Jump to content

Talk:Dayton, Ohio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDayton, Ohio has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 24, 2010Good article nomineeListed
September 3, 2011Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

this Dayton, OH article is more about the Dayton region

[edit]

By Wikipedia standards, wouldn't most of the material in this article serve the Wikipedia community better if it were in a separate article titled "Dayton, OH Metropolitan Area" or "Miami Valley OH" or at least segmented within this article?DjKinDayton (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton metropolitan area and Miami Valley articles exist. Relevant material can be repeated in each or cross-referenced from each. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culture | Religion

[edit]

Areas for Improvement

[edit]

Statistics for the different religions could be added. See http://www.census.gov/prod/www/religion.htm for potential sources like http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/counties/39113_2000.asp. This web site appears to aggregated material from http://www.asarb.org/ DjKinDayton (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of content and notability

[edit]

Paganism predates the Monotheistic religions and is practiced fervently in the Dayton area, therefore it deserves mentioning.

When I first started editing this section a couple of years ago, it was basically an advertisement for a Protestant religion. Now it still has some of those same characteristics but is more encyclopedic. The US gov doesn't collect info on religious affiliation, but it does consistently use data from several sources I can't remember now. If you want to delete references to what you consider 'non-notable' religions, please justify the 'non-notable' label statistically. DjKinDayton (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:N for the notability justification. Notability is one of the pillars. The label doesn't need to be justified, the notability needs to justified through reliable sourcing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the website links and end-note citation adequately justify the material. Per WP:N "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." ... "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." The article here is Dayton, OH, a notable city. The topic is religion, a notable topic (but one not normally entertained on most Wikipedia articles about cities). While everything in an article must be substantiated, it does not necessarily need to be considered notable or about 50% of the Dayton OH article would be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DjKinDayton (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe WP:N still applies -- or at least WP:RS and WP:V and WP:OR still apply. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the material is properly cited by the embedded links and end-notes. DjKinDayton (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JHunter notability is an issue. How significant is the Pagan Alliance to the culture of Dayton (i.e. adherents & visibility in the community)? Not every faith or belief should be noted in a city article, of which there may be hundreds depending on the size of a city...--Chimino (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You'd be hard-pressed to find other city articles with information about non-notable congregations. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I also stand beside JHunter and Ohnoitsjamie on this issue. I honestly don't even see the need for a region section in this aricle at all. It is not notable enough to be included. What makes Dayton different from any other similar city concerning it's religous affiliations? I don't see the notability. Texas141 (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. ... with Texas141. If no one has the time to look at the statistical data on the websites above, let's drop the whole section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DjKinDayton (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion dispute

[edit]

I've restored the section for now, but taken out the non-notable stuff. It's not clear why one might imagine that the Dayton Area Rugby Club or Dayton Bombers or NCR Country Club or Pipestone Golf Course or various public schools to be notable, but not the various Dayton churches that have Wikipedia articles. Regarding whether or not this is done in other articles on cities, see Kent, Ohio#Religion - a Featured Article. I do agree that the non-notable stuff should be removed, which is why I took that out. However, if Wikipedia has an article on it, then one must assume the topic is notable - and if you really think that Sacred Heart Church (Dayton, Ohio) (for example) isn't notable, then take it to AfD. Just because DjKinDayton thinks it's really important to mention paganism, that's no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I agree with Jayjg. If our section on religion has the same quality as the one for Kent Oh, I'm all for it. But what we have I consider to be banal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DjKinDayton (talk • contribs)
"Banal" wasn't the excuse you used for deleting the whole section. And nothing in this article "has the same quality as the one for Kent Oh" - by that standard the entire article should be deleted. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been removed again by an anon IP, but I have to say I agree with the reasoning. Featured articles of cities should be our standard here; most do not have a religion section in their articles, but if they do, it discusses how religious institutions affected the cities culture or are notable on a national or global scale (see Minneapolis). For now, I believe a generic listing of local places of worship does the article a disservice.--Chimino (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A "disservice"? Seriously? The article lists the religious institutions in Dayton that have Wikipedia articles, which is obviously of "service" to the reader. It's no different than the "Public schools" or "Private schools" sections, that give random lists of a dozen of the 70 private and public schools in Dayton, or the table of fairly random and barely notable minor-league teams like the Dayton Dragons, or the aforementioned Dayton Area Rugby Club, Dayton Bombers, NCR Country Club, Pipestone Golf Course. Golf courses! And we're certainly not going to remove the section because a Single Purpose Account has a bee in his/her bonnet because he/she can't mention paganism. DjKinDayton, if you want this article to mention paganism in Dayton, then write an article about it. Jayjg (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sports, parks, and recreation are all acceptable topics in city articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline), which would certainly include professional minor-league teams such as the Dayton Dragons, and yes, even local golf courses! Religion is acceptable as well, although the guideline shows the subject usually being listed under "Demographics" instead of "arts and culture", though I feel that placement isn't as important as content. For content, a good example to follow here would be the format used in Atlanta's article. Many religious faiths are listed with membership numbers, membership trends, church names, or other facts supporting its significance in the area. The key though is to include reliable sources that support that significance. A link to the Dayton Pagan Alliance's web page, for example, may not be considered reliable enough on its own. GoneIn60 (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metro population

