no point have I used profanity, namecalling, or other disruptive means in expressing my opinion.

In summary, I DO NOT APPRECIATE BEING TREATED AS IF I HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG in making the move request. I am not a vandal, nor do I purposely ignore conventions or consensus on a regular basis.

As for the naming conventions on cities, I think the genie is out of the bottle. I see no signs of returning to the existing status quo. "Requesting" no such moves be made until a new consensus is reached, with all likely hood of that not happening in the near future, is a backhanded way of trying to enforce your will without a consensus.

As stated above, I will not participate in discussions on this matter in general, as some of the participants do not respect the opinions of those who actually edit the pages subject to the conventions being discussed. I have said my piece on this issue, and would like to be done with it. - BillCJ 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bill. As one of the oppose voters, I agree you did everything you should have, and behaved appropriately in the face of what was to you quite surprising opposition to the move. Best wishes with your future Wikipedia contributions. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you. - BillCJ 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that opposition to the move should have been surprising, but I don't think that BillCJ was wrong to suggest it. I don't think it was a bad faith proposal. -Will Beback · † · 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mock Trial Source[edit]

http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/results2002.cfm http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/results2003.cfm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silverhand (talk • contribs).

Thanks, Silverhand. I think there are two claims here:

1. The community is home to a prominent homeschooling community. 2. The homeschool community won the above-listed national mock trial competitions.

The second has been ably sourced by Silverhand. The first is more difficult, though. I'm not sure if the second point is enough to make the homeschool community "prominent" (though it obviously helps). But the second point is also dependent on the first - if the homeschool community isn't notable, then the wins are probably not either. So I think what we need here is some source for why the Chattanooga homeschool community is notable / prominent. Anyone have anything like that? I'd be willing to bet there's something out there that we could use. (Alternatively, we could just say that the second point proves the first - I'd certainly be open to that if that's what people think.) --TheOther Bob 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think TheOtherBob's analysis is pretty much on target. I'm aware that the mock trial teams won those back-to-back national titles, which is neat, but I guess I'm on the side saying that it doesn't make the homeschool community prominent. I looked on their website and couldn't any find info about the size of their organization, though it does mention their scope (parts of SE Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama). This tells me that their organization (CSTHEA) encompasses much more than Chattanooga, which could be another argument against including it (since we don't really know how prominent the Chattanooga portion of it is). Aside from that, there are other other area schools with vibrant support in the community, some of which are not listed (David Brainerd, Tennessee Temple, Grace Baptist, among others). If the goal is to list all the schools and their notable accomplishments, that would be fine, and we could have a very long section, but it might not be pertinent information about Chattanooga. It seems like that type of information might be best left to the Wikipedia pages for the individual schools. Jfwiii 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on the research aspect of this. Although I've not found a source where someone comes out and says Chattanooga Home Schools are superior to those in any other city, by the same distinction I've not found any that have had the successes Chattanooga's had. Another point, the city of Nashville made it a point to issue a resolution crowing about one of their schools beating Chattanooga's Home Schools in Mock Trial the next year. So where is the line drawn and how thin is it? --Silverhand^Talk 17:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economy[edit]

