Talk:St. Louis/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Keep this article about ST LOUIS

There are many different details throughout the article about attractions in nearby cities, especially in St. Louis county. This article is about the attractions in ST LOUIS city. I am sorry if there was a split, but keep the attractions like DelMar and Clayton in their respective cities articles, the article about the MSA, or the article about St. Louis county. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.246.141 (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject St. Louis

Would anybody be interested creating a coalition to form a WikiProject St. Louis. Both Kansas City and Columbia have WikiProject and seeing as there are more St. Louis related pages on Wikipedia than either of those I think it would benefit the creation and growth of St. Louis-related articles. See WikiProject Columbia and WikiProject Kansas City for ideas. Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like I good idea. I'm all for it.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Count me in. Gamer83 12:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, if we can get 3 or 4 more people I'll go ahead and start it. Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done! It's located at Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis.Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

St. Louis-related AfD

Some watchers of this page may be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Louis-area English. Deor 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Skyline Pics

I added a panoramic skyline picture I took Labor Day Weekend to the STL main page. There are an excessive amount of skyline pictures already but I think this extremely high resolution picture compliments the article well. Feel free to edit the caption. Buphoff 15:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

St. Louis Skyline taken from East St. Louis.

Very nice! Grey Wanderer | Talk 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed- thank you Astuishin (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Crime section POV

The Crime section is POV -- all it does is attack published studies and data.

Agreed. An NPOV tag was added because tt is so slanted. (I live there, so I wish things were as glossy as the article makes it out to be...) Roscoestl (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The references are fine, but the wording needs to be fixed. Instead of letting the facts speak for themselves, the section tends to try and explain things away or come to conclusions based on the facts. Let me see what I can do. --Jdcaust (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I NPOVified the crime stats and updated the references. I also removed the no looting section for three reasons. One, it assumes that high crime statistics lead to looting, which isn't necessarily true and smells of original research. Two, the reference itself mentions this in one line amongst tons of updates about the storm over several days. It was simply brought up by the police as a fact correction over what the national media had apparently reported. If the article was actually about how notable having no looting was, I would understand. Finally, once I removed the POV statement about how this is "proof of St. Louis' stability," the mention seemed totally out of place with the rest of the section. With these changes, I removed the POV tag. Also, as a side note, I also fixed the pictures so that they didn't give the paragraphs strange spacing issues. --Jdcaust (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

External Link for Review and Possible Inclusion

I would like to mention a website for possible inclusion in the external links section. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines as I am the owner of the website. I ask that independent and neutral Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it to the external links section of this article.

This website is the subject of the article, requires no payment or registration and is accessable to users. This site does not use java navigation, cookies, nor flash.

This website contains meaningful, relevant content that can not be included in the article, mainly because of fast paced content changes in RSS feeds. These include but are not limited to: Local Sports, Local Weather, Regional Weather, Severe Weather Warnings and Watches, Local News and much more.

This site was created to be useful, tasteful, informative, and factual. It rounds out the Wikipedia article with content about the subject of the article that is not static, but up to the minute as it is happening. This site is directly related to the subject of the article and I would ask that you please consider it for addition to the external links section.

Frankolive (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Your link provides nothing unique or notable for the STL wikipage. Also, That link is laiden with advertisements....it's clear what your motivation is for wanting that link posted. As a side note, never edit the talkpage history....Gamer83 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to say no as well.Grey Wanderer | Talk 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Transporation in St Louis merge into this article

  • Support That article and the section here are highly similar, and to the extent they differ is better written here. Jon (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support There is certainly enough material to justify a separate St. Louis Transpiration article, but until someone writes it with good sources, I vote to merge it.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Echo Grey Wanderer Roscoestl (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Per reasons above. --Jdcaust (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the amount of citation templates in the current transportation section really necessary? I believe that much of the information in that paragraph to be inarguably true and not in need of citation. 71.191.120.216 (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move, January 2008

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not to move --Lox (t,c) 10:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

St. Louis currently redirects to St. Louis, Missouri. The Wikipedia naming comventions suggest a limited number of cities be located at simply "city" instead of "city, state" if they are the primary topic for that name. Since the redirect is to St. Louis, It is safe to assume that it is. This would not affect the disambig page at Saint Louis. The list was formed based on the AP Stylebook. This would be congruent with Chicago and New York City and also be aligned with the philosophy: The simpler the better.Grey Wanderer | Talk 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • support per nom. Yahel Guhan 04:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The general usage, as specified by the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), is for U.S. city artuicles to be named "city, state". Thousands of articles are named this way and there is no special reason why this article should be named any other way. BTW, I would support moving "Chicago" back to "Chicago, Illinois" and moving "New York City" to "New York, New York" if anyone decides to request them. TJ Spyke 11:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please read all of the naming conventions, especially the part that says: "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may be listed at City if they are the primary topic for that name. Cities that meet these criteria are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle. No other city should be listed at City."Grey Wanderer | Talk 11:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Many of those cities listed have had move requests (off the top of my head: Houston, Seattle, Boston, Atlanta) and they all failed even when the city name redirected (like how Seattle redirects to Seattle, Washington). I have gone into more detail in those various move requests and just didn't feel like repeating myself here. I can dig up my old comments tomorrow if you want. I have said before that I think that any country that has states/provinces should not have city articles wiht just the city name (i.e. it should be "Toronto, Ontario" and "London, England"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs) 11:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "St. Louis" may refer to the saint. Since so many American toponyms aren't original, they should be kept with their state disambiguators if they are slightly ambiguous. Reginmund (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Indifference and note - you will never get this passed without first getting everyone to agree to a move of ALL cities in AP Stylebook. You'll have to start another proposal for a set of moves of the cities you mention. What you're doing here is futile.--Loodog (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per core of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). Recent changes say "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may be listed at City..." but not must. What compelling reason is there for St Louis to depart from the standard US city format? — AjaxSmack 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per numerous previous discussions and consensus for US cities. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Goes against naming conventions for US towns and cities. – Axman (☏) 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom thanks Astuishin (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And exactly how does the current setup not give you the expected result? Is there any reason to ignore naming guidelines for this city? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, as per nominator. As a non-American, when St Louis is mentioned I immediately think this city. 203.94.135.134 (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Airport