[edit]

The reference currently used in the article for the 2010 census bureau MSA population is here: PopEstCBSA. This reference is the official 2010 United States Census Bureau information for the population of the Dayton Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The reference that you are referring to here: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2010/cph-t/CPH-T-5.pdf Consists of Delineations which are estimates ONLY for statistical purposes and are NOT the same as the official United States Census information that is published every 10 years found as this reference: PopEstCBSA. For the purposes of Wikipedia, estimates are generally not used unless referenced as an estimate with the official information provided first. Please see WP:CONPOL for more information. Also, if further dispute is to be discussed, please discuss it here before reverting properly referenced material. This talk page is an open forum for disputes of this kind. Thank you. Texas141 (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this (http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2010/cph-t/CPH-T-5.pdf) say it is an estimate? Sorry, but your figures are incorrect and thus are improperly referenced, so I will change it if I want. Census reeifined metro area criteria after the 2010 Census was published and applied those changes retroactively back to 2010. The difference is Preble County no longer qualifies for inclusion in the metro area. Take your figures and deduct Preble County; you will come up with the 799,232 I changed this to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.33.78 (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happens after the 2010 Census is not official until the 2020 Census information is published. If the change did take place, as claimed that it did, than the 2010 Census information stands regardless. For official population figures published by the U.S. Census Bureau for clarification.Also please refrain from edit warring. This is not appropriate conduct in Wikipedia. See WP:EW for information. Thank you.Texas141 (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See source here: Population and Housing Occupancy Status: 2010 – United States – Metropolitan Statistical Area
I've had a chance to look at this more closely. The reference made by 132.3.33.78 are the February 2013 Delineations, which is a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that is based on a set of criteria that differs from the criteria used by the U.S. Census Bureau. One difference is the way boundaries are determined. The U.S. Census doesn't go by towns, cities, and counties when determining rural populations in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), whereas the OMB does. The OMB defines rural populations differently, which is why that report differs slightly from the 2010 census. The editor's claim about Preble County being mistakenly included and then dropped in this update wouldn't apply. Preble was officially dropped from Dayton's MSA in 2005, and the numbers don't match up anyway, but that's a moot point. The bottom line is that we should stick with the official 2010 census as Texas141 suggests, since the updates made by the OMB serve a different purpose and are not as widely reported. You can read the OMB bulletin here. For more information on the differences between the two types, click here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Practiced in Dayton as an Article Section

[edit]

Your article has attracted some attention relating to this particular subheading of religion. The topic requires either a good general overview (in standard encyclopedic practice) or greater detail, delineating all faiths practiced regularly and notably in Dayton. I note that three "Christian" (as it is listed) houses of worship are listed, being almost arbitrary and possible biased. One of your Dayton houses of worship is a megachurch located well out of the city. How is this a representation of religion in the City of Dayton? The point of this article is to inform while avoiding such bias. There are numerous houses of worship in Dayton which could also claim representation here, including major Catholic ones (St. Mary's Church being a prominent example). One doesn't simply list religion as it appears to the writer. An encyclopedic article should be noted for a balanced and somewhat distanced and factual presentation of the subject.

The Jewish religion ("Judaic", in the article as I found it listed) is NOT represented by a single reform temple, as there are three traditional branches of Judaism practiced in Dayton and three major houses of worship (among others) which have long traditions in Dayton dating back to 1850. I have included this as an exercise in accuracy. What you've previously written is basically misrepresentation.