I'm originally from Chattanooga and appreciate the article (and ongoing discussion). I wanted to offer that McKee Foods, maker of Little Debbie snack cakes is also headquartered in the area. I know it's technically Collegdale (which has an article, and is kind of a unique city for its Seventh-day Adventist history), so I wasn't sure if it should be added or not. Any opinions? MLHarris 12:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should go on Collegedale's page for the sake of propriety. However, one COULD note the Chattanooga Bakery, which makes the one, the ONLY... Moon pie! :) --Silverhand^Talk 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information about VW's new car plant in Chattown. Please do not modify or remove any of the information. Jay (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly modified grammatical information in this section. Please do not modify or remove any of the information. Jay (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information about EPB's fiber optic network. Please do not modify or remove any of the information that I have added to the Utilities section. Jay (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. If it is cited from reliable sources, and is not too specific with unneeded details, it won't be removed. - BilCat (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at it again, it is too much info on a minor point, and needs to be trimmed. And please stop telling people not to modify or remove your info - that's not allowed - anyone can modify or remove anything for any reason - it's just poilte to discuss it and come to an agreement, but not required. - BilCat (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've trimmed it back to one sentence. By the way, you don't generally need to repeat the same ref more than once in the same paragraph. There are some tricks if you need to repeat a ref later on in an article - WP:CITE is a good place to start. - BilCat (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an EPB question: I have a dispute with "credited with the expansion of Volkswagen's Chattanooga plant and the establishment of Amazon.com facilities in Chattanooga and Cleveland" on two counts: Who credited EPB with Volkswagen's plant, and does EPB even serve Cleveland, TN? I can't verify these two claims. Baggerts (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of External Links[edit]

Please visit WP:EL. This entry has dozens of inline external links that need to be removed and/or placed in a citation, the external links section, or on the items own entry (like The Chattanooga Pulse). Qmax 14:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my additions[edit]

I made some additons to the page about TRAVEL and ECONOMICS, they were removed.

Why, and how do I contact the person who removed the netries directly?

this whole way of contacting people on wiki is confusing at best.

alexrose1Axelrose1 02:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail is welcome too..:-)

Conflict of Interest and self promotion[edit]

Qmax, please review the conflict of interest and promotion guidelines before reverting changes or adding content/links about your company or clients (past, current or via a third party) to articles. The companies in the section you edited list major Chattanooga companies and employers, not every business. Please also note I am not questioning the addition of Tricycle. Since this seems to be an ongoing issue, I am asking for other comments and discussion. Flowanda 05:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have reviewed, numerous times. The companies I listed are notable, sustained by multiple independent sources, do not have NPOV problems, and there's certainly not an overwhelming amount of Chattanooga companies with wikipedia pages trying to make it into "the list". If you have a substantive/concrete/specific reason why it shouldn't be in the list, please share it, as I try to go above and beyond to conform to wiki standards. If you think I haven't, say explicitly why, not some "it doesn't feel just right" generality. Qmax 11:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will restate my original comment: The companies included in the section are large national and international corporations that are headquartered in Chattanooga; Coptix is not. Rock Creek Outfitters is not. To open the section up for such companies to be listed in ways that prevent the article from just being an all inclusive list or directory should be discussed first in the talk pages, especially when they deal with your company or company's clients. Continuing to add your company into this section without gaining consensus may be construed as self promotion, which should be avoided, as are comments that could seem to dismiss other editor's comments as groundless. Flowanda 23:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to show is why Coptix and Rock Creek should not, from a wikipedia policy, be included in the listing of local companies (nevermind that Coptix has clients both national and international, and Rock Creek ships all over the world). Further, there's no policy anywhere that says local company listings should only include "large national and international corporations". And further, the issue as always is not the person doing the editing, it's whether or not his/her edits are appropriate for wikipedia and notable. Again, the companies I list are notable, sustained by multiple independent sources, have no NPOV issues in their article, and are consistent with content of the article as a whole. Until you can show otherwise and/or present an argument and/or policy against their listing, I do find your complaint groundless. But, as always, feel free to request a third person's input and/or to appeal. Qmax 23:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification...I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I'm not defending the way the section is structured or disputing the companies you're adding; my edits and comments reflect keeping the list consistent as it stands now. The section definitely needs to be expanded to accurately depict other notable Chattanooga businesses with or without articles in wikipedia, but the issue does become who is making the edits when the why/why not becomes an ongoing issue. For me, the issue boils down to: Coptix doesn't belong in the section as it stands, the section is poorly written and not representative of the many its notable businesses, Coptix and other similar businesses should be included in a section that discusses similar notable Chattanooga businesses beyond just listings (Coptix' recent notoriety, Smart Furniture innovative designs, Sticky Fingers' origins, for instance), editors with close ties shouldn't be significantly adding or editing related content, but be visible, vocal resources on talk page discussions, and that questions, requests and debates aren't complaints and should not be considered groundless because of either the lack or abundance of rules. Flowanda 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with your point that the section (and the entire article as a whole) needs significant cleanup. Part of the reason I've been such a bit proponent of the Chattanooga Task Force. I certainly don't think Coptix (or Smart Furniture, or whomever) absolutely must be in that list, but it's removal at this juncture given the lack of warrant from wiki standards/policies and it's inclusion's consistency with the rest of the article (and similar city/town articles) would seem arbitrary and based, at best, on my association with the company. As to my association, while I agree with you that one should be careful, again, a users contributions are not judged on the users possible NPOV's, but on the warrant and quality of the contributions in and of themselves. I took a risk stating who I was upfront, knowing that folks could find all sorts of information about myself on the internet and accuse me of bias. I figure I'd rather get that stuff right up front, and do my damndest to be NPOV, which is why, again, if you can show me where I've contributed something that is wrong/in violation of wiki policies/standards/or guilty of NPOV, then I'm all about changing/reverting etc. But until then Qmax 01:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I wrote the following response before seeing the most recent postings by Flowanda and Qmax.