I've cut the following unsourced paragaph per wiki is not a crystal ball: "In early 2008, plans to build another international airport in the St. Louis area began. American Airlines has had recent interest of making Lambert-St. Louis International Airport its main hub, and is offering to let the other airlines all be in the new airport. City and county officials decided that Oakville, Missouri would be home to the new international airport. The name for the new airport is still unknown, but some mentioned names were: Oakville-St. Louis International Airport, St. Louis International Airport South, and Double-River International Airport. Oakville is a highly populated area, and enimate domain would be the only answer to get the land needed. This project is to begin in mid to late 2009, with an estimated finishing date of 2014. With the new airport, more international flights will fly in and out of St. Louis. The new airport will hold large planes auch as the Boeing 767, Boeing 777, Boeing 787, Airbus 330, Airbus 340, Airbus 350, and the Airbus 380." Jon (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


I too have cut this.....again I guess. I have not heard of anything like this, not to mention how silly it is! Why would the St. Louis Metro area need yet another airport when Lambert isn't even near capacity! Not to even mention empty Mid-America airport across the river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.243.69 (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but it's probably been added to the Oakville, Missouri page again as well. I put the {{Fact}} tag in the second go-round in hopes of avoiding a revert war, but... --Umrguy42 (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's still there and it is still completely bogus. It needs to be kept out permanently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Reichert (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Oakville and have never heard of this. All the land that's not river bluff or flood plain has pretty much been developed, and the use of eminent domain here would be suicide. This is not even to mention the fact the airports in the St. Louis area are already completely adequate.--63.76.151.103 (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames

St.louis is also called the, "Show me State." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.165.36 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Missouri is called the "Show me State." St. Louis is in Missouri.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

official beer

I added a comment to the economy section discussing Anheuser-Busch to note that legislation has been proposed to make Budweiser the official beer of the State of Missouri. See St. Louis Post-Dispatch article from 3/10/08 and Missouri House Bill 2297 at http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills081/biltxt/intro/HB2297I.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.5 (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sports

I have removed the claim that the St. Louis blues hold the record for consecutive playoff appearances at 26. This is incorrect the Boston Bruins have had 29 playoff appearances holding the record in the NHL. This change was undone and now I have removed the incorrect information again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.60.167 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the information on 26 straight playoff appearances, but removed the record claim. umrguy42 17:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "KCStar" :
    • {{cite web|url=http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/443413.html|title=St. Louis reports 15.6 percent drop in crime|publisher=Associated Press|date=2008-01-13|accessdate=2008-01-23}}
    • {{cite web |url=http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/443413.html |title=St. Louis reports 15.6 percent drop in crime |publisher=Associated Press |date=2008-01-13 |accessdate=2008-01-23}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Flag deleted from commons

Anyone notice that Image:Flag of St. Louis, Missouri.png is a redlink? The image upload page includes a notice of its deletion a year and a half ago:

  • 00:17, March 2, 2007 Shyam (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Flag of St. Louis, Missouri.png" ‎ (I8 Image available on commons with the same name)

I can't find it on commons. A little sleuthing through the commons deletion log shows that it was deleted last week:

  • 00:03, 17 September 2008 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Flag of St. Louis, Missouri.png" ‎ (Deleted because "In category Unknown as of 10 September 2008; missing license/permission/source information". using TW)

TJRC (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move, 14 October 2008

There is currently a proposal on the table to amend the Wikipedia naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook's suggested names. This would effectively move a number of US city articles currently on the list, so St. Louis, Missouri would be moved to St. Louis. To comment on this discussion, please go here. --Serge (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The result was not to move both St. Louis, Missouri and Cleveland, Ohio due to questions of primary topic and need for specific discussion on this talk page. All other U.S. cities listed as permissable exceptions to the "city, state" format at WP:NC:CITY were moved. Cheers, Rai•me 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not quite what I meant. What I suggested was that before the articles on these cities are renamed further debate on their talk pages with notification to other editors via the talk pages of other articles that could be affected should be initiated. I did not mean to imply that there was not a considerable consensus via a general principle that they should be moved, just that editors of the major pages listed on the relevant disambiguation pages should be informed of the proposed move and that their views are taken into consideration. In this case there is a question if St. Louis ought to direct to the disambiguation page Saint Louis as this has been a point of contention. To resolve it I suggest an new WP:RM with a note placed on the talk pages of the article Saint Louis and Louis IX of France inviting those editors who watch those pages to take part in the discussion. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Demonym

What about including a demonym section in the general information box? (St. Louis's would be St. Louisan)69.155.7.170 (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be very helpful, seeing as though I looked up this article to see if St. Louisan was the accepted term, even though it is not recognized by my computer as a word Pokeronskis (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of Saint

Is the Official name of the city "ST LOUIS" or "SAINT LOUIS" with people simply abbreviating the word saint to st?

Years ago I went all over the editors about this article and the official name of the city. All that disucssion should be available in the discussion pages' history, somewhere. Good luck.Mark Preston (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Saint spelled out?

