Talk:Morgantown, West Virginia

Middle Schools

Shouldn't Westwood be included as a middle school, or is the area it's in not counted as part of Morgantown. They feed into University High School so I think they should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princedakkar (talk • contribs)

Sources

For as long as this article is, it cites very, very few sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tynedaily (talk • contribs)

There are 18 footnotes, eight references, and several "for further reading" external links, so I don't believe that template message is appropriate. If there are specific things that aren't in the public record (such as widely available census information), then tag it with a "citation requested" ("{{Fact|July 2007}}"). --69.22.254.111 00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

Yes, SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 26, from West Virginia, calls it the Congressional Medal of Honor but in 32CFR578.9 and 10 U.S.C. 3741 when the United States Congress and President created the medal, they called it the Medal of Honor. The article in wikipedia is Medal of Honor, Congressional Medal of Honor is just a redirect to Medal of Honor That is why I changed the name to the official name of the medal, not the incorrect name that people, including the WV Senate, call it. Jons63 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Demographics need updating

The demographics section in this article and the Morgantown metropolitan area article need to be updated to the 2010 census. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Award

I am new to wikipedia so maybe I made a faux pas when I edited the award section. Morgantown won 2 awards in 2011. It was ranked #23 for small cities with growth and #33 in the nation for all overall growth from new geography. I cited the sources, but perhaps I did it wrong. I feel Morgantown deserves recognition for these awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.13.150.149 (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's quite alright — we were all new users once.

It'd be good to have other editors weigh, especially one who have worked on this article before, since I'm not sure a #23 ranking and a #33 ranking in fairly minor lists is of sufficient weight. It comes across more like boosterism than like legitimately notable awards.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You not only removed the award I mentioned, but several that have been listed under the Morgantown award section. I dont see why you get to decide what awards are trivial and which ones are not. You say that I need to have a consensus to include an award, but you are allowed to remove several without one? I dont understand the logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 19:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

From your one edit, you appear to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of IP 184.13.150.149. An admin can check this easily enough, and using sockpuppetry to edit-war can get an editor blocked. If another editor removes something you like, giving good reason, then you discuss it on the talk page. You can call for an WP:RfC, mediation or arbitration. What you do not do is keep reverting. You discuss things here on the talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also note that 184.13.150.149 has only been editing since yesterday, that that IP and this registered name have only made edits to this one article, all boosterish in nature and seemingly violative of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Wikipedia is not to be used by Chambers of Commerce or city boosters to hype their municipalities, particularly with trivia "awards". The legitimate awards by established organizations remain. You appear to be a single-purpose account, and not someone legitimately interested in becoming a responsible editor of this altruistic, free encyclopedia. --19:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am 184.13.150.149. Yesterday was my first contribution to wikipedia. Today I made an account. Like I said I am new to Wikipedia. You say that I need to build a consensus on the discussion page before I can add an award. Fair enough, but you have deleted several awards that you found trivial without a consensus. How is what you are doing any different? I am not a member of Morgantown's board of commerce, and if they were to edit Wikipedia I would hope they would send in someone who knew how. I request an admin or a review to review what you have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a consensus to remove glaring hype and trivia that violates WP:ADVERTISING and WP:UNDUE. And I gave you links, above, to several recourses, from Request for Comment to Arbitration. All editors can avail themselves of the various processes, and I urge you to do so. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont feel you are neutral in this matter and have any right to remove several awards given by prestigious publications. I am in the process of trying to initiate arbitration. Please be patient because I am new at all of this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User: DragonflySixtyseven| DragonflySixtyseven]] ([[User talk: DragonflySixtyseven|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ DragonflySixtyseven|contribs]]) 15:14, 16 August 2011 (unindent for legibility)

Tenebrae I have requested a WP:RfC since I am new at this. Hopefully we can get some feedback. 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

I don't know why you would say I am not "neutral in this matter", but I have to warn you that uncivil comments about other editors, such as implying that their edits are not in good faith, are frowned upon. If anything, one could say that a new user who is so remarkably, doggedly interested in adding retaining a host of trivial "awards" may have some conflict-of-interest reason. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I added 2 awards not a host. You removed a host of awards without any consensus. The awards you removed, except the ones from newgeography, were not by me. Removing awards Morgantown has won by magazines such as Men's Journal, which has a circulation of over 700,000 readers is suspicious. This is why I am asking for outside discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough. Stop making it personal and please learn how Wikipedia works before jumping in cold, making inappropriate edits like reverts, and creating a huge drama with another editor, against whom you've proceeded to make two false claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Also you have no right to lecture me about implying edits are in bad faith. You have accused me of being a member of the Morgantown Chamber of Commerce, or having a conflict of interest, merely because I questioned your removal, without discussion,l of several awards that Morgantown has won. I am a Morgantown resident, but that doesnt mean I am part of the local government or have an alterior motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While the fact that you're from Morgantown is not an "alterior" motive — I assume you meant "ulterior" — it does show a hometown-pride conflict of interest. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily if the awards are true. They were all factual awards given by organizations with sources to boot. It is not for you alone to decide if they are hype or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because something is true does not make it notable. Please see my comments further down about undue weight, perspective and laundry lists. I find it remarkable that someone who has never edited on Wikipedia except for this section of this article, and who has no experience with other articles or with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, is going to insist on including every minor, non-notable award listed on the Chamber of Commerce site for the town that he lives in. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And you still have not retracted the falsehoods you claimed about me, so I see you've decided it's a proper tactic to slander an editor you disagree with. Very nice --Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not notice the additional comments you made in the discussion. I retract and deleted that thread of what I said about you removing notable residents, but I still dont think you are neutral. It is very clear that the Bizjournals.com award deserves to be on the award list. Also you seem fine accusing me of being a member of the Morgantown board of commerce or being biased, but are shocked when I doubt your objectivity? Just because I dont agree with you doesnt mean you need to libel me. If I didnt feel I had a valid argument I would have never requested the additional comments. I am disappointed more people are not participating in this discussion, because without discussion from either of us it is clear it wont be resolved. In a few days we may need arbitration.

You are also wrong about me wanting to include all those awards. I feel the budget travel one and the historic preservation one were puffery and should be removed. However, the Bizjournals.com basically gave Morgantown an award for having the best quality of life for a small city. I have shown they are a reputable and respected publication. This should be included with the awards. I also feel the men's journal and inc.com awards are valid, but we will discuss this after we have both reached an agreement on bizjournals. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs)

If no consensus is reached in an RfC, the status quo remains, which in this case is the version without the non-notable awards. Your recourses then include mediation, not inserting your non-consensus edits. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I didnt add all the awards you removed, so that is not the status quo. The status quo is all the awards, except for all the newgeography awards were added by me. If you dont feel these awards should be there you will need to either resort to mediation or arbitration, but not YOUR non-consensus edits. Remember no consensus has been reached on whether the removals of the awards, and the changes to the status quo, were justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 04:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Two disinterested editors either removed them or didn't re-add them after removal. One editor whose hometown it is wants to add it. And an admin wants to remove more. Please take a step back, look at it dispassionately, and understand that you, in fact, are going against that consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that the award is ok as long as it as an independent source describing the award in a neutral way, not the city or a scanned in press release, to back it up. The admin and Noleander were ok with this. See the discussion on your removal of the award for a better explanation. However, I still dont think the matter is settled after 2 says so I am going to leave the Request for comments open longer to develop a bigger consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC) --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You really do not seem to understand Wikipedia. First, there's no consensus — indeed, User:Bitmapped doesn't agree that third-party confirmation is enough, and wants to keep the awards list short and notable. Second, you don't get to decide how long the RfC stays up. Third, you don't get to decide the RfC or whether you're going to heed it or not. And finally, at least two editors who have worked on the page disagree with adding it, and in fact want to remove more "awards". If you re-add it, you're going against the consensus of at least those two editors, and that's not how we work. You come into Wikipedia like a bull in a china shop, make demands, say you're going to do whatever you want regardless of other editors — plural — and show no interest in contributing anything to Wikipedia except one boosterish, conflict-of-interest edit. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I am new to wikipedia. I never said there was a consensus. I was referring to the consensus so far. I plan to abide by the RfC, and never said I wouldnt. I am getting tired of your assumptions Tenebrae. All you have done is resorted to such ad hominem attacks the whole discussion. The RfC is open for much longer so stop saying what the consensus is. It has not been decided yet, and your opinion doesnt decide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I support the existing removal of awards. It did a good job of eliminating the minor ones and focusing on major ones that best highlight Morgantown. If someone wants to see a full list of awards, they can go to the linked list at Morgantown.com.

Personally, I would remove the website award that is listed there and cap the list at 5 awards. That's enough to provide a good diversity without bogging down. Bitmapped (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I like your idea and woule like to expand on it. Morgantown could have 5 awards explicity listed on wikipedia. Under these awards we could include a caption, "see here for a complete list of awards," which could link to the Morgantown awards page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 00:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Cap the list" at 5 means only "up to" 5. It's not a license to include trivial puffery to get 5 awards exactly.

