Talk:Carrollton bus collision

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

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carrollton bus collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Cadillac[edit]

I noticed there's no mention of a 1977 Sedan Deville that was also involved in the accident, even though the occupants in the car were OK but the car was damaged.

TVSRR (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Unincorporated'[edit]

I find the use of this word distracting. It's in the first sentence and it just seems hugely irrelevant to me. Thisisfutile (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is it distracting? It's pointing out that it occurred in a rural area of the county that isn't part of any township. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You get all that from "unincorporated"? To me, it sounds as irrelevant as pointing out the county is shaped like an UGG boot. Why not make it read "rural area", like you just did to explain it to me. I'm 50 years old and I've never heard the term unincorporated in reference to a county. I've lived in rural counties all my life to boot (no UGG pun intended). Thisisfutile (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The description is correct, I don't believe it should be changed simply because some people don't understand what an unincorporated area is. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 16:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why is the word 'rural' in the history? It was removed at one point in favor of this ridiculous, 6-sylable word that only a few will glean information from. I guess the 6-sylable part is what get's all the authors excited here...sounds fancy, and really important.
By the way, I love your use of the word "simply" (smell that irony. One of the most important things written in the history of the USA is linked here with relative analysis ... https://patch.com/connecticut/durham/the-memorable-monosyllables-of-lincolns-gettysburg-address
tl;dr Simple is better. Thisisfutile (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're conflating your unfamiliarity with the word with "it's distracting/irrelevant." Pointing out that this is an unincorporated region is more accurate. "Simpler is better" is not universally true.
Also don't insult other editors by insinuating they're trying to use "fancy" words to feel important. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly agree with Thisisfutile's reasoning, but "rural" does seem like the better word to me. Municipal incorporation in the US is an arbitrary distinction. Places like East Los Angeles and Paradise, Nevada are unincorporated, yet they're far from rural.
If the point is to convey to the reader that this happened in a rural area, then it's better to just use the word "rural". For the purposes of this article, it doesn't really matter whether or not services in the area are provided by the city or by the county. What matters is that it happened in a place that was remote and sparsely populated. A place that could be described as "rural". Surachit (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to identify the location. The county is listed, and since readers may expect a municipality to be listed, the article specifies unincorporated so that the reader will know that it is outside any municipality. I doubt that rural/urban has anything to do with it, but then again I live in an area where there can be unincorporated urban areas along with incorporated rural municipalities. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 20:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think describing the location as "rural" would be more informative to international readers. If the article says "rural Carroll County" and no municipality is listed, I would think most people would understand that it happened outside of a municipality.
The word "unincorporated" doesn't really help to identify the location. I don't think most people are going to be familiar with which parts of Carroll County, KY are incorporated and which parts are not. Surachit (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I freely admit that when I started this discussion, I came to the park to feed the pigeons and then ran in, flinging whole slices of bread directly at the them. Obviously, I'm not a salesman or even a good advocate for a cause (thanks to The Hand That Feeds You for pecking me on the head). I now see that it would have been more convincing if I had walked in slowly, sprinkling breadcrumbs behind me. Nevertheless, after reading Surachit's argument, then seeing ALL IN vacillate, and ultimately hearing no rebutle to surachit's final comment, it would seem that rural would be the better, more accurate choice. Agreed? Thisisfutile (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"There has been some controversy over the signs."[edit]

That's a statement about the memorial sign, but the article doesn't say what's so controversial about it. The source for that claim merely says that some residents wanted the sign to be taken down, but it doesn't say why. I don't think that "controversial" or "controversy" are good words to reflect the statement from the source. Some residents not being happy with a sign seems to be too "harmless" to be called a "controversy". There may be other sources that go into detail about the reasons for wanting the sign to be taken down. Maybe those other sources would indeed show something worth being called a controversy, but the current source doesn't seem to support such a strong word. Nakonana (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the statement. A claim like that needs more than a passing mention of a disagreement from a single source. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carrollton_bus_collision&oldid=1224283211"