Okay, I'll jump in as a third person. First I'll say that I grew up in Chattanooga and still visit a couple of times a year, but have lived elsewhere for almost ten years now. I have contributed very little to the Chattanooga article, but keep an eye on it. I read the first comment by Flowanda and the first response by Qmax not knowing what companies were disputed (except that Tricycle was mentioned by Flowanda). Looking then at the article itself, I immediately suspected Coptix (because I'd never heard of it) and Rock Creek (because I know it is a small retail shop).

Re: Rock Creek: In the age of eBay and Fedex, selling and shipping "all over the world" is a poor criterion for notability. There are probably dozens of businesses in Chattanooga that ship as much product as Rock Creek. Do we want to list them all (or even open the possibility)?

Re: Coptix: This is interesting because the company is notable for a hoax, a spoof, and a CBS Sunday Morning segment. The hoax and spoof are not really business dealings, and the reference linked to CBS Sunday Morning has no mention of Coptix. I'm not even sure it should be on Wikipedia at all myself. At the very least, I think Qmax should recuse himself from any discussion of the merits of including Coptix. There is a clear conflict of interest.

Re: Tricycle: There is really nothing in the Tricycle article I wouldn't expect to read on the official site. It seems like an advertisement to me.

Another thing: The section in question is "Economy," not a list of noted businesses in Chattanooga. To me that suggests the companies listed should be large enough and/or prominent enough to have an impact on the area's economy. That distinction might eliminate some of the other businesses listed, too--I don't know. --emw 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism citation[edit]

I moved this statement to this page since it was unsourced, and I could not find any references to it: "Chattanooga has been voted the number two family destination in the country, behind Disneyworld." I sent an email to the Chattanooga CVB, but received no answer and will contact their public relations company to see if they have updated sources. Flowanda 23:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. It certainly needs a verifable source. I wouldn't mind seeing more data on that, esp. to see if they mean "Orlando" instead of "Disneyworld", or if Orlando is listed furter down. - BillCJ 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chattanooga Market has been cancelled for 2008, so that need editing. I would do it but I'd probably mess it up so i won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.99.111.253 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the section formerly entitled "Tourist Attractions" because it seemed too cliched and it seemed to limit the attractions to tourists only. That's not true, because I'm a native of Chattanooga and so I observe that there are many natives, as well as tourists, seeing the attractions of beautiful Chattanooga. Also, I have modified the information about the Riverwalk to clarify it, I have added information about the Delta Queen, which is a landmark right here in Chattanooga, and I have added information about the Fat Cat watertaxi service. Please do not modify or remove the information I have added to this section. Jay (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resource articles[edit]