As for a link to that particular page of puffery on the Chamber of Commerce site, Wikipedia has two pertinent WP:EL policies against that: First, we don't add purely promotional links. Second, we give a single link to a site's main page, which in this case would be Morgantown.com, and not to multiple pages within a site. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

We are in the middle of a discussion to reach a consensus. You cant just go and start making demands. I have no problem with 5 awards, but if that is the number chosen it will be through polite discussion and consensus, and not demands you made. Wikipedia is not your private encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 15:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

REFACTORING MARGINS "Demands"? What demands? I haven't made any demands. It was another editor who said "up to 5" and I was reiterating. That's it. I have to say, your attempts at smearing me by making untrue claims and assumptions must stop. You do not have the right to mischaracterize other editors. How dare you tar me with the accusations inherent in "Wikipedia is not your private encyclopedia." I have been participating in this RfC on an equal basis with other editors and have not touched the awards section since we started. How dare you say a thing like that. Trying to slander me to other editors with false accusations? You've crossed a line, and if you had any honor you would retract that statement.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So just because I disagree with you I have no honor. You have done nothing this discussion but make ad hominem attacks and constantly change your argument as I showed how you were wrong. You seem to think that your opinion carries more weight than all the other editors. If you had any honor you would respect your fellow editors. Also, I have requested several times you contact me directly about any concerns you have. This is wikipedia and not an internet forum. Stop hijacking the discussion with your personal issues that you have against me. I would be more than willing to settle this issue through a conversation if you were willing to actually participate in discussion instead of personal attacks and libel. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

No, not because you disagree with me. Because you slander me. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

First slander is spoken and libel is written. Second i'm not libeling you because I believe everything I have said about you is true. You have only yourself and your actions to blame for that. I have given you multiple attempts to participate neutrally in this conversation, but you would constantly ignore your fellow editors because you feel your opinion is better. Third, please take all problems you have with me either to my discussion page, or contact a mod with your concerns. As it is the Morgantown discussion is for discussion about Morgantown and not personal issues. You have been on Wikipedia for years and should know this. Inexcusable. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

::::I'm a journalist. Libel appears in printed or Web publications or news broadcasts. Slander applies to forums, whether verbal or printed, such as here or in an e-mail.

And, no, just because you believe a falsehood doesn't mean it's not slander. If I were to hypothetically call you a bellicose loudmouth who doesn't care about contributing to Wikipedia but just about boosting his hometown, that's opinion and is generally protected speech. If I falsely claim you're making demands when you haven't — a factual falsehood — that's slander. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned it is not slander, or libel, if it is true. If you want me to edit out my comments than you need to PM and we can discuss removing our whole conversation, but I refuse to engage in such a conversation over the Morgantown wikipedia page. I wont hijack the whole discussion to discuss a personal issue that you have with me. So send a message to my personal discussion page and I am sure we can reach some kind of agreement. If you think I am slandering you please go and contact a mod, or like I said contact me personally and we can resolve the issue. Thank you for your cooperation. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

You continue to astound me. With no experience with Wikipedia, and with no desire to volunteer on any other articles or virtually any other edits except to add dubious "awards" to your hometown, you accused me of bad faith from the start and made things personal yourself. I only care about keeping Wikipedia from becoming a promotional vehicle for those who think we're a free web server for their fan pages, or a promotional venue for their company, their band or their town. You may find it hard to believe that there are people here who are volunteering their time and expertise with no promotional notion in mind — so, obviously, when we call you on it, you become defensive and take it personally. It's never been personal with me, as I have explained, once more, here. But you'll keep repeating a lie loud enough and long enough until others believe you. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Again you come here with your accusations and no evidence to back them up. Just because I disagree with you doesnt mean I am biased. That is a flawed outlook at life. You are trying to make it seem like others share your views on me, but you are the only person who has accused me of bad faith, so dont say, "we." This isnt about, "we," but about "you." You seem to feel that you, and you alone, represent the will of Wikipedia. It just isnt true. I am astounded that one person could feel so self-reightous about themselves. It has never been personal about me I just want to improve the Morgantown page. Thanks to my efforts, via RfC many of the rewards have been removed. I support the removal of these awards after some reasonable editors actually explained to me why they should be removed. Had you tried to engage in productive dialogue you probably could have convinced you are right. However, from the beginning you took this as a personal issue, and continue to do so. You never used any logic, reasoning, or consistency but instead argued that your opinion was right and I should just accept that. At this point I cannot take you seriously as an editor. Wikipedia is not your personal wiki Tenebrae. I might new, but I at least know that.

Also the reason I dont contribute to any other articles is you kind of turned me off it. If making a small edit will lead to people carrying out personal vendettas against me over wikipedia it just isnt worth it. Maybe, other editors are easier to work with than you, but from now I am going to be more careful making edits. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 3TonCatInTheRoom

I sincerely, no joking, applaud that you're "going to be more careful making edits." That's exactly right. Making careful, well-cited, constructive edits is what Wikipedia is all about.

As for your other remarks: I can't help that you got defensive over a non-personal edit made for objective reasons that I properly gave. "At this point I cannot take you seriously as an editor." As with anything else, someone coming in cold, without the experience of a learning curve, and misunderstanding how Wikipedia works and what Wikipedia is, has no good basis to criticize someone who has worked diligently on this project for over six years, to awards and accolades from other editors. You can see them on my user page. Your opinion of me means absolutely nothing.

And I find it hard to keep a straight face when someone who thinks an 11-year-old award is fine when others besides me have wanted to limit awards to 10 years old talks to me about logic. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who has based their whole argument off opinion. Mine is fact based. Ive seen your page and noticed a lot of criticism similar to mine. Your neutrality is not just in question in regards to Morgantown. Just because you have been around 6 years doesnt mean you are an expert on every subject.

I never got defense and the age of the comment was never part of your original argument. You attacked Bizjournals as a relevant source. Other editors chimed in and disagreed with you. After I proved you were wrong about bizjournals you then attacked the dream town award based off no research and just the name. Twice you were completely ignorant about the award and made judgement off the name alone. Later on some editors rode up on white horses and rescued you by mentioning the name of the article. I even agreed with them that it is dated and we discussed guidelines for age. It is obvious you are upset that a newer editor showed you up and made you look bad. I think that is why you are trying to make this personal. You need to calm down and try to participate as a neutral observer from this point on. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 3TonCatInTheRoom

You are misstating or mischaracterizing so many things in your above post. We've gone round and round on it, and now I'm just feeling bad for you. You have worked yourself up to such a state that your post above fulminates with so much bad grammar and spelling it's like you're foaming at the mouth. I'm sorry that you are so blindly defensive and so single-mindedly obsessive about sticking one award into your hometown's article that you resort to insults and inaccuracies. I think the fact that my use of language — grammar, spelling, syntax — has been normal throughout all this is proof positive of my calmness. Look at what you wrote above; you're practically not speaking English anymore. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and RE: "Ive [sic] seen your page and noticed a lot of criticism similar to mine," I again have to feel sorry for someone so consumed with obsession that he would deliberate mischaracterize another person ... because you're choosing not to mention the full cabinet of 10 awards I've had bestowed upon me by other editors. A half-truth is a lie. But of course you knew that. Nice try at besmirching me. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So there is no criticism of you on your discussion page? I saw many complaints. Your condensing attitude towards other editors has been noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 23:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I said, and you know it. I said you gave a half-truth in saying there was criticism of me without noting all the accolades of and thank yous to me. You were trying to deliberately paint a false one-sided picture, and that is neither fair nor accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It is very fair. In this article alone several editors have called you out for your behavior. Maybe you did win some awards in the past, but that doesnt give you a free pass to treat wikipedia like your own private encyclopedia. I didnt paint a one-sided picture of you. You did that yourself. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

Yeah. I'm sure. Whatever. It's so private that no other editor besides us has ever edited this article, huh? Whatever. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? So you admit you feel the Morgantown article is private to you. That explains a lot about your mentality. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

WHAT?????' I did not say that! How in God's name can you not read English? Or are you purposefully saying something so off-the-wall that it's intended to goad me into saying something an admin would ban me for? Good God. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You are being really Paranoid. You are making me out to be some kind of master manipulator who is making a conspiracy against you to turn the other editors and admins against you. Is this normally how you have discussions on wikipedia? By accusing people who dont agree with of trying to get you banned? I dont even know all the rules of wikipedia.