Does anyone know why the city's name isn't spelled out as "Saint Louis"? I realize that the abbreviation is ubiquitous; nevertheless, it IS an abbreviation. To use the abbreviation in the title and then write that it is "Sometimes written as Saint Louis" in the first paragraph is putting the cart before the horse. I literally laughed out loud in disbelief when I saw that. For an example of what I believe looks more correct, see the article on Saint Paul, Minnesota, which simply points out that the name is abbreviated "St. Paul." The abbreviated form could be kept throughout the article, but surely the name should be spelled out in full for the title? Thoughts? Edgehawk (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The city of St. Louis' official charter, seal, documents, you name it—they all use the abbreviated name. In addition, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch uses the abbreviated form almost exclusively. For a Wikipedia policy guideline that backs up the reasons for keeping St. Louis at St. Louis, see WP:COMMONNAME. --Millbrooky (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Both City and County -- And Not!

According to this web page, St. Louis has a unique governmental structure. Like San Francisco, it is both a city and a county. But Missouri (unlike California) has counties that are "non-home-rule" and apparently St. Louis City County is one of these. So unlike San Francisco, they haven't simply merged city and county governments. Instead, they're autonomous for some purpose, and subject to state administration for others. It would be nice if somebody familiar with Missouri governmental practices updated the article to explain this. 03:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The city of St. Louis is not a county. The city and county of St. Louis are both completely separate entities. The city is an independent city. The county has a home-rule charter unlike most counties in the state of Missouri. --Millbrooky (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The city of St. Louis, while not a county, does operate as one. Since it is not part of any county it is the next subdivision of government below the state level. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See here: http://www.slcl.org/branches/hq/sc/stlouis/stl-split-results.htm 65.208.235.66 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Helpful St. Louis resident! ;)

Bloat!

Why are there 29 paragraphs in the History section when there is an entire separate article dedicated to the History of St. Louis, Missouri? And it has only 26. Criminetlies! Have ye no discipline? Someone needs to buckle down and take a blue pencil to that section if not others. --Kbh3rdtalk 03:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

religion

there are sections on culture, media, but there is no section on religion. I heard St. Louis is called Rome of the West. Great title. There should be a section on religion. Kleinbell (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I don't think the picture of Wash U should be part of the mixed pictures of St. Louis. There are many more notable pictures of St. Louis spots available. I think the Wash U picture should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.134.208.22 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the picture of WashU from the mixed pictures of St. Louis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.132.218 (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

why? many people (including myself) think it is one of the more notable and well-known things about St. Louis. Grey Wanderer (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the English Version of the name

Is it "Saint Loo-wee or Saint "Loo-wis"?

Or both? If so then is there any pattern to who uses each pronunciation, i.e. Easterners, Westerners, the national media? What pronunciation do the locals normally use? --MichaelGG (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

At its founding, it was pronounced Loo-Wee, but in the time since then the pronunciation has been anglicized to Loo-Wis. --Florida Is Hell (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was casting vote do not move: St.Louis/St. Louis/Saint Louis also means many other places and the saint. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
St. Louis, Missouri → St. Louis — While the default format for US cities is "city, state", there are some exceptions listed in the AP Stylebook that do not require the state modifier. The list can be seen in our naming convention guideline, and St. Louis is one of the cities listed there. Most of the other cities listed are already in the plain name instead of the "city, state" format. St. Louis has been a redirect here since March 2007, so there's no question that the city is the primary topic. Jafeluv (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose — Newspaper style books are irrelevant: Wikipedia is not a local newspaper; it is a world encyclopedia. Also this city commonly is called St. Louis, Missouri even when no disambiguation is needed. --Una Smith (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
That the naming conventions use by the AP are relevant to U.S. city article naming in WP was decided by consensus in 2007 after lengthy discussions for years at WP:NC:CITY. That compromise (both sides were not entirely pleased, trust me) decision ended almost all of the bickering. Let's not open that sore again, please.

