Talk:Wyandotte, Michigan

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

Untitled[edit]

Yes to both mergers and cleanup the resultant article. older≠wiser 22:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty obvious. --Acooley 21:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where it says "Oak and Eureka area was the center of the village"...that's a pretty vague statement because Oak and Eureka run parallel to each other for the entire east/west stretch of the city. I'll try to track down more specific info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.45.249 (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facts (aka 'trivia') section[edit]

The article currently has a 'facts' section. The Wikipedia trivia guideline suggests avoiding lists of isolated facts. It's recommended instead to combine the facts into the main body of the article. I'll start this process. Derek Balsam(talk) 20:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved some of these facts into a new "Government and municipal services" section. There are still some trivia items left. I hope others will help integrate those into the body of the article. Derek Balsam(talk) 21:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible Notable People List

Look, an edit war will get us nowhere. There is a clearly defined set of criteria for notability for people, and if a person doesn't meet them at all, there's no real reason to bother adding them. Frankly, the fact that a guy might be popular in a little suburb of Detroit doesn't make him notable for inclusion - Wikipedia is a bit bigger in scope than that. There aren't any sources, so we can't even really ascertain that even exists, in terms of references. Please, just leave this alone already. - Unforgiven24 Talk|Contribs 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this article be locked to prevent further vandalism. It appears that malicious editing is going to continue.
-MarVelo —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarVelo (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No argument here. I've requested the page be semi-protected. - Unforgiven24 Talk|Contribs 19:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that didn't really go anywhere, since it was declined. I guess we just keep doing this a while, post a message or two on his talk page if (or when) it happens again (assuming it's not from some unregistered IP address), and then do as the guy there suggests. - Unforgiven24 Talk|Contribs 14:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Well, even if Salla and Creech are only popular in "the little suburb of Detroit", that's a lot better than Lou Kerman or many of the others who have a reference on a movie site. They aren't popular anywhere. If they were, they'd be real movie stars. A reference on a movie database doesn't make you notable. Wikipedia might be a bigger scope than just a small city, put this is a page for a small city. The local icons that are well-known around the town should be represented, especially over Q-list movie people who couldn't sellout the local YMCA. As someone who has lived in Wyandotte for over 40 years and has her hands in various aspects of town, people like Salla and Creech are the ones I'd like to see on here. They aren't the only ones, but it'd be start to clean up the garbage on that notable list. I'll stop with the edits after today simply because I doubt that very many people really give a damn about the Wyandotte Wiki page. However, it would be nice for the locals who care to see real notable people on the list instead of a bunch of nicely referenced unknowns. ....Completelydrenched—Preceding unsigned comment added by Completelydrenched (talk • contribs) 06:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Creech or Lou Kerman[edit]

First of all, please stop edit warring. The best way to resolve this problem is to talk it over. Please notice that Wikipedia is willing to enforce this "talk it over thing", so talk it over guys!

I would like to start the discussion by saying that anybody with an Internet Movie Database article is for sure notable. Therefore anybody replacing Lou Kerman is removing proper content, which is actually vandalism. Ryan Creech's name was referenced with a website. This website is a self-published source and is therefore of limited reliability. Failure to provide more serious sources will be proof of a lack of notability and a reason for deletion of the information about him. May I also remind that Wikipedia is not an advertising paper. Debresser (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A person isn't notable just because they are on an internet movie database article. Nobody knows Lou Kerman. In all honesty, the high school janitor at Wyandotte Roosevelt High School is more well-known around town. Sure, it has a reference, but all it confirms is that Lou Kerman isn't a very big filmmaker. The same goes for many of the other "notable" actors/actresses on the list. A part in a crappy play or movie doesn't make you notable. I live in Wyandotte and am active in many areas around town. People like Ryan Creech, Eric Salla, and many others are much more notable and well-known than Lou Kerman. They represent the city and are looked upon as local icons. It isn't advertising for these guys or any others that make it on the list. If it takes some bs website reference to keep them and other real Wyandotte icons on the list, then I guess I'll get going on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Completelydrenched (talk • contribs) 06:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Cole[edit]