I also have a very good grasp of english, but your sentence was very unclear. The only thing I could get from it is that you claimed the Morgantown wikipedia as your own. It seems consistent with everything you have saying so far. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

You are just a vicious little name-caller, aren't you? I made no such claims, nor even any implications, of any sort whatsoever. Rather, you are a liar, plain and simple. And your English — capital E — is atrocious. Now stop lying and making false claims. At some point, whatever sympathy anyone may have for a newbie will evaporate over his continued, conscienceless attacks. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Name caller? I dont remember calling you any names or making any lies. I am really done talking with you. I tried to have a civil conversation but it has failed. I suggest you review this new entry on the submission by this mod on proper wikipedia etiquette. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morgantown,_West_Virginia#Wikipedia:Etiquette_-_I_think_a_reminder_about_behavior_on_Wikipedia_is_in_order_here Thank you. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

"Paranoid" was just the most recent. As I doubt you're a clinical psychologist, that would be name-calling. And you were uncivil from the start, as I have quoted from your very first registered-user comment. I suggest you review this new entry on the submission by this mod on proper wikipedia etiquette. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morgantown,_West_Virginia#Wikipedia:Etiquette_-_I_think_a_reminder_about_behavior_on_Wikipedia_is_in_order_here Thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Awards by Tenebrae

I am a newbie to Wikipedia so sorry for any mistakes. I added an award to Morgantown's award section with a reference to the website. User Tenebrae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tenebrae removed it along with several other awards that Morgantown has won by various publications. He told me that I need to have a consensus on the discussion before adding a new award. I agree that this is fair, but he removed several awards that he considered "trivial" and as "hype" without any discussion or consensus. Like I said I am new to wikipedia, so maybe I am in the wrong, but I feel that he should have a consensus on the discussion before removing the awards. 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

3TonCat: Can you list the awards here that are missing from the article, and you think should be in the article. For each award, include a book or newspaper or magazine (use web link, if available) that describes Morgantown receiving that particular award. --Noleander (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can Noleander. First let me start by awards he removed that werent by me:

2010: Morgantown named one of "America's Top College Football Towns" by Budget Travel http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2010/09/08/AR2010090802916.html

2007: 5th best Boomtown City in Country, by Inc.com http://www.morgantown.com/awards/iinc-com-boomtowns-07-intr.pdf

2006: 29th Smartest Place to Live in US, by Kiplinger's Personal Finance http://www.morgantown.com/awards/The%20Kiplinger%2050-2006.pdf

2006: 12th Hottest Small City: Boomtown (Metros less than 150,000 population), by Inc. Magazine http://www.morgantown.com/awards/Boomtowns%20'06_%20Hottest%20Small%20Cities%20-hot-cities-inc.pdf

2004: 3rd Best Small Town In America, by Men's Journal http://www.morgantown.com/mens-journal-news.pdf

2000: #1 Dreamtown in Country, by BizJournals.com http://www.morgantown.com/no1-biz.htm

These are the awards he removed that were by me:

Best small city for business #24 http://www.newgeography.com/content/002209-small-cities-rankings-2011-best-cities-job-growth

best overall city for job growth #33 http://www.newgeography.com/content/002212-all-cities-rankings-2010-best-cities-job-growth

Finally when coming across these URLs I found some new awards Morgantown won. Would it be safe to include them?

2010: Morgantown ranked in the top 10 on Forbes' list of Best Places for Business and Careers,http://www.morgantown.com/awards/2010-best-places-for-business-beltw-2.pdf

2002: "Morgantown Graded "A" in Economic Development by BizJournals.com (#21 out of nation's 496 micropolitan areas) http://www.morgantown.com/article-biz-2002-1.htm

3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

In the interim, I notice another editor has removed even more "awards" as "puffery".

A Forbes list I would call notable — Forbes is known for its well-regarded lists. But BizJournal.com is no Forbes. Also, I would remove anything with the vague and imprecise term "boomtown." Finally, the fact that most of these come from a Chamber of Commerce site should help indicate their boosterish nature. We're not trying to advertise Morgantown. We should only include meaningful awards. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

bizjournals' sites have more than four million unique visitors each month. It might not be as prestigious as Forbes but it is known in the business community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Bizjournals.com is the online version of American City Business Journals. They reach around 4 million readers mainly in the business community. A #1 award from them should be good enough to be included on Wikipedia. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs)

You say you're a disinterested party. Yet to add an 11-year-old "#1 Dreamtown" (whatever that means) "award", you'll go to the magazine's media kit or ABC circulation records — I assume that's what you did? — to come up with a circulation figure to try to bolster an argument? As for its readership, is that general circulation or closed circulation? Is it a giveaway sent to all members of, say, certain businesses or Chambers of Commerce? What specifically makes this trade magazine, unknown to the general public, notable? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As explained to you earlier bizjournals.com is the online version of American City Business Journals, which in turn is owned by Advanced Publications. American City Business Journals [is their main publication. ] They own Conde Nast Publication and were the 46th biggest private business in the US according to Forbes. So bizjournals.com is the online version of the business journal of one of the biggest media companies in the US, and not some small website. I think I proved that this is a legitimate company and isn't "trivial." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where to begin. First, I remain curious as to why someone who has never made any edits before to Wikipedia, who has only edited not this article as a whole but just this section of this article, is being so vociferous and going to so much time and trouble about including these and other "awards". I have to wonder if you're genuinely interested in volunteering to help build this encyclopedia, or just want to boost the town where you say you live.

In any event, this isn't BizJournal's "40 Under 40" list, which the general public knows. This 11-year-old "Dreamtown" list — whatever that made-up word is supposed to mean — is unknown to the general public; it so far does not appear notable enough that someone's created a Wikipedia article for it; and it seems only of interest to local boosters.

The Alvar Aalto Medal is a genuine, notable award given in the realm of architecture and urban planning. The American Planning Association award is a notable one given out by a major industry organization. Those are awards. We're under no obligation to include every piddling list that some magazine creates. It's undue weight, it lacks perspective, and laundry lists of awards diminish the value of real awards. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And you are blatantly incorrect when you say American City Business Journals are the "main publication[s]" of Advance Publications (not "Advanced"). I think even a cursory glance at the Conde Nast magazines, such as '"Vogue, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair' and others, not to mention Fairchild's Women's Wear Daily, the bible of the fashion industry, would disabuse one of that notion. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I had to start somewhere with wikipedia and it was here. You than come and not only undo my contribution, but the contribution of other people. Now I notice that you no longer have any problems with Bizjournals.com and suddenly you mention there "40 under 40" list, when just a few hours ago they were just a trivial publication unknown to the public. Suddenly the public knows about them? The more we discuss the more apparent it is that this award deserves to be on the list.

Now that you have changed your stance and agree with me that Bizjournals.com is worth noting you are suddenly attacking the word, because you dont like the name. It is a #1 award for a great city. That is pretty relevant to Morgantown. I agree some of the awards are trivial like the great college towns, but not that one. It is a significant award and I think we both know it should on the award list. Your argument against it is getting weaker and weaker.

Sorry I worded that wrong and I retract that statement. I meant to say it is there main business publication. I apologize for being unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 01:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Also had you bothered to actually research what the "dreamtown award" is instead of just dismissing it because of the name you would see that it is defined as cities with populations of 10,000 to 50,000 that offer an outstanding quality of life http://www.morgantown.com/no1-biz.htm , which seems like a significant award from a well known business publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 01:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is only significant to someone who lives there and wants to boost the town. And we were not talking about the "40 Under 40" list, which people have heard of ... as opposed to this "#1 award for a great city", a phrase that hardly sounds like it came from a dispassionate observer.

RE: "I think we both know it should on the award list": I have been patient because you are a newbie, but your vitriol and contentiousness have reached an untenable point. Don't you dare presume what another editor knows or believes in order to try to bolster your transparent attempt to be a booster for your hometown. And you have still not retracted your slanderous falsehoods about me, so I guess we know the kind of person you are.

If you are here to be responsible contributor to this wonderful free encyclopedia, fine. But you seem to be here solely to boost for your hometown, and now you post lies and falsehoods about a veteran editor who has volunteered his time and expertise for years. Wikipedia is not here to advertise your hometown. Find an article for which you don't have a clear conflict of interest, learn the ropes and learn how to speak civilly with other editors. Or are you just interest in shilling for your town? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"it is only significant to someone who lives there and wants to boost the town." You cant just make a big generalization like that. It tells a lot about the quality of life in Morgantown.

Funny you should say this,"Don't you dare presume what another editor knows or believes in." You have made several presumptions about me. However, you are getting very off topic and trying to steer the conversation away from the fact that you are wrong about Bizjournals.com and the award they gave it. Earlier you were criticizing bizjournals.com until I showed they were actually a prestigious magazine than you started criticizing, "the dreamtown award," until I explained what it is. Now you have suddenly dropped both your arguments and are now resorting to attacking me personally. Tenebrae you have failed to explain why bizjournals.com dream award should not be included so I am adding it back, since I refuted all your points against it. If you dont feel it should be included gain a consensus through discussion or go for mediation or arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what twisted logic you used to believe that you refuted anything, but adding an award for your own hometown is a conflict of interest. You are too close to it to see that this is a trivial award. I am a disinterested observer, with no conflict of interest, which tips the scale in favor of not including it.