There is no issue about whether St. Louis, Missouri is also a common name for the city; the issue is about which is most common, and whether the city has primary use of that name. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - While I supported the move of [Cleveland, OH] -> [Cleveland, OH], I oppose here. The phrase "St. Louis" is awfully namey, especially since "Saint Louis" can be used to refer to the person after whom the city is named! Leaving it at St. Louis, MO makes it unambiguously a location, as opposed to a person. True that "St. Louis" already redirects here, which is fine, but the fact that the article's actual title includes the name of the state, makes it completely locationy.--Louiedog (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    Changed to weak. I have no arguments against primary usage. Mine are only that it doesn't feel as proper because of how namey "St. Louis" is (it has the word "Saint" in it.) .--Louiedog (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support for same reasons as the move from Cleveland, Ohio to Cleveland. If St. Louis redirects here, and the MO city is the primary topic, there is no reason for it to have the state qualifier. "Washington" is also somewhat "namey", but that doesn't mean that the state or the city isn't the primary topic; in this case, the lead of the article and the infobox make it very clear that the article is about the city. Note that the city received almost 70,000 hits in August, compared to 14,000 for Louis IX of France. So it is pretty clearly the primary topic, and a dab qualifier isn't necessary Cheers, Rai•me 16:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Other uses, include the namesake of the city, are much less used today, especially as St. Louis rather than Saint Louis. I had to get to page 5 of the "St. Louis" google search to find a hit that was not for the city or a closely related topic(like the county, a nearby lake, sports team, hotel, etc.), and that was the cathedral in New Orleans. We don't even have a dab page for St. Louis at St. Louis (disambiguation), though we do have a dab page at Saint Louis (which is properly referenced by hat note at the top of this article). If this is not the quintessential example of a primary topic, I don't know what is. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: primary topic, NCCity, target already redirects here. Sceptre (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. It could be resolved if
    1. Saint Louis were moved to St. Louis (disambiguation)
    2. all pointers, including on talk pages, were changed to follow that move
    3. Saint Louis then redirected to point to this article.
  • Saint Louis and St. Louis should be the same article, or both be interlinked disambiguation pages. Anything else violates the principle of least surprise. (The status quo is confusing, also; but Saint Louis and St. Louis should still be the same article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    I agree, and the remedy I would use is similar:
    1. changing the redirect St. Louis to point to the dab page rather than this article
    2. disambiguate the incoming links
    --Una Smith (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Since the MO city is clearly the primary topic over the Catholic saint based on traffic statistics, incoming links, and Google hits, that would not be a good solution. I also agree that "St. Louis" and "Saint Louis" should bring a reader to the same page, but for the sake of the majority of readers aiming to reach the article about the city, the redirect(s) should point to this article and not a dab page. -- Rai•me 15:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • oppose on the whole; not primary over Saint Louis = Louis IX; Google, like the internet, tends to over-represent American and twenty-first century usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support out of practicality. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. St. Louis should redirect here, but the article title should be unambiguous that this is the city, not the person. It's also pretty common to add "Missouri" when talking about the city anyway due to the existence of East St. Louis, Illinois. SnowFire (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, "St. Louis" clearly mainly refers to the city, so it should redirect here... but the real question is how the city is generally referred to for where the article should be placed. ("US" generally refers to the United States, but we won't move the article on the country there anytime soon.) The entity in question is referred to as "St. Louis, MO" quite a lot, so the case isn't clear cut. As such I'm inclined to keep it here. (Also, as the top of that linked page notes, it's a guideline that admits the "occasional exception.") SnowFire (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support If the city was named for someone known almost exclusively as Saint Louis then I would oppose. The French king, however, is better known as Louis IX of France, and a hatlink can redirect the minority of users looking for the monarch who type in "St. Louis" into the search box. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Data

St. Louis has over 1000 incoming links from mainspace, which is a lot for a redirect. Does anyone know how often incoming links to Saint Louis get disambiguated? It has under 100 incoming links now. --Una Smith (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion about closing of above move discussion

The closing of the above discussion is being discussed here. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary of discussion votes/comments

Oppose - strong arguments

(none)

Oppose — weak or no arguments

  1. Una Smith - based on disagreement with WP:NC:CITY consensus criteria to follow AP list: "Newspaper style books are irrelevant"
  2. 76.66.197.30 - opinion with no reasoning.
  3. PManderson - "not primary" no reason given other than to state opinion that WP "tends to over-represent American and twenty-first century usage".
  4. Snowfire - based on premise that city is not primary topic without explaining why.
  5. Anthony Appleyard - "also means many other places and the saint." Not relevant. Every primary topic in WP has other meanings.

Weak Oppose.

  1. LouisDog
  2. Arthur Rubin

Support - strong arguments

  1. Raime - Primary topic. Reasoning specified "city received almost 70,000 hits in August, compared to 14,000 for Louis IX of France".
  2. Born2cycle - Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "I had to get to page 5 of the "St. Louis" google search to find a hit that was not for the city or a closely related topic"
  3. Sceptre - primary topic - "target already redirects here."
  4. YeshuaDavid - Primary topic (implied - "If the city was named for someone known almost exclusively as Saint Louis then I would oppose").
  5. Oreo Priest "per Born2cycle"

Support - weak or no argument

  1. Grey Wanderer "out of practicality" (no reference to guidelines or policy)

Analysis

So, basically there were 5 strong support arguments and no strong oppose arguments. There were five weak oppose arguments, along with two explicitly weak oppose votes, but these cannot be given the same weight. How this decision was made is inexplicable, except by ignoring the arguments, simplistically counting votes, declaring a 6 to 6 tie, and casting the "deciding vote". What kind of decision is that? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you think your argument is "strong", and, to a lesser extent, you think that those who agree with you have strong arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Why makes things personal? What I think is immaterial, of course. What matters are the objectively identifiable strengths of the arguments in question. I've explained my reasoning; what's yours? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it seems like a bizarre result. Even though St. Louis redirects here, and even though the much-discussed consensus guideline for U.S. cities allows the St. Louis to be among the rare few that can be named without the state qualifier, the move was still opposed? Certainly those who opposed because they think St. Louis should be a disambiguation page (or point somewhere else) have legitimate arguments, but I can't figure out those who opposed while supporting the redirect. Powers T 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Note about montage and crime rate

I just updated the United States cities by crime rate with 2008 FBI crime statistics. St. Louis ranks #2 on the murder rate and Kansas City ranks #6 for cities over 250,000. Missouri is the only state in the country with two cities in the top 10. In any event my real reason for posting is that the montage which is very nice. But it is inaccurate. Washington University is not in the city of St. Louis (it's in the county).Americasroof (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the easternmost 600ft of the main Danforth Campus of Washington University do lie in the city of St. Louis. Whitaker Hall straddles the city/county divide. In addition, its medical campus is part of the gargantuan BJC hospital complex in the Central West End. --Millbrooky (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Brookings Hall which is in the photo is not in St. Louis city. Americasroof (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The western edge of St. Louis is the western edge of Forest Park. Washington University is in an unincorporated area of St. Louis County. Here's the Census map. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US2975220&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on Further, I am told that if something happens on the Danforth Campus the County police and not St. Louis city and not University City are called. Americasroof (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the university is not entirely in the municipality of St. Louis, but shouldn't we consider the cultural importance of Wash U to the city of St. Louis? I would support keeping it in the montage as a unique and important part of St. Louis. Many articles about U.S. municipalities summarize the most important parts of the metro area as a whole. On an entirely different note, those crime stats are entirely correct, but misleading. St. Louis has been struggling with the those yearly releases ever since they separated themselves from St. Louis county. Since the St. Louis city limits only really include the most urban areas of the metro area, unlike most municipalities nation-wide, St. Louis has a much higher crime rate than cities of similar population. Not that the data should be removed, it's good info. Just wish there was a way to easily explain the intricacies of the data. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the history of the montage. It looks like somebody just harvested what looked like the best of St. Louis tagged photos on Commons. Unfortunately the montage has two photos of the arch and misses two of the most identifiable aspects of St. Louis -- the Bush brewery and the St. Louis Cardinals. Things could be worse. Los Angeles, California goes big time into photos from the burbs (e.g., Hollywood). With regards to the crime stats. It's what it is. The FBI warns against comparing but the raw numbers aren't helpful. Americasroof (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Independent city