I just reverted the removal of Lisa Cole from the notable residents list, but mistakenly didn't leave an edit summary, so I'll mention it here. I put it back because no reason for removing it was given, and she's listed on IMDB (which also shows her as being from Wyandotte), so I don't think it's a notability issue. Just didn't want to revert it without any sort of comment, though. - Unforgiven24 Talk|Contribs 21:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is she on here to begin with? She's acted in 8 things in a decade. That isn't even a real job. That's certainly not notable. The same goes for all of the other so called actors and composers on the list. None of them are notable and should be removed. A little page on the movie database doesn't make you noteworthy. It's actually embarrassing and shows that these people failed at making it in the movie industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Completelydrenched (talk • contribs) 06:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious POVness aside, I see your point about notability, which is actually backed up in WP:NOTE. If someone wants to Cole it again, I won't put it back. Generally speaking though, it's a good idea to at least say so in the edit summary so it doesn't look like you're just randomly removing content. - Unforgiven24 Talk|Contribs 13:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point of view to put aside. POV is an opinion on abortion. I just gave facts. Lisa Cole is not noteworthy. That's a fact. She didn't make it in the movie industry - fact. Her and all of the other stub entries on the list had bit parts in virtually unknown productions - fact. I really don't care who is left on the list. However, there are some contradictions to correct. You seem to be really into the wiki rules. At the onset of this entry, you stated that you reinstated Cole to the list because "I don't think it's a notability issue." In your last comment, you agreed with my statements about notability and even included wikis guidelines that show that Cole has notability issues. Therefore, according to wiki guidelines, without a doubt the following entries must be removed: Belaskie, Cygan, Hayes, Hendrix, Meachum, Preston, Shatzer, Cole, Shay, and Kerman. Like I said before, I really don't care if it gets removed. After all, it's wikipedia, not a legitimate source of info. However, it is hypocritical for those on here who "follow the rules" to remove some names yet leave others even though both sets of names equally break the guidelines. The current ones were only left on because they were references, albeit poorly. Completelydrenched (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using qualifiers like "so called" and calling them embarrassments involves a point of view. As for hypocritical, I don't agree. I just went back and decided I was wrong the first time. It happens. Would you prefer I not, and instead argue some more? Either way, calm down. Relax already. There's no need to start insulting wikipedia and everything because someone agreed with you. - Unforgiven24 Talk|Contribs 04:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC

First, I am calm. Second, "so called" and "embarrassing" are not povs in this instance, but facts. They are listed on the Wyandotte page as actors/actresses, even though none of them are. That makes them "so called". It IS embarrassing to have a page on IMDB with essentially nothing on it. It would be kinder to just remove them from the site rather than publish the lack of success. Third, wiki is NOT a legitimate source of information. It's good for a quick check on a topic, but it shouldn't be used when writing a research paper or taken as fact. Therefore, I'm not insulting anyone. I don't feel that anything comes from putting down others.

Small parks[edit]

Per this discussion, a middle school class has created numerous small articles on Wyandotte parks. They aren't referenced, but their content is fairly innocuous (and I notice large sections of this overall article are equally unreferenced). The articles will all fail notability requirements as standalone pages, but where there is useful material I've merged it into this page. It will take a short while to track them through the various deletion stages such that they can go here, but all up there are two or three paragraphs to be potentially added.

The merges create a mild issue with undue weight, but on balance that's better than losing the research this school has put in. Happy to discuss if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wyandotte, Michigan. 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) 12:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge section[edit]

Copied my own text from Talk:History of Wyandotte, Michigan, suggesting the merging of that article into the history section of the Wyandotte article:

This whole article is written very poorly and does not meet any quality standards. There are no references available, and there is a ton of incredibly useless information—some of which doesn't even relate to the city and has no encyclopedic value. Wyandotte is a run-of-the-mill small Michigan city with 25,000 residents, and its history is no different to distinguish it from any other Metro Detroit suburb. It seems to have been sitting in this poor condition for quite some time, so my suggestion is to dump a large amount of its useless content and merge any salvageable and verifiable information back to the history section in the main Wyandotte article. —Notorious4life (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wyandotte,_Michigan&oldid=1212350223"