I came across these articles that I thought might be useful references when adding/expanding environmental and revitilization discussions:

http://www.utcomchatt.org/AboutChatt/AboutChatt-PressReport-Parade.htm

http://www.americancity.org/article.php?id_article=66

http://www.rivercitycompany.com/dtstory/Vision_2000.asp

http://www.epa.gov/greenkit/tools3.htm

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/09/26/focus14.html

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/06/15/06152008wacchattanoogamain.html?imw=Y

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/06/15/06152008wacchattanoogaside.html

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2008/feb/03/chattanooga-historians-book-highlights-citys-chang/?entertainmentlifeentertainment

http://www.chattanooga-chamber.com/GetToKnowUs/americastalking.asp

Flowanda 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population Figures[edit]

The metro population estimate currently on the page (658,201) is for the Combined Statistical Area, which includes Cleveland, TN and Athens, TN. The Metropolitan Statistical Area population (496,704 est. 2006) is typically more commonly used to represent the metro population.

In addition, both the city population and the metro population are 2006 estimates by the Census Bureau. The City of Chattanooga is disputing the 2006 estimate, at least informally.

Is it more appropriate to use 2000 figures, and which metro population measure is more appropriate? Jstein4716 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the population estimates of Chattanooga and the surrounding area, as of July 1st of last year. Please do not modify or remove the information I have added in this section. Jay (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"well-known" schools[edit]

I did not state that the schools removed were non-notable, but rather that there was no proof of notability. Wikipedia is not collection of indiscriminate lists. We must use reliable sources in article to prove the notability of items int he text. I removed the schools without any articles or sources because they do not meet these policy requirements. The text in question is not simply a list of schools (such a list would be far too long for this article). The text states: the city is home to several well-known private and parochial secondary schools (emphasis added). What defines well-known? I have heard of each of these schools, but for me to decide they are "well known" is original research. If the list stayed simply as it is, I could live with that, but anyone who watches this page knows that schools are added and removed from the list several times a month. As such, it's basically a "spitting contest" over whose school should be listed and whose shouldn't. That is partly why WIkipedia has the soucing policies that it does, to prevent these kinds of silliness, and to allow editors to cut backs lists that grow like this. I won't revert Orlady's good faith restoration of the unlinked schools, as she is an editor witha good reputation here. If she has a policy to cite which exuses schools/cities from thes notability requirements, or some other reason why policy should not be applied here, then she is welcome to present her case. (Using third person as I don't want to sound accusatory, even tho it reads a bit awkwardly). - BillCJ 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After five doays with no discussion from Orlady or anyone else, I am again removing the schools with no proof of notability. - BillCJ 06:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was an improper revision as of 18:01, 9 March 2008 by Alec manzer. A reference to Chattanooga High School Center for Creative Arts was changed to Chattanooga School for the Arts and Sciences. I would like to change it back if there is no argument. --Ericvil (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might explain why you believe the change is wrong, and why it should be changed back. I've never heard of the former, but I have heard of the latter. - BillCJ (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One, they are completely different schools, so this is not a simple changing of the name, but rather a changing of the subject matter. Two, no explanation was given by Alec manzer why his change was made. Three, Alec manzer created a new page for Chattanooga School for the Arts and Sciences at exactly the same time he made his change to this page. Before his edit, this page linked to an existing page for Chattanooga High School Center for Creative Arts. Four, Carom noted acts of vandalism by Alec manzer (talk) on this page 18:19, 9 March 2008, and I note that all contributions were made by Alec manzer on this same day, following a pattern of non-constructive behavior. Five, a quick google search for Alec manzer arts sciences indicates this user is likely either a student at Chattanooga School for the Arts and Sciences or posing and acting like one.--Ericvil (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lookouts affiliation[edit]