In any event, you started this Request for Comment — and now we're supposed to leave it open to let other editors comment before we change anything. If you go in and make the change you speak of, you're in clear violation. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I didnt add this award. i re-added after you removed it without any discussion and proved that it was a valid award. You originally argument was that Bizjournals.com was some "trivial" publication, but I showed that it was anything but "trivial." Next you argued that the dreamtown award was a bunch of unclear nonsense, but I quickly found out that it was a quality of life award for small cities. So your whole case against the Bizjournals.com has collapsed. Now you are trying to say that because I am from Morgantown I cannot be objective. That is ridiculous. just because I am from Morgantown doesnt mean everything I have said has been invalidated. I have no conflict of interest and have agreed that several of the awards should be removed, but this one is significant and not, "trivial." Maybe you think it is a trivial award, but your opinion doesnt make it fact. Saying that I am biased is uncivil as you explained earlier and basically an ad hominem on your part. You have been here 6 years so you must surely know the etiquette, but you regularly break it. If you have proof that there is a conflict of interest please present it, but if you dont have any than you are just making baseless accusations, and I am going to have to ask you to drop that.

I am new to Wikipedia so I am sorry if I made a violation. I figured since I proved it deserved to be on the awards I could put it there. If this issue is not resolved when this Request for Comment is closed in 30 days I am going to have to add back the award, unless you can make a better case on why it shouldnt be on Wikipedia. If you continue to edit it out I will be forced to contact the proper authorities on wikipedia and report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 03:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who said he was from Morgantown. And as someone from Morgantown, you're insisting on adding an award that a disinterested outside editor feels is trivial. Adding a hometown award that a disinterested observer thinks is trivial shows conflict of interest.

And your saying that you're going to go ahead and reject the RfC consensus if it doesn't go way has crossed a line, as has your bullying threat to "contact the proper authorities." --Tenebrae (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Your premise is faulty. Just because you are disinterested and an outsider doesnt mean that every outsider would be disinterested. Just because I am from Morgantown doesnt mean I have a conflict of interest.

I never said I was going to reject the RfC consensus. I said if no consensus was met I am adding back the bizjournals.com award. So far there is still 30 days for a consensus to be reached so if one is reached the matter is settled. I am not bullying you. I am warning you that if you continue to edit out parts of the Morgantown page without reaching a consensus if this matter is not settled by the RfC I will have to report you. Isn't that the proper course of action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 03:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If no consensus is reached, the article's status quo remains, which in this case means without the puffery that I and a second disinterested editor removed. And, no, if you don't get your way, you don't "report" me to anyone — you move on to one of the next stages of Wikipedia conflict resolution, which, as I have said, includes mediation and arbitration.

I find it remarkable that in your very first foray into Wikipedia, you immediately get into an argument with another editor, create drama and initiate an RfC — all simply to add a boosterish "award" for your own hometown. The fact that not one but two disinterested editors either removed them (me) or did not reinsert and indeed removed more such puffery (User:Trekphiler) seems not to have left an impression. Of the three of us editors, only the one from Morgantown thinks this "award" belongs here. That doesn't tell you anything? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually you are the one who upset the status quo by removing a host of awards. So I agree with you the status quo will return before I added the newgeography awards, and before you deleted a bunch of awards. Those awards had been there for months and were the status quo, with the exception of the ones I added yesterday. If you dont like you move on to the next stages of Wikipedia conflict resolution, which you mentioned as, mediation and arbitration. Also this drama has been created by you.

Morgantown is a town of 30,000 people and a metro area of over 100,000 and I dont see why 2 people get to decide what is important and what is not. I admit I added a boosterish award, but I made this mistake in ignorance, and then you proceeded to delete a bunch of awards that were not boosterish. Also (User:Trekphiler) never said that all those awards you removed didnt belong there. He removed an award that you didnt edit out because he thought it didnt belong here. So basically you are making the case that your view by default takes precedence. I have been willing to discuss the issue with you, but you have changed your argument several times, as I proved my points, and now have resorted to saying that since you are a "disinterested party" no changes are to be made. A very weak argument. I think the fact that you have dropped your points with bizjournals.com as shown the validity of the award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I came here per a request on my talk page. I have a few comments. First 3TonCatInTheRoom, please sign your posts be either pressing the sign button in the editing toolbar or by placing four tildes after your posts. Second please take some time to familiarize yourself with out policies before beginning an edit war, specifically reliable sources and no original research and conflict of interest. I will place some other useful links in your talk page. Welcome and thanks for coming to help us out. That being said I think that unless an award has an independent third party source then it should be automatically off the table. Scans of press releases do not meet the threshold of reliable sources. Until consensus has been reached on the awards to be added the page should stay as it is now (or the reversion before my last edit if it is contentious) per bold, revert, discuss.--Adam in MO Talk 05:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry still getting used to this site. I thought wikipedia autosigned. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Adam in Mo. The best rule to follow on whether to include an award or not is this: The award can be included if a reliable source describes the city receiving the award, and that source is not the city itself or the group presenting the award (nor any source that is just repeating a press release from either the city or the award-giver). In other words, an independent source (e.g. magazine or newspaper) must describe the award, and not in a press-release or self-promotion fashion. There may (or may not) be several awards that meet this criterion ... I have not scrutinized the sources in detail. But the burden is on the person who wants to add the award into the article to demonstrate that the source is independent. --Noleander (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So as long as an independent source describes the award in a honest fashion the award is ok to add? Do we have a consensus here? --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree on this point. We want to keep the list of awards fairly brief to avoid undue weight issues and to avoid bogging down the article. Just because an award gets a mention in the Dominion Post does not mean it is worth listing here.Bitmapped (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the issue with? The Dominion post or the award? Im not sure what you think the criteria should be. Could you please elaborate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dominion Post is a subscription-only pay site, so citations to it cannot be readily checked. As a small newspaper it is not collected in major libraries, and so archival issues, such as for the year 2000, can only be accessed at libraries in West Virginia. Secondly, just because the local paper mentions it doesn't automatically instill notability; the local paper mentions the local winners of the softball tournament, too. Doesnt make it encyclopedically notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If a bigger publication has something about it published is that considered a better source? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs)

The Dominion Post prints a lot of things. That doesn't mean they are all worthy of inclusion here. I would prefer to focus on having a short (I suggest 5-item) list of major awards rather than a longer list of minor ones. Bitmapped (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable but im not sure how one would evaluate them. My best idea is have a limit of 5-10 awards and a link at the award section for further awards that Morgantown has won. The lesser awards wouldnt be displayed on Wikipedia, but a user could quickly find them. Does this sound reasonable? --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

Up to 10 of these puffery awards? Seriously? And having a link to the Chamber of Commerce site that lists more of these awards? We are not here to shill for anyone's hometown. If we can't find WP:RS cites that aren't the Chamber of Commerce or the local paper, we shouldn't include them. And if they don't have a threshold of notability we shouldn't include them. That's pretty much Wikipedia standards. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I said 5-10 awards, which means anywhere between 5 awards to 10 awards. Stop making this personal and please try to stay civilized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, I urge you, as a new user, to please learn Wikipedia WP:CIVIL guidelines. I only discussed your suggestion above. I did not discuss you. As for "uncivilized" I have used polite language throughout — adding your accusation to the list of falsehoods you keep posting. Shall I list them for verification for other editors?

And "up to 10" means exactly the same thing as "5 to 10" ! It becomes extremely hard to discuss something with someone who appears to have difficulty with understanding plain English. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Another rude post by you. You are really taking this discussion to personal. I urge you to re-read those guidelines you mentioned. You are free to post what you want on Wikipedia, but I am here to help contribute to the Morgantown wiklipedia page and am not interested in having a flame war with you.

I was talking to a polite and civil user on reaching a number. Instead of making demands they are making suggestions to improve the article, which I feel are fair. I already showed my willingness to have only 5 articles, but you just cant seem to grasp that, and instead want to hold some kind of grudge against me. You are not only making yourself look, bad, but wikipedia as a whole.

I suggest you participate as a polite and neutral party from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

[REFACTORING MARGIN] Remarkable. Someone who's first foray into Wikipedia has been so contentious and so misinterpretive of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and who isn't interested in helping Wikipedia as a whole but only in adding a boosterish edit to his hometown's page, would lecture anyone who has been working faithfully here for more than his own two days.