What's this about "independent city" in the first sentence? I've yet to see the need to express "independence" on any other city article on WP. Cookiehead (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The city of St. Louis is independent in that it is not in a county. In 1876, the citizens of Saint Louis County voted for St. Louis City to be removed from the county.Krazymike (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In the paragraph on the city/county split in the history section, a sentence begins with "Although by the end of the 20th century..." Shouldn't this be the 19th century? I didn't want to edit it since I may be missing something to glaringly obvious to be seen, but it doesn't make sense referring to the 1990s. --63.76.228.130 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Either the end of the 19th or by the beginning of the 20th. Perhaps a decade or more specific indicator could be used, but I don't know the history well enough. Abernaki (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Poverty Rate

Most Wiki city pages have a sentence about the poverty rate shorty after the median income section. Given that St. Louis' poverty rate is 22.4% (rather high), can this be included in the article?

Source: http://www.city-data.com/poverty/poverty-St.-Louis-Missouri.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.0.41 (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

POV re: Housing Integration

I question the POV of the second paragraph under "Civil Rights and the Black Community".

Black community leaders, and outside interests working pro bono started agitating and suing in state courts during the late fifties for ending segregation in schools. St. Louis became famous for its central role in United States and State Supreme Court rulings which ended school desegregation and forced white students to attend all black schools. . . . [I]n the 1960s additional rulings were passed by the courts abolishing the ancient common laws regarding neighborhood covenants and individual property deeds of trust. In turn, Bloc Busting by unscrupulous housing developers saw unethical and illegal campaigns using black gangs, lurid news, and strategic purchasing of white housing being used for reducing housing prices in white neighborhoods thereby massively depopulating the city and causing an explosion of suburban housing on the outskirts of the city.

Describing the school desegregation campaign as the work of "outside agitators" is classic racist provocation, as are references to "forc[ing] white students to attend all black schools" (if there were white students in attendance, they weren't all black; more to the point, desegregation rulings merely forced cities to stop segregating schools - the schools were all-black or all-white previously because the cities made them that way, so treating desegregation as some sort of punishment for whites not only repeats that standard segregationist trope but also endorses the segregation). The general implication that civil rights established by court ruling are invalid is a common far-right talking point, not an historical or legal fact. Defending racial exclusionary housing covenants as "ancient common law" is again a standard racist segregationist line; explicitly describing the movement by blacks into white neighborhoods as "unethical" and "illegal", the work of "black gangs", and the like, is simply frank racism.

I have rewritten that paragraph to reference the bare facts it mentions in a more even-handed way. Somebody who knows the history of the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation in St. Louis ought to expand this in a detailed, accurate, neutral manner.

KTK (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I similarly question the following paragraph, attributing white flight to "political activism and conspiracy, and hopes for a more peaceful and safer life", as well as "boosterism" and an undocumented "1960s Crime Wave". ("Conspiracy"?) Could somebody please just write a calm and reasonable history of the city?

KTK (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

bosnia population?

50-70,000? In a city of about 350000. That is patently ridiculous. Perhaps the statement is about the greater metro area. (I doubt that too but who knows, this is not to deny that there has been a clustering of immigrants from former Yugoslavia) The estimate of Jewish population is also too high.

Per the US Census, American Community Survey 2007-2009 (I've not included margins of errors.

American 13,183 3.7% Arab 3,226 0.9% Czech 2,066 0.6% Danish 645 0.2% Dutch 2,505 0.7% English 17,551 4.9% French 11,166 3.1% Fr. Can 642 0.2% German 62,196 17.5% Greek 722 0.2% Hungarian 1,302 0.4% Irish 37,460 10.5% Italian 13,941 3.9% Lithuanian 501 0.1% Norwegian 1,402 0.4% Polish 7,756 2.2% Portuguese 103 0.0% Russian 2,160 0.6% ScotchIrish 3,070 0.9% Scottish 3,406 1.0% Slovak 422 0.1% Subsah Afr 5,556 1.6% Swedish 2,086 0.6% Swiss 877 0.2% Ukrainian 261 0.1% Welsh 1,714 0.5% West Indian 954 0.3% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.30.203 (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

French pronunciation

Is it necessary to have the French pronunciation info in the lead? It's not an official language of the city, and English speakers have vastly outnumbered French speakers since the early 1800s. poroubalous (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal on St. Louis vs. Greater St. Louis scope

Several years ago and from time to time in recent years, there was discussion about the scope of this article and the inclusion of information that relates to the Greater St. Louis area (ranging from corporations in St. Louis County to highways in the region to the Delmar Loop). No resolution of this dispute on what to include was accomplished. Here is a proposal to solve it, open to comment, suggestion or outright rejection:

1. Information pertaining specifically to the city of St. Louis (companies located in the city, the St. Louis Public Schools, the St. Louis Public Library, the roads, bridges, and interstates in the city, crime, parks, etc.) should be summarized in this article, and, if necessary, placed in subarticles with the nomenclature -- "*Topic* in/of St. Louis, Missouri". Such pages should be linked using the "Main article" template. Again, the only information in these articles should be about things located within the city limits; e.g. "Transportation in St. Louis" would NOT include information about the entire regional rail system, only its locations in the city. "Education in St. Louis, Missouri" would NOT include information about libraries in St. Louis County. "Culture of St. Louis, Missouri" would NOT include information about the Loop. The only overlapping article likely would be the History of St. Louis, Missouri article, but even then, it is mostly about the city of St. Louis already.