Can we please change the Lookouts as being part of the Reds organization, which is their true affiliation, not the LA dodgers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.209.241 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they have been an affliate of the Dodgers since after end of the 2008 season. There are sources in the Chattanooga Lookouts that will confirm this. Please refrain from changing this again. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the sourcing to this article, too. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to rely on other articles as references. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, straight from the horse's mouth. Hopefully that will stand further scrutiny, but I somehow doubt the issue will go away that easily. If they won't read the linked article first, I can't see them reading the website or another source first either! - BillCJ (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said! I've warned the user for adding erroneous info. - BillCJ (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brainerd Baptist School merger[edit]

The AfD for Brainerd Baptist School closed with a consensus to merge into this article, but nothing has happened, with the result that the inconsequential article survives. I inserted a sentence about it into the Education section of this article, and I now propose to request that Brainerd Baptist School be speedy-deleted. However, if there is opposition to the merger, a new AfD should be initated. --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus was to merge, then all that needs to be done now is to convert the page to a redirect, which I have done. If someone disagrees, the usual process is for them to appeal the AFD. - BillCJ (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My chief concern was that you have in the past insisted on exclusivity in the Education section of this article. That is, you feel that only the most notable schools may be mentioned. On that basis, I thought you might oppose the inclusion of Brainerd. Certainly it is less notable than other schools that are not mentioned. --Orlady (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the decision of the AFD was to merge it here. I'd have to appeal the decision to have it removed. Besides, my standard is that the schools have either an article that has passed notability, or have a source that confers notibility. I think the added source meets that standard, if only barely! - BillCJ (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents overload[edit]

Where is the "Jack Lupton" heading under notable residents? The man had his own show on pbs and now since he is deceased it would be proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.156.123 (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notable residents section is becoming ridiculous and unwieldy. Without any clear limits to the people with minor connections with Chattanooga being added to the article, why not just add George Bush, Jimmy Fallon, Hank Williams, Pat Boone and every band that's played Riverbend? Flowanda | Talk 20:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest mentioning if they were born in the city, if they were raised in the city, or if they moved to the city as adults. If the latter, they should have lived in Chattanooga long enough for the city to have had an impact on their lives, or vice-versa. If they just lived in Chattanooga for two or three years, or owned a secondary residence in the city, it's probably not worth mentioning. Grace Moore and Peyton Manning might be a stretch. Bms4880 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you should mention Grace Moore. Way back when, I was surprised to her name in this article (because I had always heard that she hailed from Jellico) and ended up doing research on her and building "her" article (and learning a lot about Wikipedia along the way). If I remember correctly, her family was closely connected with Loveman's department store and she is buried in Chattanooga, but I didn't detect any other local connection. (I have no inkling of how Peyton Manning is connected to the city...)

One way to address this situation would be to convert the list into a separate article, similar to List of people from Nashville, Tennessee or List of people from Memphis, Tennessee (I prefer the Memphis list format, as it's easier to maintain), and include information in that list about (1) who these people are/were and (2) how they are connected to Chattanooga. --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Moore and Manning. As you indicated, Moore's relatives lived in the city, and she is buried in the city, but she was never really resident. Manning has business interests in the city, but I found nothing that indicated he ever actually lived in the city for a substantial period of time. Another question is whether or not to include McCallie students who have no other connection to Chattanooga. If not, this would probably nix Ted Turner, Pat Robertson, and Howard Baker. Bms4880 (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Bill Curry ever lived in Chattanooga. He was for a short time associated with Baylor School but he was not a full-time employee and was more of a consultant. He did speak at the school several times. He severed his role with Baylor when he took the head coaching job at Georgia State. It was my impression during his association with Baylor that he lived in Atlanta or in Western North Carolina, possibly Culowhee, or both, but I don't think he ever resided in Chattanooga.

Ditto for Peyton Manning. He does own a home on Chickamauga Lake, and he does belong to The Honors Course, and his wife has relatives i, n the area, but he has never lived in Chattanooga nor spent more than a few days at a time in Chattanooga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tquillen (talk • contribs) 03:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this site by mistake however I want to experience Chattanooga offerings. Sounds and looks GREAT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.162.54.226 (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reorganisation[edit]

Since I am not active with this article, I noticed only recently of this edit that was a reversion of the edit I made only 18 minutes earlier. BilCat, I ask you to withdraw the edit summary, which I ~~take offensively and~~ view as ~~dishonesty~~ inaccurate.