I wrote "Up to 10". You "corrected" me by saying that, no, you meant "5-10 awards". How is it you find it uncivil that I point out that "'up to 10' means exactly the same thing as '5 to 10'"? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I might be new to wikipedia, but I know how to have a civil discussion and you sir are not having one. Please try to stay on topic and quit hijacking the discussion. The discussion is about Morgantown's award section. Please refrain from any personal attacks. Thank you. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

Stop spouting falsehoods. Anyone can see very well that my post just above is discussing cold, hard, numerical facts about the article. Calling that a "personal attack" is an outright lie. AND you didn't answer my question. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your accusations of town boosting is a direct personal attack. Tenebrae Wikipedia is not a forum for this kind of thing. Please go to my discussion page if you want to have a conversation about my motives. It does not belong in this discussion for the Morgantown page. Thank you for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 01:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This issue affects this article directly and these are not accusations. Please don't try to misdirect with such misleading language. Conclusions made on evidence are not accusations. An editor from Morgantown is the only editor of the several here who is lobbying to have this "award" inserted. Even if this were a serious, notable award, the fact that only an editor from Morgantown is lobbying so vociferously — and refuses to do otherwise, though no other editor is likewise lobbying for it — is clearly boosterism. If it walks like a duck.... is a standard Wikipedia rule of thumb, so, no, conclusions based on evidence are not accusations. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae you have no evidence other than the fact I am from Morgantown. It is counter productive, and frankly rather childish of you, to make such accusations just because I dont agree with you. By your logic no one from Morgantown should be able to edit the Morgantown page. It is just ridiculous. I made this RtF to try and reach a consensus, instead of letting you just vandalize the page, and the RtF is coming along quite nicely except for your constant disruptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm here commenting at the request of the RFC. The Forbes, Inc., and Kiplinger article mentions IMO are OK. If a mainstream source such as these sees fit to publish an award or acclaim its worth mention as long as there is a citation to back it up. On the other hand, given the prevalence of "business award scams" and organizations who bestow honors and awards simply in exchange for "sponsorship" or the purchase of a plaque, I agree with Trekphile that some of these seem little more than fluff. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think the Bizjournals.com awards should be included. They are the online version of the American City Business Journals, which are the main business publications of Advanced Publications. Advanced Publications has a reputable reputation, and is one of the largest media companies in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

3Ton, if you can find ideally a citation for an award or accolade to a print edition of a decently agreed upon mainstream source, I'm happy to back to you. But the citation needs to be fairly substantial. And as I mention below in my reply to Bitmapped, I would add that relevance of time is important. Sticking to the last 5 years or so of awards seems sufficient. If for some reason Morgantown becomes "less award worthy" in the future the award mentions will simply be removed by attrition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalhotrod (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Bitmapped, I agree with your suggestion of a short list and would like to make one recommendation. Given the fluid nature Wikipedia I'd like to suggest the addition of 5-10 items from ONLY the last 5-10 years. I'm sure that most would agree that a "Best city for..." or "Fastest Growth..." award from the 80's or 90's is probably irrelevant at this point. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right about the age. There is no point in adding an award if it was so long in the past it is now irrelevant. I am new to wikipedia so what is the general agreement on age of awards? Bizjournals was early 2000s I think. 10 years it would work, but 5 years no. Morgantown has chanfed considerably since it won the "dreamtown award" so it might no longer be relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I had mentioned once or twice that an award under discussion was 11 years old. I also believe that anything cited by the Chamber of Commerce / Morgantown website alone is insufficiently cited, as others have noted above. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

But just because it is 11 years old doesn't mean it is not relevant. Myself and other responsible users are currently engaged in a conversation to decide this. Will keep you posted. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

3Ton, My guess is that there is not any rule of thumb for the time relevance of awards. In my opinion it most likely relates to the nature of the award/accolade and the difficulty in attaining it. For example, the 2007 listing by the National Trust for Historic Preservation seems like something worth keeping in perpetuity. I would make the same assertion for a city or location that was placed on the UNESCO World Heritage Site list (or the National Registry for that matter). Please understand that I am not equating the National Trust for Historic Preservation with an organization like UNESCO, I am simply saying that in this relative context the item is worthy of inclusion in the article. Even then, an accolade from Forbes magazine still has a "shelf life" and should eventually expire and be removed. I'm good with 5-10 years.

Conversely if something is more of a nicety (fluff, boosterism, etc.) versus a relevant and citable achievement, I consider that clutter. That said there likely to be someone who is quite proud of a particular, but not terribly relevant, award; yet that is not enough IMO to make it part of the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case the Bizjournals.com award could still be relevant and should be included. Im not sure about the best walking cities award. It just seems weak and Morgantown is ranked pretty high up there. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

No, because 1) the BizJournals.com award is 11 years old, and it's nothing like the National Trust for Historic Preservation list, which is in perpetuity like the National Film Registry, etc. And 2) as far as I can see, the only cite is from the Morgantown website and not a third-party source.

Yes, because 1) As discussed age doesnt matter if award is relevant and still prestigious 2) I know of a third- party source that I can cite. Extremley busy this week, but I can get the source by next weekend. If the 3rd party source isnt up by the time the RfC ends than I am fine with it not being included. If you have have evidence that Bizjournals.com is any less prestigious than it was at the time of the award than please provide it and I will retract the award. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

Wait and see what the other editors say. It's not your decision to make. And in any case, you're not telling the truth. As User:Scalhotrod put it, "Even then, an accolade from Forbes magazine still has a 'shelf life' and should eventually expire and be removed. I'm good with 5-10 years." Not 11. Please be more honest.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Likewise it is not your decision to make. Wait and see what the other editors say. You dont get to decide if 11 years is too many. That is the point of the RfC. Your opinion alone isnt enough to say that. You seem to think you are above every other editor on wikipedia. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)::::::::::::

After 11 years, the "Dreamtown" award listing is stale. If you can work it into a narrative in the history section about Morgantown's redevelopment, mention it there. It's no longer appropriate for the Awards section. Bitmapped (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

3Ton, this conversation has given me an idea for a rule of thumb with regard to the age of awards. My simple guideline is... If in the future (6 months, 1 year, 5 or 20 years, makes no difference) someone is researching a particular subject, would the inclusion of this info be helpful as a lead in tracking down other sources of information, AND, could the piece of information be immediately recognizable as a lead for more information. The BizJournal award meets this criteria for inclusion, but then the question becomes... "Is it worthy of inclusion in the main body of the article?

That said, in my opinion (IMO) the Dream award in question although citable via BizJournals is fairly dated and seems less "reputation elevating" to me than the more recent Forbes or Inc listing. I can understand the argument in favor of its mention, just not its equal weight with much more recent awards.

Furthermore, I will go so far as to state that any accolade or award based on a list is not worthy of mention unless the recipient in is the "top 10" or "top 5" relative to the overall significance of the list. For example (facetiously), "#1 worst town for dog parks" is not only laughable, but not worth the citation. IMO the "29th smartest..." and "12th hottest..." awards are not worthy of main body article inclusion, but should be mentioned in a cited Reference.

3Ton, I'm with Bitmapped on this, couldn't much (if not all) of this issue be resolved with the addition of a clearly cited paragraph as an introduction to the Awards section explaining that Morgantown has had it fair share of awards and accolades with every single one of these status listings simply put into the article References section? They will still be in the article, searchable via Google, and any intrepid researcher (or reader) will easily run across their specific mention. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to contact bizjournals to see if they rate other towns, and still think Morgantown could compete with this award. I agree if this award is not yearly, and there are no other rankings in it than it isnt worthy of mention. However, if they have an annual ranking that list 10 cities than I think it might meet the criteria. If the later were the case we would need to find out why Morgantown hasnt been mentioned in 11 years. If it were a ranking they used to have and dropped it in say 2000 than the award is stale. Id also say drop the walkable cities and best educated awards. Morgantown is just ranked too high in these specific awards to be worth mention. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

What you are talking about is original research, and that is strictly not allowed. We can only used published sources, and not our own research. That's a core Wikipedia policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What if I get it published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SPS re: the use of self-published sources. If you mean in a legitimate WP:RS publication, that would depend on the context. A letter-to-the-editor, for example, isn't applicable.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Scalhotrod that after "10th most", it's not notable, and that the 11-year-old BizJournals award is dated. Not sure what he means by not in the "main body" but "mentioned as a cited Reference." I'm not sure where the Reference footnote would be if not in the main body. I think "has had it fair share of awards and accolades" is impermissibly vague. What's a "fair share"?

As has been discussed, I believe 5 to 10 awards and none more than 10 years old be included, and that each has a third-party cite that is not the Chamber of Commerce or the local paper. If the source giving the award isn't mentioning it anymore, that says something. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As you have been told several times there are sources outside of the Chamber of Commerce and the local paper. I am extremley busy right now, but I ran across many different citations while researching the subject. When I get some time this weekend I will gladly provide you with a list. As mentioned if the other editors as a whole think 11 years is too much that is fine. Wait for the RfC ends. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

If I may, let clarify my intention regarding the use of "fair share". First, I think we can all agree that there are no "hard and fast" guidelines outside of a city article template for what should or should not be included overall in an article of this type. This leads me to my next point, its ALL relative. Relative to cities like New York, Chicago, or San Francisco is Morgantown of greater importance, IMO No. Is Morgantown notable for the sake of an article, IMO Yes, and for reasons or greater importance or significance than a few transitory accolades. I used the phrase "fair share" to indicate the relative importance of inclusion of any awards.