Other individual municipalities and counties in Greater St. Louis should be treated the same way as above; if the St. Louis County article needed to break out its parks section, it could have a "Parks in St. Louis County, Missouri" article. That parks article should NOT include information about regional parks, city parks, etc.

2. When it would be appropriate, the summaries in municipal/county articles also should link to a broader treatment of the subject, which would be titled "*Topic* in/of Greater St. Louis". These pages should not merely rehash the information from several other pages, but instead present a regional approach to the situation. In some cases, a regional subarticle might not be necessary, and a link to the section on the Greater St. Louis page would do the trick. In other cases, a subarticle for the specific municipality might not be necessary, but a regional approach would be best. Sometimes, there could be both a regional view of the topic and a local view of the topic. Such pages should be linked using the "See also" template at the top of the relevant section in this page.

For example: Page-St. Louis, Missouri Section-Transportation

Main article: Transportation in St. Louis, Missouri

(this article would contain only info about city transportation)

See also: Transportation in Greater St. Louis

(this article would contain info about regional transportation)

Include the summary of info about city limits stuff here: Transportation in the city of St. Louis is great, we have lots of trains, planes and automobiles.

Another example: Page-St. Louis County, Missouri Section-Culture

See also: Culture of Greater St. Louis

(this article would contain info about regional culture)

Include the summary of info about culture in the county here: Culture in the county of St. Louis is great, we have lots of music, food, and theaters. However, there is not enough cultural stuff to warrant a "Culture of St. Louis County, Missouri" article, so go look at the Greater St. Louis article if you want the details.

3. While this proposal will not be easy to implement (lots of cleanup and movement), it will clarify the issue tremendously for readers. I am certainly open for comment, suggestion, or outright rejection. poroubalous (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To Poroubalous

Thank you for your openness and interest in editing St. Louis. You have really spent much time in providing clear information to this article. Your input is more than welcome!

However, as with all major renovations to articles, there should be some discussion and perhaps a little critique. Although I am not at all trying to change what you have edited, I am just suggesting that we be careful to take away some things that are essential to the identity of St. Louis.

St. Louis has changed drastically in the last three centuries. Certainly, what the first settlers thought about it and what people think about this city today is entirely different.

My concern is that perhaps the French heritage that founded St. Louis is not taken seriously enough. I find it important to leave the French pronunciation in the first paragraph not out of nostalgia, but because the international community still pronounces it this way. Also, it's important not to forget its Catholic past...and even present. It was once called "the Rome of the West" and still is by some people.

Also, did you know that St. Louis at its founding was usually referred to as "Pancur". If you look at old maps you will see that the British did not refer to St. Louis by its real name but by this name which meant in French, "short loaf." The British shorted the real French words for this and it stuck as "Pancur." It was named short loaf because of the influx of traders into the area. The city did not have very many farmers at this time and so it had to import food from the other French villages such as Ste. Genevieve.

Another thing that we forget is that the inhabitants of St. Louis did not appreciate the Americans at all. They didn't wanted their own independence and they felt "bought" and in fact they were. Right when America took over, the French identity was suppressed and the French heritage of the city was quieted as much as possible.

I know we do not live in the past, but it's important that not just one person does a major edit to an important historic city. What might be famous for St. Louisans is not always what makes it famous abroad. For example, in Europe St. Louis is very famous for it's Blues music. Here maybe not so much any more as it used to be. A mention of its musical heritage should perhaps be made in the first paragraph.