Regarding some of your examples, The Sacred Heart Church is more of an architectural landmark than a major current representation of religion being practiced in the city. A small Vietnamese Catholic congregation is currently housed there. This is more an example of diversity than traditional religious practice in Dayton. A more established house of worship in Downtown Dayton (if landmarks be a desirable point of mention) is Westminster Presbyterian Church - itself a landmark with a strong history.

I would strongly suggest that the religion section of this article list generalities without trying to itemize religions (from an obvious bias) and refer only to principal institutions serving religions (such as the University of Dayton). Coming from a position of relative ignorance or of strong leanings is not a proper basis for listing information on a topic. Jsteeber (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General practice in other articles is to discuss only houses of worship that have achieved notability, which until your recent edit, was the situation here. If you are looking at this as you describe, I can understand why you feel that this section is slanted. However, if you remember that we are speaking with a neutral tongue and only covering houses of worship and not religious practices, the prior version of this was neutral. No decisions on content were made based on religion, only on notability. Accordingly, I have reverted your edit that introduced two non-notable houses of worship. Further discussion is welcome, but this is the general practice on US settlement articles that have a religion section. John from Idegon (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The topic provided is "Religion" - not houses of worship - which would make a respectable subsection on its own. Slanted it is. How does a Tipp City church become a Dayton house of worship? How was this church selected for inclusion in this article? I maintain that there is a strong bias here and reject, certainly for my own point, for instance, that Judaism in Dayton is represented (with an implication of exclusivity) by Temple Israel. Would you also point to one house of worship representing Christianity? If you want to maintain a discussion of religion, per an encyclopedic approach, there is no need to discuss houses of worship unless they are principal administrative seats, save for an incidental highlight or two. I can't state this any clearer. If this is not more carefully reviewed, I continue asserting these issues until a more informed approach is achieved. Jsteeber (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I would comment as an objective observer... The section clearly needs work. Even when articles exist on Wikipedia and a Wikilink to that article is used, we should still be using inline citations to support each statement (even if they are the same references that are used in the respectively-linked articles). As for representation, it is not up to us to decide which religions are included and which are not. Any given city could have dozens if not hundreds of different denominations. Including them all would be counterproductive and go against the norms on this site. It's worth pointing out that some big city articles such as Cleveland don't even have a section on religion. A reliable source should narrow it down clarifying the predominant religions for us, or we should opt to not mention the topic at all. As Jsteeber rightfully points out, notable buildings are not necessarily the same as notable religions, with a good example being the Sacred Heart Church. Items like these belong in the architectural section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the removal of any institutions outside the city. I would also have no problem with the removal of the entire section. Short of those options, I don't see any other way to deal with this than the way we are dealing with it, ie, only discussing the institutions that have already achieved notability. If someone wants to research and write a demographic discussion of religion in Dayton, I would have no problem with that. But it is a slippery slope when we start discussing specific, non-notable institutions, as where do we draw the line without asserting some POV or another? John from Idegon (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the section is rewritten with better prose and proper inline citations, I would be in favor of removing it completely. Four of the seven sentences start with, "This religion is represented by". It needs more variation that that. Also, keep in mind that the guidelines for notability apply to article "topics" not article "content". For content, policiies such as WP:NOT and WP:NPOV apply. Without citations, however, the content currently violates WP:V and can be removed accordingly. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

revert of pine club edit

[edit]

John, I added what I did because I was surprised to see Dayton listing only chains in its food/dining section, as I knew there was at least one local restaurant that had had coverage in reliable sources. Instead of reverting, why don't we edit the information? I've reverted, let's discuss. valereee (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just moved and reduced in size the mention of the restaurant. It had way too much prominence before. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but it should be set off from that paragraph, as it isn't a fast-food restaurant so doesn't fit into that category. valereee (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Pine Club belongs with the restaurants, qualifying it as not a chain restaurant, rather than with the food companies, but I don't think that it deserves its own paragraph, unless you want to include some other individual, local eateries. Also, Pine Club now has four references, and that seems to be too much. No other mention in that section has more than one working reference (there is a dead link I'm not counting). Dhtwiki (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other restaurants in Dayton that have received as much coverage in reliable sources? I'd definitely support a short paragraph on several, if we find any others. El Meson may be a possibility. There used to be two restaurants that had national coverage, L'Auberge and King Cole, but they're both defunct. I haven't lived in Dayton for thirty years, so I don't know the dining scene as well there as I used to. The multiple references are kind of the catch-22 I've been trying to deal with here. I had put it in in a short separate paragraph, supported by those references, and it kept getting reverted by another editor. It's a notable restaurant; it's received a lot of national coverage, and the coverage would support a short paragraph for it, which is why there are four references. There are at least two or three others that could be used, but as you point out, four references is already too much for a single sentence. If there aren't any other notable restaurants, I think the best solution is a short paragraph on the Pine Club. valereee (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple covered by NPR recently:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/local-chef-and-restaurant-owner-gets-shout-out-fro/nmrtZ/
http://www.npr.org/2015/07/04/420019798/a-little-chiltomate-raises-the-underappreciated-turkey-thigh
valereee (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meadowlark was covered in Delta's Sky mag...is that a reasonably reliable source? http://deltaskymag.delta.com/Destinations/Dayton-OH/Restaurants/Meadowlark.aspx valereee (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Dayton Magazine story on several restaurants in Dayton: http://www.thedaytonmagazine.com/DM/Articles/Inside_Arts_4398.aspx