As for the main body of the article versus the References section. Pretty much any citable statement made in an article can have numerous citations to back it up. Here is a simple example of what I am talking about... Awards listed in the References section --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

I'm not sure this example really works. First, we can't use the term "fair share" as used in the example. It's POV and unquantifiable. Secondly, we can't use the References section to include information that wouldn't not meet the same standards as the main body. The entire article has to follow Wiki policies and guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I will concede your first point as the term is POV, but this is semantics as the sentence can be changed to something neutral like... "Morgantown has won and accumulated numerous awards and accolades."

As to your second point, your statement is correct, but it does not apply in the context of this conversation. Citations are used to support statements made in the main body of the article. Yes, they must follow WP guidelines, but they are distinctly different in their function. From the WP Citing sources article...

When and why to cite sources

• Cite sources when

• adding or restoring material that is challenged or likely to be challenged,
• quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphasing a source,
• summarizing source material in your own words, in order to give credit to the source of your ideas,
• uploading an image.

• Citing sources

• ensures that content can be checked by any reader or editor, which improves the credibility of Wikipedia,
• shows that your edit is not original research, plagiarism, or a copyright violation,
• ensures that material about living persons complies with the biography of living persons policy,
• helps readers find additional information.

From reviewing that article, I also learned that there is a proscribed method for multiple citations such as this list of awards. It's called bundling citations and seems to be an easy solution. Thank you BTW for the opportunity to learn about this, it will be very helpful. I have modified my example to adhere to this method... Awards listed in the References section. I wish I had done this earlier on. It would have lessened that time and energy expended on this subject greatly. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I'm not sure a spaghetti-string of footnotes is a way to go; it's not something I see in other city sites (for example, San Francisco, Omaha, Nebraska, Charleston, West Virginia), which also don't have Awards sections at all. Nor do I see anything like this at such Wikipedia:Good articles as, to name just three very disparate ones, Taj Mahal, Pythagorean theorem, and Dick Cheney. It's not really a way Wikipedia usually goes.

If information is noteworthy, it belongs in the main body; and if it's not notable, we shouldn't include it. Footnotes are for citing the sources of information, not the information itself. I do see by user user page you consider yourself a newbie, and I understand where you're coming from and I hope I've been helpful and constructive. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have to concur about the pattern or template of other city articles; none of them have an "awards" section. While I have no problem with being bold, I do appreciate organization and consistency.

Here are my final thoughts on the matter as I have been asked to comment on another subject and will be moving on.

1) The awards are cited via mainstream and verifiable sources which IMO makes the information worthy of inclusion somewhere in the article. We alone should not, for information sake and in the spirit of WP, be deciding the relative worth of the information. Let the article readers make their own decision.

2) As there is no clear pattern or use of an "Awards" section in other city articles, particularly West Virginia cities, I feel that it is superfluous in this one.

3) My recommendation to 3ton is to make a statement in the main body of the article regarding awards or just plainly "recognition" and then support its inclusion with the list of awards in the References in the manner that is proscribed by WP that I referenced above.

Good luck folks, thank you for the conversation and what I have learned from it! Chris --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate all your thought and effort. Still, we can't put information into References that we wouldn't put in the article; that's a backdoor way of sneaking in material that wouldn't make the cut properly.

I would have to go along with the multiple other editors who, properly, want valid reliable-source, third-party verification and not just the Morgantown Chamber of Commerce; who want to limit it to 5 to 10 awards; and who don't want dated awards over 10 years old. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, RE: "for information sake and in the spirit of WP, be deciding the relative worth of the information. Let the article readers make their own decision." I'm afraid that goes up against the policy Wikipedia is not a repository of indiscriminate information. (See related essay here.) Part of our job is to make editorial choices within the bounds of policies, guidelines and consensus. We can't just put up any information we want and say "let the reader decide." Information for information's sake isn't useful, since much information is irrelevant, non-notable, puffery, etc. Wikipedia is designed to put up significant, contextual information. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There does seem to be a little misunderstanding and communications breakdown on this talk page. Firstly, I'd like everyone involved to remind themselves of WP:CIVIL - otherwise we have a "pot, kettle' black" situation going on, which is supremely unhelpful and can only escalate things. So, take a few steps back and a breather, chill, and re-think. Secondly - the subject of the article has to be notable - but not every scrap of information within that article has to be notable. Statements likely to be challenged have to be reliably sourced, not "notable". An award would only have to be notable, in and of itself, if there were to be an article about the award. I hope this is clear to everyone. Thirdly - yes, we can't afford to puff up articles by giving undue weight to one side or another of any controversy about the subject of the article. This means, basically, that if 90% of reliable sources indicate one point of view, and 10% indicate the other point of view, then the article has to be weighted that way - 90% in favour of the side which 90% of sources support, and 10% in favour of the side that 10% of sources support. If information is reliably sourced, and inclusion of it does not starting giving undue weight to either side of a controversy or point of view, then as a rule there is no valid reason to remove it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with some of Pesky's conclusions but have one or two things to add. I found User:Tenebrae in this thread to be making some very problematic comments: there's continued newbie biting and lack of good faith towards User:3TonCatInTheRoom, and a failure to follow WP:BRD. I commend User:3TonCatInTheRoom for being bold, but I think the revert-discuss part of the cycle has failed to produce any enlightened discussion.

Although there aren't notability or inclusion guidelines over minor awards, I'd suggest instead to ask uninvolved editors what their view is of their inclusion. Two solutions here: go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask whether bizjournals.com is indeed a reliable source as this is a handy rule of thumb to determine whether it is worth including (given a reductio ad absurdum of the same problem: if Time Magazine gives someone an award, that's notable; if a random blogger on the Internet gives someone an award, that's notable only if they are a source we consider worthy (i.e. reliable) to be making those kinds of decisions). The other solution would be to ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities for an uninvolved editor or three to chime in on this.

I'd suggest that the way to go forward here is simple: exclude the awards from the article until there is consensus from uninvolved editors that inclusion makes sense. In the mean time, try and seek consensus in a rational and calm manner, and while doing so, please don't bite newbies and please do assume good faith. Also, if editing about one's hometown is a WP:COI violation as has been suggested, then most of Wikipedia's articles on towns, cities and villages would never have been written! —Tom Morris (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to address that last point, since that's not what I said or implied. As I wrote on 3Ton's talk page, "Being from a town and adding dispassionate facts about its history or geography is neutral. Adding promotional material about your town, such as a listing of awards, is not." I never said simply writing about one's hometown was COI.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In terms of inclusion of various bits and pieces, if (for example) this particular article were being worked-up towards FA, we would no doubt have heaps of information about history, local geology, famous sons and daughters of the town / city, particularly interesting buildings and industries, and all sorts of other stuff. In that context, the inclusion of reliably sourced awards would not be out of place. We must all allow articles time and space to evolve, or they stagnate. If someone is enthusiastic about improving an article, then that's good, not bad. It would be great if this article were to be worked up towards FA, and include all sorts of (reliably sourced!) interesting material :o) What I found very disturbing about the events on this talk page was what felt like a really unacceptable level of hostility. A new editor's experience is not supposed to be a hazing ceremony (intentional or otherwise), and the imbalance of power here upset me. I hope this doesn't happen again. We have trouble retaining new editors, and this is one reason why. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've watched this dispute from a distance and have thought several times that the two "need to get a room". They both need to step away at least for a while. I have lived In Morgantown for a long time and think any notable award should be in the article, but I don't believe a major edit war (or discussion) over a few awards was in any way worthwhile. Their efforts would be much better spent in improving other areas of the article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm extraordinarily relieved to see more editors weighing in. Since there's such a labyrinth of words here, I'd like to summarize what other editors besides we two have suggested: Limiting number of awards to between five and 10; have third-party citation that is not the Chamber of Commerce or the local paper; and since towns and cities change, to limit awards to those 10 years old or newer. Since other cities I've surveyed, and noted in the discussion, don't even have Awards section, I feel I'm taking a middle ground by endorsing this compromise. 3Ton, however, has remained implacable, and won't budge from his position. May we address this compromise other editors have endorsed? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to thank other editors for participating. I feel that Tenebrae has not been listening to a thing ive said, and instead has completely ignored me as I am a newbie. I am from Morgantown, but that doesnt mean I cant edit the Morgantown page. I admit the initial award I added was a mistake, and after having been introduced to some guidelines I realize that. However, I think this discussion has been one sided with Tenebrae using seniority to push through edits he wants without discussion from the wikipedia community as a whole. I admit I am having trouble keeping up with the discussion at times. Wikipedia might be easy to use, but for me it is a very complex system. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