I will make no changes to the article, but these are just my thoughts as one who has lived in St. Louis for 22 years but currently living abroad. And one last thing if I may, I think its very important that a picture of the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis is kept on this page. With the arch it is one of the most aesthetically beautiful structures in this city and has a collection of mosaics unrivalled in the western hemisphere. It's like if an article on Rome did not have a picture of the Colosseum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ustriestina (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ustriestina,
I agree wholeheartedly with you about the idea that St. Louis's French heritage is important, which is why I asked before removing the pronunciation instead of just following Wikipedia: Be Bold. However, the guideline in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline about pronunciation states: "Names of the city should be given in each of the city's official languages. Pronunciation of the city name should be in IPA as per Help:IPA for English, though can also be in the main local language(s) if thought helpful." The city has no official language, and the main local language spoken is English. I lean toward moving the French pronunciation to one of the history of St. Louis articles for that reason, although I will not do so until I can find a source for that particular pronunciation.
As for more detailed history of the French heritage or the relationship between the French and the early Americans, I agree with you that it is an important facet of St. Louis "identity". However, it best belongs in History of St. Louis, Missouri or History of St. Louis, Missouri (1763–1803) (or in subsequent articles in the series), with a summary of that information included in the main article, and a brief note about the city's founding in the lead section (again, see the US Guideline for cities as to what should be included). I was aware of the nickname of St. Louis as "pain court"; in the main history article you will find a reference to Stella Drumm's "The British-Indian Attack on Pain Court (St. Louis)", which recounts the information you mentioned about the nickname of St. Louis as "pain court" or "pancur". I also was aware of the sometimes fractious relationship among early settlers; the French settlers in particular were hesitant to see their status in the society lowered by an influx of Americans.
As to the issue of Catholicism or other cultural issues such as music that make St. Louis significant, I think they are all worthwhile content additions, though the Wikipedia:Lead section is not necessarily the place to put them (see Wikipedia:Lead fixation) The lead section is not for including every significant fact, and when I rewrote the lead, I again followed Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. According to it, lead sections about cities should include (among other things) "Notable unique characteristics and characteristics commonly associated with it". A quick search of Google shows that common terms associated with St. Louis include "cardinals", "rams", "arch", "zoo" and "blues" (of the ice hockey variety). Thus, I included the sports teams and the Arch, but I did not mention St. Louis as "one of the largest centers of Roman Catholicism in the United States". Without a verifiable source to support that significant claim in the lead section, I will tag it as needing citation and remove it if no citation is provided. Reviewing recent demographic studies of the region shows that only roughly 1 in 5 St. Louisans is identified as Catholic, which is about the same proportion as the United States as a whole. Please see Culture of St. Louis, Missouri for the citation and direct link to the study showing the proportion of people identified as Catholic.
That being said and in reference to your last statement, an image of the Cathedral Basilica is embedded in the photo montage as the first photograph on the page, and I removed the second image of the building because of that. I agree with you that the city article should have a photo of the building, if only because it is the largest place of worship in the city. I also agree that the nickname of the city as the "Rome of the West" should be included, which is why I left that in the Infobox when I edited the Infobox nicknames section. Although it does not have a source, I thought it sounded reasonable enough that I or someone else would find one shortly. I did remove "STL" from that section as it seemed more an abbreviation than an actual nickname.
I agree with most of your sentiments, but one statement you made I'm not so comfortable with -- "It's important that not just one person does a major edit to an important historic city." I agree it's important that many people are involved in the writing of articles, and that's exactly what Wikipedia is built on. What concerns me is that you seem to be suggesting that my editing is stifling the ability of others to include verifiable information, which it is not. Much of what I removed were unverifiable claims written several years ago; this article was and to a great degree still is full of Wikipedia:Peacock terms and claims, and it does the Wikipedia project no good to include that. I will continue to make "major edits" that remove these unverifiable claims, while supplying sources when I can. If you have sources for much of the information I removed, please, reinsert the material with appropriate citations. But in the meanwhile, puffery, unsupported attributions, and editorializing are not appropriate for the encyclopedia. Thanks for your thoughts! poroubalous (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo montage

The photo montage at the top of the page features two images of the Arch. While the Arch is undoubtedly the single most recognizable feature of St. Louis, does it really need to be shown twice? The image taken during the day seems less important than the larger night scene. St. Louis has so much amazing French-heritage architecture and some part of that could fit in nicely among images of the Arch, the Cathedral, etc. If you will, consider a picture of some of the great rows of homes and shops from Soulard or Gaslight Square. Aheimos (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Article title and the AP Stylebook

As noted at Wikipedia:Place#USA,

"Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may or may not have their articles named City provided they are the primary topic for that name. The cities listed by the AP are Atlanta,... St. Louis,... and Washington....Primary topic should be judged against all encyclopedic usages of a name; thus, for example, discussions of Phoenix should consider the mythological Phoenix, and discussions of St. Louis should consider Louis IX of France."

I assume this explains why the article is currently named St. Louis, Missouri, joining the three other cities (Phoenix, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Washington, D.C.) that don't follow the AP Stylebook. 72.244.200.190 (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The article's title has been hashed out likely several times in the past (along with Phoenix and Las Vegas, I'm sure), and this is the current compromise, to keep it consistent with other cities. You can probably find plenty on it with a little digging in the talk page archives. umrguy42 15:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
In fact, Talk:St. Louis, Missouri/Archive 4 alone has 3 failed move requests to change St. Louis, Missouri to just St. Louis. umrguy42 15:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Crime statistics

I've noticed that there is very very little to speak of regarding crime in St. Louis and the section itself seems to be intentionally and systematically downplaying crime statistics in St. Louis by referring to repeated reports and studies about St. Louis as being "the most dangerous city in America" as unsubstantiated. It is very clear that someone with strong bias in favor of St. Louis is trying to make the city look better than it really is in this Wikipedia article by pushing any crime statistics of the city to the separate wiki page about crime in St. Louis.

I feel that as crime is such a significant problem in St. Louis, it ought best be addressed objectively and with a decent-sized section within the St. Louis page itself. Violent crime and murder statistics are NOT subjective and anyone downplaying them on here is covering up the truth. http://urbantitan.com/10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-in-2011/ 134.48.241.189 (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

St. Louis, Missouri → St. Louis – This is the page most readers would expect to land on if they were to search for St. Louis. Indeed St. Louis has redirected here almost continuously since 2004, making this the primary topic.

Per USPLACE, any of the 30 U.S. cities listed in the AP Stylebook are not required to take a state modifier if they are the primary topic. Even Las Vegas has ceded to this. Currently every city but Phoenix, Washington (both rightly so) and St. Louis, and even a few cities not on the AP's list, are left un-disambiguated.