So maybe there's enough coverage of Meadlowlark and some of the others to add to a paragraph on actual dining as opposed to fast food and snack foods? valereee (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed everything in two paragraphs for now until we get this sorted out. One sentence is not paragraph form, hence the recent revert. As for which restaurants to include, I think we'll find dozens have been published at some point. The question is how do we narrow those down and only mention the most prominent? I don't think it has to be nationally published to be included, but those that are should have a higher priority for inclusion. I'll do some digging as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've put things back into three paragraphs. The paragraph on fine dining (do we need to distinguish "casual fine dining"?) can stand by itself, especially now that it has two sentences (I'm not aware that paragraphs have to have many sentences, just that they be topically coherent). If you are going to have only two paragraphs, then the Pine Club, and anything similar, should go with the other restaurants. I've put the food suppliers (Esther Price, Mike-sells) first, as being probably more notable than the restaurant chains. I've also taken out some of the transitory phrasing from that first paragraph that may have encouraged its previous placing between the food chains and the restaurants. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I reverted your edit before I noticed your comments here. Here's a link that explains that single-sentence paragraphs should typically be avoided: Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Paragraphs. I understand the desire to group restaurants together, but I suggest we decide on what content we are going to add or remove first, and then worry about the structure last. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay, and a guideline, not policy. "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs." (Emphasis mine.) It doesn't say you can't use them, only that they should be used sparingly. It's silly for us to try to come up with more restaurants to include simply because we don't want to end up with a single-sentence paragraph. That's tailwagging the dog. The Pine Club may very well be the most notable restaurant in Dayton -- Dayton's not huge, and it's not a foodie town -- and until some other restaurant does prove notable, a single sentence paragraph make more sense than either including TPC with fast-food restaurants, including it with manufacturers of food, or not covering it. Personally I think we should cover it with two or three sentences. It is certainly notable enough for that -- as I said earlier, I have at least three other references that could have been included. valereee (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that it's an essay, but it is linked to directly from MOS:PARAGRAPHS. It states plainly at the top that it is meant to serve as a supplement to the MOS. That also doesn't change the fact that single-sentence paragraphs should rarely be used, and I don't believe there's any reason to make an exception here. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that we expand this section necessarily. I'm suggesting we have a closer look at what's been included in here, add or remove if necessary, and move on. The current content in this section needs work, as some of the items mentioned (Subby's, Submarine House, Frickers, etc.) are only referenced by primary sources which do not justify their inclusion. It would be best for us to decide what belongs here and what doesn't first, then worry about the grammatical layout of the section last. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the ordering is more important than whether we have any one-sentence paragraphs, and my ordering, as I explained, kept restaurants together, where they're now split apart, with the Pine Club tacked on to a paragraph about food companies. That can't be very readable. I suggest that my version be put back, at least with regard to the ordering (which also moved from the more basic - food producers - to those that depend on them - restaurants). Dhtwiki (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've put the restaurants together in one paragraph for now, assuming the paragraph with Esther Price and Mike-sells will be expanded in the near future. If you prefer to list fine dining first, I'm not opposed to that. So feel free to rearrange, but since we are only talking about 3 sentences here, fast food chains and fine dining should be able to co-exist in the same paragraph for now. They are all restaurants. If we decide to expand this section in the discussion below, then we can look at separating fast food from fine dining. We just need more content first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what belongs in Food section

[edit]