Before this mischaracterization goes further, I'd like to quote the first thing I said to him, and his first, brutally nasty response: Tenebrae: "It's quite alright — we were all new users once." 3Ton: "I dont see why you get to decide what awards are trivial and which ones are not." Let's not lose sight of that. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And as I have asked before, here is something else of which sight has appeared to become lost: "May we address this compromise other editors have endorsed?" --Tenebrae (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not a mischaracterization. I made this RfC in the hopes that other editors could help me improve the Morgantown page and prevent you from removing relevant sources of information without good reason to do so. Maybe you feel they shouldn't be on the Morgantown and I think that is fine. However, your opinion alone is not enough. I am all for compromise, but you seem unwilling to make any or even listen to anything I have proposed. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

I'm with the idea of only listing awards if they're not completely obsolete (too dated) and if they're only in the top 10; makes perfect sense. However - as stated before, my biggest concern here was the appearance of Rottweiler vs. Spaniel puppy - I really do feel that newbies need some leeway on talk pages just as everywhere else, we need to remember that people do get defensive if they feel their contributions are belittled and so on, and the biteyness here was really shocking. Tenebrae, you may have been having a bad day or something, but you really are WikiOld enough to know not to do this stuff! (edit to add) ... I could see some merit in 3Ton's comment "I don't see why you get to decide what awards are trivial and which ones are not" - I got a strong whiff of WP:OWN, myself, in the whole attitude thing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be missing the fact that I started out being very nice, and his response was to attack me. I'm not sure it's fair to presume I "belittled" him (your word) by calming stating the following explanation of my edit: "It'd be good to have other editors weigh, especially one who have worked on this article before, since I'm not sure a #23 ranking and a #33 ranking in fairly minor lists is of sufficient weight. It comes across more like boosterism than like legitimately notable awards." One cannot accurately or fairly accuse me of belittling him there. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. I dont mind compromising. I just want people to explain why their idea is better in a polite and civil matter instead of just telling me that my input doesnt matter since I am new. I feel you and several other editors have done a great job doing so, especially in regards to age.

I am actually reluctant to ever edit wikipedia again out of fear that a small change can lead to a big backlash from an editor. Do small discussions normally turn into such big arguments? --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

"Polite and civil"? Take responsibility for the brutal, nasty, first thing you ever said to me. Tenebrae: "It's quite alright — we were all new users once." 3Ton: "I dont see why you get to decide what awards are trivial and which ones are not." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So you start the discussion not being a total jerk and then act like one from thereafter and expect a free pass for your behavior? I had a fair point about you, as other editors have pointed out. You never bothered explaining why the award was trivial, but merely claimed it was. It has been established that it is not trivial, but it is dated so should be excluded. So your whole reasoning against it was wrong from the beginning. I agree with you that a consensus should be reached before making changes, but sadly you didnt follow your own advice. I still dont see why you are allowed to decide what awards are trivial and which ones arent based just off your opinion.

I also want to thank all editors who have actually participated in this discussion using logic and consistency, instead of their own personal views on the issue. I realize that not every editor is like Tenebrae. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

Whatever. I've done years of good for Wikipedia, creating articles, helping raise standards, participating in policy discussions. You start right off by attacking someone of good will — and I don't see you adding to Wikipedia anywhere where I'm not, so you can denigrate me and twist logic and give falsehoods and half-truths all you want. In the long run, I've helped Wikipedia immensely. Let's see what you do. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion, but I guess since I am new I shouldnt be allowed to use wikipedia. Maybe you should try to make so new editors can never register so they cant disagree with you. Since you have been on wikipedia longer by default you are always right. I started out by telling you were applying a double standard and not following your own rules. You became upset because a newbie dared to call out your behavior. Since then you have waged this personal vendetta against me. Give me a few years and I am sure I will make some great contributions to wikipedia, and will not be so pompous about it and demeaning to new editors. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

No, you politely told me that I was new and I couldnt make changes without first discussing them with other editors. You then proceeded to make a bunch of changes to the Morgantown page WITHOUT discussing them with other editors. Maybe, I am new, but that reeks of hypocrisy. I wanted an explanation of why the discussion only applied to me, and not to you. You got upset and accused me of being biased and even a member of the Morgantown Chamber of Commerce. I made several valid points and when I made one you would just find a new one. It seems more like you have a personal issue with me or with Morgantown. I dont mind removing some awards, but I wanted a better reason than, "Tenebrae said so." --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

As I explained then and I repeat now: "You don't need a consensus to remove glaring hype and trivia that violates WP:ADVERTISING and WP:UNDUE." I note from your most recent posts that you've come 'round to an understanding of that. "Tenebrae said so"? Again, an unfair, inaccurate mischaracterization. I gave reasons, and I gave links to the policies. Please do not act like I did not do that. It's all in black and white at the start of this discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I cam to that realization after a long discussion with other users who actually participated in discussion and justified their actions. You just removed the award because you didnt like it. Your original reason for during so didnt have anything to do with age either. You had no clue what it even was but made a judgement call based off the name. I am not the only editor accusing you of being unreasonable. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

Yes, and I suppose it wasn't some other editor who referred to these awards as "puffery."

You can yell all you want — at the end of the day, you were fighting over a promotional edit for your hometown. You weren't doing hard work to research and write about Morgantown's history. Its culture. Its geography. Not a single word of that. I've done so. I've contributed serious information. Not, as another editor described it, puffery. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Again with your arrogance. It wasnt puffery it was an honest mistake. I was new and added some awards Morgantown won later some real editors explained why it wasnt a good award so i dropped it. Meanwhile you removed several awards that werent puffery. The Bizjournals for instance was considered not puffery by many editors. Perhaps it should be removed the discussion is ongoing among us serious editors. You can yell all you want Tenebrae at the end of the day you were fighting over your own ego and self-reightous view. By the criticism on your discussion page and among other editors in this discussion it is clear that you any disagreement upsets you greatly. You need to calm down and stop making this personal Tenebrae. --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

That's right. Keep insulting me with highly personal terms like "arrogance." It's easier to insult me than to admit I'm right: You haven't done any real work on Morgantown's history, culture, geography or anything else -- you just want to put in awards. Fine. Call me names. Stick and stones. Whatever. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not an insult. It is just a characteristic you have. Ive been on wikipedia for a few weeks sorry if I havent completely redone the Morgantown wiki page. Im sure any changes would result in you removing them anyway, so what is the point? '--3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

Removing Warner Theatre from Points of interest

It has been closed for at least a year. Should it still be included in points of interest? I mentioned it is closed, but feel it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 01:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Metropolitan Theatre was closed for years as well until reopening, yet the building itself remained historic. Ditto the Warner Theatre building and marquee / facade, according to the site Cinema Treasures and others. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough as long as it is noted that it is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would support removal of the theater. The facade isn't particularly notable and you can't get inside the building. If there is a credible effort to reopen the structure, I could see listing it. There isn't as of now. Bitmapped (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, but as I am new to wikipedia I am not comfortable removing it. If someone did remove it I wouldnt have a problem. As Tenebrae said it might be an historical structure, but it is closed and I dont imagine anyone going out of there to see the facade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I could go either way, but the fact that it has a Wikipedia article leans me in the direction of keeping it. If it's considered non-notable and the article is removed, that's different. But if it's considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and if the building and marquee are still there, then it seems counterintuitive to say that on the one hand it's notable, but on the other hand it's not. It either is or isn't notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Warner Theatre as a 'Point of Interest' should be left in, it is one of the surviving examples of John Eberson's theatre-architecture designs. Shearonink (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Shearonink on this one. A building doesn't have to be still used in its original way (or even still used at all) to be a notable or interesting building. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Etiquette - I think a reminder about behavior on Wikipedia is in order here

Principles of Wikipedia etiquette

• Assume good faith. Comply with etiquette ethics. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
• Remember The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you—even if they are new. We were all new once.
• Be polite: "A soft answer turneth away wrath".
• Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written—Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you mean might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean.
• Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles).
• Work towards agreement.
• Argue facts, not personalities.
• Do not make misrepresentations.
• Do not ignore questions.
• If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
• Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
• Be civil.
• Although it is understandably difficult in an intense argument, if other editors are not as civil as you would like them to be, be more civil than they are, not less. That way at least you are not moving towards open conflict and name-calling; by your own action you are actively doing something about it: take a hit and refrain from hitting back—everybody appreciates that (or at least they should).
• Do not hesitate to let the others know if you are not comfortable with their tone (e.g., "I feel that you have been sarcastic above, and I don't feel good about it. Let's try to resolve the issue: I think the article would be more understandable if ...").
• Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we had not. Say so.
• Forgive and forget.
• Recognize your own biases, and keep them in check.
• Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages.
• Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
• Help mediate disagreements between others.
• If you are arguing, take a break. If you are mediating, recommend a break.
• Take it slowly. If you are angry, spend time away from Wikipedia instead of posting or editing. Come back in a day or a week. You may find that someone else made the desired change or comment for you. If you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.
• Walk away or find another Wikipedia article to distract yourself—there are 6,816,029 articles in English on Wikipedia. Take up a Wikiproject, lend your much-needed services at Cleanup, or write a new article.
• Nominate yourself for a list of other articles to work on, provided by SuggestBot.
• Remember what Wikipedia is not.
• Review the list of faux pas.
• Avoid reverts whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
• Amend, edit, discuss.
• Remind yourself that these are people with whom you are dealing. They have feelings, and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to treat others with dignity. The world is a big place, with different cultures and conventions. Do not use jargon that others might not understand. Use acronyms carefully and clarify if there is the possibility of any doubt.
• When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page, if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others, and gets you embroiled in an edit war.