"No apparent improvements... if you were more diligent, you would have seen that I:

switched to a more visually appealing format for the climate table, Template:Weather box, which has become the standard for city articles on WP.
the precision of the climate table was improved tenfold
previously lacking data, specifically average snowfall, number of days with precip, number of days with snow, as well as amount of sunshine was added
all that record snowfall data was uncited. it's like this. when you remove many grains of rotten rice from your rice supply, the entire rice supply improves substantially.

"unrelated sections"... this is the ~~lying~~ portion of the edit summary comment where I call foul play. You deride ( this is not incivility; characterising something in a negative light is "deriding" ) the organisational change as sewing together "unrelated" sections in order to preclude the possibility of anyone reverting your edit. As with most US city articles, Geography should be placed immediately after History. Neighbourhoods was originally under Geography, and I preserved this in my change.

~~Err like this once more, and suffer my displeasure;~~ Repeat this, and I will not be willing to collaborate with you, seeing as by then you would have lost trust and faith twice already. --H XL 何献龙 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, and remeber to assume good faith> I never questioned your intentions, motives, or veracity, only the edits themselves, and I'd appreciate the same in return. Barring that, you will be reported at the appropriate place. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is not in our culture to "assume" (one of the worst words out there) GF. faith must be earned. this is perhaps the only pillar of WP that I caustically disagree with, and was possibly created by a flawed cultural tenet. Do I need to explain victim perception here? The view of the victim matters more than that of that who committed the act in question. I don't see why you would waste time reverting edits that don't degrade from the article. respond in equal proportions. I did too by providing evidence and specifics. I ask that you do the same, or there is less, more like no, reason to revert, as you have entirely forgone the discussion part which I have asked you to participate in. --H XL 何献龙 22:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith and Civility are key features of WP's guidelines. Once you've apologized for your uncivil comments, I'll deal with the issues you've raised. - BilCat (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

evading the issue at hand again 甭给我找借口. But I will comment out some things. in the future, I advise you to not squander your own time by not being direct. JUST. DO. IT. --H XL 何献龙 23:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no apparent issue with the table, but I don't do table ccoding, so I can't judge which is better. As to the layout of the article, the previous layout is better. I see know reason to change that. Btw, WP recomends not using foreign words or characters on talk pages. - BilCat (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you explain what you think justifies going against the norm to keep the previous layout? I ask as simply and patiently as I can: since you were the reverter, and you have "no apparent issue with the table", I ask you keep the climate edits. --H XL 何献龙 00:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen many city articles that combine Geography, climatam and neighborhoods all in one section, so I don't see that as an improvement or the norm. As to the climate section, it's sourced, but not one who has ever lived in Chattanogga would believe the average July temperature is 79F - it's probably not even accurate for May. But that's OR on my part. You might want to check some other sources if you know where to look easily (I don't). Leave the previous layout the same and the other changes are fine with me, if that works as a compromise for you. - BilCat (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat, the problem is that that combination was present originally. I don't know about the wording, but I intended to say the daily mean, not average high, in July is 79-80 °F. It is in the NOAA source that I provided, but I tried to avoid the hassle of something adding a fat citation to something that essentially is (but not explicitly so) in the table provided; this is unlike the need to cite something like "A-city in the Southern US averages _ nights below freezing". This is a fine compromise. Sorry for blowing this out of proportion; I, and probably no one, do not like having my edits (coding Template:Weather box takes a while! = =) reverted with that kind of lightning speed. I suggest that using more exhaustively accurate edit summaries would help in the future. --H XL 何献龙 00:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chattanooga in Hamilton County[edit]