That'll work. Okay, so in the Food section, we have several fast-food franchise operations, three local pizza chains, a couple of local food producers, and one fine dining restaurant. So first, do all of them stay? valereee (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additions:
This is just a quick, short list, and obviously we still need to find sources that justify the others (Subby's, Submarine House, Frickers, etc), but I figured it was a start. I'm not sure what criteria we'll need to settle on to narrow down the list (or possibly add to it). However, I'm open to suggestions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm...well, I'd think either a mention in an out-of-town reliable source, or several mentions in the DDN or other local source? I'm actually not sure how to measure 'notability' for purposes of a simple mention in an article (as opposed to notable enough to have an article of its own, I mean). Is there policy for that? valereee (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, it's preferred that the WikiProject the article falls under would handle general guidelines for article layouts, but when I checked, all I could find is this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline which unfortunately doesn't address how to narrow down the selection. I agree with you that appearances in out-of-town publications would be preferred and should be considered an automatic qualification to be included in the article. However, an alternative would be if the restaurant is featured in a local article as a "popular" or "successful" restaurant in the area, and not just a passing mention or report that something is happening to the business. Sound reasonable? If too many entries qualify, we can simply create a separate page that covers the culture of Dayton in more detail, similar to the approach other city articles have taken. I don't work much in this area of Wikipedia, so again, this is just one editor's opinion! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quote: "I agree with you that appearances in out-of-town publications would be preferred and should be considered an automatic qualification to be included in the article. However, an alternative would be if the restaurant is featured in a local article as a "popular" or "successful" restaurant in the area, and not just a passing mention or report that something is happening to the business. Sound reasonable? If too many entries qualify, we can simply create a separate page that covers the culture of Dayton in more detail" valereee (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Dayton, Ohio. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 22:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st link wasn't archived; I reverted to dead link status. 2nd and 4th had to be reworked considerably. The 3rd was the only one that worked as found. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dayton, Ohio. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 21:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After initial 302 error message, this link wound up pointing to a possibly useful page. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Native American history

[edit]

Nothing on Native American history, or anything prior its founding. Was it just hunting ground? A regular settlement? Which tribal area was it? How did the land change ownership, was it part of a treaties? How did the founders stake the claim? There is a lot of available history about pre-settlement Ohio. -- GreenC 23:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is slight mention made of the first settlers' contact with native tribes. That could be expanded, but how much more would be appropriate in an article that is about a particular post-European-arrival settlement? Your post made me think of the Sun Watch Indians, whose museum I have seen. That might deserve a place in See Also, but maybe not. Such a settlement is getting far afield from discussing Dayton. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Dayton area, and most of west Ohio, was believed to be occupied by the Miami people before the trail of tears Homeless Canadian (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the Miami people lived in Eastern Ohio as the name of the Miami River (and many place names) still retain this history. That being said, the Trail of Tears had exactly nothing to do with the tribes outside of the SE US. The Miami people were moved out of Ohio well before then and some still live in Indiana <[1] Ckruschke (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Miami_Indians#:~:text=In%201818%2C%20the%20United%20States,permitted%20to%20remain%20in%20Indiana.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dayton, Ohio. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 08:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PDF at link doesn't load for me. I will re-mark link as dead. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PDF still doesn't display. Marking as "failed". Have already marked link as dead at article and placed cbignore template. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dayton, Ohio. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of those links that were supposed to work, only #2 and #3 actually did. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Dayton, Ohio. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 22:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the archived links work and lead to seemingly useful pages; but #1 seems useless, unless it works as an index page. Of the dead links marked, the first leads to a page but that page seems not very useful, and the second leads to "page not found", as expected. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dayton, Ohio. 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: 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) 08:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dayton, Ohio. 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: 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) 22:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newfields?

[edit]

Would it be okay with you all if I added a subsection to this article on the Newfield development? If I did, I would then create a redirect from the mention of Newfield in National Urban Policy and New Community Development Act of 1970#Title VII New Towns. Here is some background. I'd propose to put it in the Cityscape section. Novellasyes (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No issues here. Ckruschke (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Sounds good. Go for it Homeless Canadian (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't spend too much space on this! It's (to me) so interesting! Novellasyes (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—2600:387:F:4A31:0:0:0:5 (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article. Those for the city (in the infobox and at the top of the article) appear to be correct, but I've made a slight adjustment in the coordinates of the Miami Conservancy District building (in note e). If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dayton,_Ohio&oldid=1193683265"