All editors need to keep these principles in mind when they post on this (or any) Wikipedia talkpage. Think before you post, walk away before you post, sincerely try to do nothing in haste or in anger.
Shearonink (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent advice - beautifully put, and timely. Gold star to Shearonink :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hear hear. Important reminder, this discussion has reeked of biting the newbies. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, as noted above, I started out being extremely nice, and he attacked me immediately. As recently as two days ago, he was still calling me names. I hope you're not saying you're OK with his schoolyard name-calling, of which I have refrained. He doesn't have the right to call me names. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(Redacted):I --3TonCatInTheRoom (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)3TonCatInTheRoom

The rules should apply to everyone, but you're right that established editors are generally expected to know the rules better than newbies are. However, your statement "you are acting immature about the whole thing", is, in and of itself, a violation of our civility rules - it's, sadly, more name-calling. Please don't resort to name-calling, even if it's happened to you. Two wrongs don't make a right, and never will do. I think at this stage you should probably redact that comment - a strike-out will do, or you can put that comment into a {{redacted|''your comment''}} envelope. It's time for the incivility to stop, and an apology would not go amiss. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As these two have been at it for weeks, it may be time to block both of them. I am tired of this talk page being abused for what is now becoming months. Edits to the page by either one should be automatically reverted. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for doing that voluntarily. And I'll stay away from his talk page if he'll stay away from mine.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

TO ThatPeskyCommoner: Did my best to redact it

TO Tenebrae: I dont believe I have ever made an edit on your talk page, but you have made several on mine. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk • contribs) 3:55, 30 August 2011

I'd like to make a suggestion here. Both editors who have been arguing with each other have made their points about what they view as the inadequate debating style of the other editor. Since these points have been thoroughly made, here is my suggestion: Let's have a permanent truce, in which no further references are made to past alleged debating transgressions. It's obvious to me that both editors care deeply about making this article as good as possible, so henceforth let's just discuss what should go in the article, without referring to past discussions on this page. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, a talkpage's purpose is for interested editors to discuss ways to improve the article itself, I don't think the article is up to Good Article status yet. The introductory paragraphs of the History section, for instance, are completely unreferenced. Shearonink (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

The Demographics section refers to "Morgantown's age distribution, which is heavily influenced by the presence of West Virginia University, ...." However, the same section also says "As of the census[1] of 2000, there were 26,809 people". The latter clearly refers to the number of townspeople, not counting WVU students from outside Morgantown. So I think some effort is needed to be more precise about what specific population is being referred to in each part of the section. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image

The quality of the new image is better than the slightly fuzzy previous image. Yet while that one was mostly rooftops, this is one is mostly water and university buildings. Perhaps there is a wide-angle ground-level photo downtown available somewhere? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of city motto found – how should we include it?

Morgantown’s motto “Vestigia nulla retrorsum regina monongahelae” has been analyzed in this comment on this Livejournal post about the motto. The comment explains the English translation of the motto and the history it references, and cites an employee of the Morgantown History Museum.

I’m not sure where in this article the information about the motto should go. I’m also not sure if that information needs a better source to be able to be included. Thus, I’m dropping this pointer to the information here in the hopes that someone who knows Wikipedia better can add that information properly. – Rory O'Kane (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid Livejournal is an WP:SPS and can't be cited. I'll look around — maybe there's a newspaper article or something somewhere that translates it. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And actually, I've found a snippet view of a Polk's City Directory for Morgantown, W.Va., that says the motto is actually "Regina Monongahelae — Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum". I'll fix it with the cite. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, it's definitely not "The Queen of the Monongahela has nothing to return to." One translation I've found says "Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum" means "no backward step," which makes a lot more sense. I would also note for the metaphor-challenged Livejournal writer that "Queen of the Monongahela" clearly does not refer to a beauty pageant but to the town itself. I'll try a Latin dictionary next. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Google Translate isn't much use: "Trace back." Right. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

From a couple of others, it does appear to mean "No backward step," but since this would be original research and may not even be exactly correct, so I don't think we can translate it offhand. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No. 1 Small City in America

According to an ad by WVU, the town was named "No. 1 Small City in America" by BizJournals.com. I haven't been able to confirm it at that Web site, though. Kdammers (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

And the Chamber of Commerce (http://www.morgantownchamber.org/about-the-morgantown-area/morgantowns-location/) says the town was "Ranked third in the nation for Best Small City for Business and Careers by Forbes Magazine!"Kdammers (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Morgantown, West Virginia. 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 https://web.archive.org/20120305115845/http://www.morgantown.com/sunnyside/Sunnyside.pdf to http://www.morgantown.com/sunnyside/Sunnyside.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150201134803/http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/wv to http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/wv
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929205129/http://www.apma.org/MainMenu/News/NewsReleases/NewsReleaseArchives/2008/2008BestandWorstWalkingCitiesAnnounced.aspx to http://www.apma.org/MainMenu/News/NewsReleases/NewsReleaseArchives/2008/2008BestandWorstWalkingCitiesAnnounced.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929205153/http://www.apma.org/walkingcities to http://www.apma.org/walkingcities
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110514233143/http://www.preservationnation.org/travel-and-sites/sites/southern-region/morgantown-wv-2007.html to http://www.preservationnation.org/travel-and-sites/sites/southern-region/morgantown-wv-2007.html

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} 19:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Morgantown, West Virginia. 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://www.webcitation.org/64vfLAeJ2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fwww%2Fgazetteer%2Ffiles%2FGaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.morgantownmet.com/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://morgantowntimes.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=18
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/news/page/4232/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://boe.mono.k12.wv.us/Quarters_Worth/June_06/article13.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.progressiveengineer.com/PEWebBackissues2002/PEWeb%2024%20Mar%2002-2/PRT.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cities21.org/morgantown_TRB_111504.pdf

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) 08:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sabraton, West Virginia

Sabraton is a neighborhood within the incorporated city limits of Morgantown. The Sabraton, West Virginia article is just a stub which can easily be incorporated within the larger Morgantown article. Bitmapped (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Seems reasonable, since the Morgantown article does a good job describing each of its neighborhoods. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Morgantown, West Virginia. 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://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010113321/http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/wv/Monongalia/monhistory.html to http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/wv/Monongalia/monhistory.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boparc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=5
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.morgantownmet.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515025200/http://boe.mono.k12.wv.us/schools/midschools.html to http://boe.mono.k12.wv.us/schools/midschools.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314131533/http://www.myjournalcourier.com/news/frontier-28058-verizon-lines.html to http://www.myjournalcourier.com/news/frontier-28058-verizon-lines.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://boe.mono.k12.wv.us/Quarters_Worth/June_06/article13.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720094655/http://wcwb22.com/ to http://www.wcwb22.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305035133/http://www.wvpubcast.org/radio.aspx to http://www.wvpubcast.org/radio.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.progressiveengineer.com/PEWebBackissues2002/PEWeb%2024%20Mar%2002-2/PRT.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cities21.org/morgantown_TRB_111504.pdf

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) 14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Morgantown, West Virginia. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160128052426/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54/5455756.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54/5455756.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921034221/http://www.morgantownwv.gov/government/commissions/sister-city-commission/ to http://www.morgantownwv.gov/government/commissions/sister-city-commission/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921034221/http://www.morgantownwv.gov/government/commissions/sister-city-commission/ to http://www.morgantownwv.gov/government/commissions/sister-city-commission/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202224101/http://www.wclg.com/common/page.php?id=97 to http://www.wclg.com/common/page.php?id=97

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) 14:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Morgantown, West Virginia. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20150522132816/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2014/SUB-EST2014-3.html to https://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2014/SUB-EST2014-3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126150844/http://www.morgantownwv.gov/residents/recycling/ to http://www.morgantownwv.gov/residents/recycling/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/60lSxQeSX?url=http://boe.mono.k12.wv.us/Quarters_Worth/June_06/article13.htm to http://boe.mono.k12.wv.us/Quarters_Worth/June_06/article13.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105212106/http://thepittsburghchannel.com/ to http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019071329/http://www.wvfx.com/ to http://www.wvfx.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) 17:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)