Just putting my latest 2 cents for the page. The article has gotten really well-written over the last few years. However, one small addition would make it even better: a map of Chattanooga in Hamilton County, i.e. similar to Cumberland, Maryland in Allegany County or Memphis in Shelby County. The map would help delineate the exact location of Chattanooga in Hamilton County; as I understand it, Chattanooga has some unique boundaries. Let's keep making this article the best city-related article! Cheers, Jay (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New City flag[edit]

I was wondering if someone could update the city's flag. Apparently the city flag was changed in 2011-12 and the article should reflect that change. Jay (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article in the local paper about it here. - BilCat (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As BilCat mentioned above, there's a picture of the new city flag. If someone could update the article with the new flag, that would be appreciated! Jay (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After the events of today, I finally got around to doing a new SVG of the updated city flag. Nice to note is the city had used my SVG of the old version of the flag to make the actual flags for city buildings.--KaylorRN (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and much appreciated. It's certainly a sad day for Chattanooga, and especially for the families of the Marines. - BilCat (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both the flag and the svg seal were deleted today for nor being correctly licensed, and the png seal was deleted yesterday as an orhan. - BilCat (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I've said it before and now I'll say it again: See the /doc subpage for the guidelines for template:infobox settlement. The highways do not belong there, and the title should be "Chattanooga, Tennessee," not "City of Chattanooga." We wouldn't put "City of New York City," so we don't do that here, either. God...Bmag32 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using detailed edit summaries works better than lecturing after the fact. As for recommended reading, try this. And no, you aren't God. - BilCat (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the relevant sections of the guidelines (again, having just read them last week), and there is nothing of what you said there. Suprise. In fact, the NYC page doesn't include the state at all in the infobox titles. Another surprise. I've therefore followe the pattern at NYC, and included the plain city name and the official name lines. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may not know this, but I've had this same conflict before with other users. So that's why I'm frustrating, sorry if you perceived it as jerkish. The guideline for settlement info boxes tend to follow WP:COMMONNAME. Bmag32 (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wasn't signing my name as God, it was a shortening on "Oh my God."Bmag32 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chattanooga, Tennessee. 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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Brantly[edit]

Golf legend from Chattanooga, Tennessee. Ed won no less than 22 Chattanooga District golf events, 3 Tennessee State Amateurs, 3 Tennessee State Senior Amateurs, a Southern Amateur Championship in 1957 and also won the German Amateur while in the military.

Timeline of Chattanooga, Tennessee[edit]

What is missing from the somewhat recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chattanooga, Tennessee. 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081029013817/http://www.rivercitycompany.com/pdfs/media/waterfront_exec_summary.pdf to http://www.rivercitycompany.com/pdfs/media/waterfront_exec_summary.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chattanooga, Tennessee/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Importance==

Top importance. Chattanooga is one of the major cities in Tennessee. The topic is of interest beyond the local scope.

==Quality== B-Class. The article is well structured and comprehensive. History and Tourism section could be subdevided further to make the content easier to asses for someone who does not want to read it all. Photos relevant to the topic are present.

A reference section is present but not used as supposed. It is encouraged to verify the facts and state sources in the references section.

Last edited at 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chattanooga, Tennessee. 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/20141129082905/http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chattanooga, Tennessee. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 20:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Chattanooga, Tennessee. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.artsedcouncil.org/page/chattanooga-festival-of-writers
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.outdoorchattanooga.com/387.htm
Added archive https://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314224225/http://www.timesfreepress.com/ to http://www.timesfreepress.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Chattanooga, Tennessee. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Should the title be just "Chattanooga?" I realize that this has been discussed more than ten years ago, but what about taking into consideration that all other populated places by the name of "Chattanooga" show no significance? 146.229.240.200 (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:USPLACE, only the 30 exceptions listed in the AP Stylebook are titled without using the state as part of our title. Station1 (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Census data[edit]

There have been a lot of IP edits adding random outsourced information to the demographics section, i don't think i caught all of them, either way the demographics section needs to be updated based on the 2020 census. [1]