Here are a few relevant page view counts: St. Louis, Louis IX of France, Saint France of Toulouse, Louis de Montfort, Martin St. Louis. A few relevant discussions: Cleveland, Las Vegas, St. Louis. Happy discussing! Marcus Qwertyus 04:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

St. Louis, Missouri, St. Louis, Saint Louis

  • Support As long as the unqualified name redirects here, then there is no point in using the longer name as the title. --Polaron | Talk 13:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - page counts indicate the city is the primary topic, name already redirects here, and St. Louis is listed as not needing the state qualifier at WP:USPLACE. Cheers, Rai•me 20:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Polaron and Raime. This topic was discussed several years ago and failed to reach consensus at that time. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support I dislike WP:USPLACE inasmuch as it overrides WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so it's a bit astonishing to me that we still have pages that don't even go by the paltry AP Stylebook exception. Especially in the wake of the Las Vegas move, this is very sensible. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As far as I'm concerned, St Louis is the French king. Anything else is US-centric. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I can understand that point of view from a historical perspective. Modern primary usage clearly shows the U.S. city to be the definitive winner. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This isn't a debate over pronunciation. - Marcus Qwertyus 04:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • But you have to consider it, as in spoken language it is clear which one you are talking about, they are written the same, and you can't know how someone "pronounced" what they are typing when doing a look up.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 13:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the main subject here, and both page-view statistics and the redirect show that St. Louis, Missouri is the primary topic. Also, there's no pesky WP:USPLACE exception, which bombed an RM (similar to this one) I started. David1217 What I've done 18:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The redirect has been sending people to the city for years, with no complaints that I know of from people lost trying to find one of the three saints. Time for a move. poroubalous (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – why isn't St. Louis redirecting to the disambig page, given all the ambiguity? Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It doesn't direct to the disambiguation because the city is the primary topic; it receives roughly nine times as many hits per day as the next nearest item on the St. Louis list (Louis IX of France). poroubalous (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Suppport as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and per Polaron. If a significant minority of searches here end up going to Louis IX of France then it can always be added to the hatnote in addition to the generic link to the DAB (although if that was the case, I imagine it would've been added before now). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; I think the distinction between "Saint Louis" and "St. Louis" is enough to consider this the primary topic for the latter term. Powers T 20:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:USPLACE. Existing hatnote seems adequate to direct to other uses. Zarcadia (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Structure

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of St. Louis

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on St. Louis. 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:

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

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter is a St. Louis legacy

A link to Black Lives Matter belongs in the See Also section, because the movement grew from an obscure hashtag to an international movement (and according to many US news outlets at the time, one of if not the biggest story of 2014) in the St. Louis metropolitan area. I have thus added the following text there:

"*Black Lives Matter— a social justice movement that grew from obscurity to an international movement and one of the biggest US news stories of 2014, due to a perception of racist policing in the killing of unarmed African-American minor Michael Brown by European-American police officer Darren Wilson in the St. Louis metropolitan area" Kaecyy (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing how it belongs in the see-also section of the St. Louis city article. I understand how Black Lives Matter is connected to the Greater St. Louis area, but I see that you've already put it in the see-also section of that article too. Ferguson is in the area, but not in the St. Louis independent city.
Also, Black Lives Matter is an international movement and protests have been in many different cities. Would you say it belongs the see-also section of Baltimore,Milwaukee,New York City,etc?
I do believe a mention of Shooting of Michael Brown and Black Lives Matter does belong in the St. Louis article-- maybe we need to split off a section with with Pruitt–Igoe and the history of racism in St. Louis. ThoseArentMuskets (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe that what you say has much merit. I agree with you that it might not belong in the See Also of every city it has happened in, but St. Louis is where it went from a hashtag to an national resistance movement, so it deserves a mention.
I agree with your solution.
I have added in— "The city's anniversary year also witnessed the arrival of Black Lives Matter— a social justice movement that grew from obscurity to an international movement and one of the biggest US news stories of 2014, due to a perception of racist policing in the killing of unarmed African-American minor Michael Brown by European-American police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, part of the St. Louis metropolitan area."
Thank you for your help with this.
Kaecyy (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Plantdrew removed this section for the reason that it is not within St. Louis city. I think it is appropriate to include Ferguson unrest in the article as it includes events in St. Louis city, which could reference Black Lives Matter as an over-arching movement. I don't think any current section is appropriate, perhaps a new section on St. Louis activism under either government or culture? Would like more input before drafting something. aj (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed it in part because it was attracting (anti BLM) vandalism as well as the ridiculous amount of overlinking and the lack of sources ("biggest US news story of 2014" needs a source, not a link to US). No objection to mentioning BLM connection to St. Louis as long as it's sourced, and refers to events in the city proper. Plantdrew (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on St. Louis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on St. Louis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation history

No contesting the fact that it's pronounced "saint lew-is" But a long time ago, some outsiders called it "St. Louie" (it's to be heard in old movies) and the World's Fair song was "meet me in st. louie." Now -- that *would* have been the pronunciation when the city was francophone (which parts of it were as late as the 1830s and the black population remained so until the civil war). So the question -- when did residents stop calling it "St Louie"? And is the "St. Louie" pronunciation a survival of the French, or a fresh coinage, based on the diminutive "louie" rather than the Fr [lu:wI]? I'm surprised how little documentation I've been able to find 150.243.14.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

2017 estimate, not 2018

Though published and released during 2018, all city and metro populations from the U.S. Census Bureau are 2017. The Bureau just released 2018 estimates for the United States and each of the 50 states in late Dec. 2018, but statistics for cities/metros all have a later release date. Thus, per every other city article in Wikipedia, and per the dedicated List of U.S. cities by population, the reference must say 2017. Thanks. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Illinois

Is St. Louis also in Illinois and not just on the border with Illinois? -Inowen (nlfte) 19:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

St. Louis, the city, is entirely in Missouri. East St. Louis is a separate city in Illinois. The Greater St. Louis metropolitan area spans parts of Missouri and Illinois. Ponydepression (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Simplify?

Hi @BeenAroundAWhile: I am contacting you because I noticed that you posted a template on the St. Louis article. I agree that this article is unwieldy in its current form, but I am wondering if you have a more specific proposal. I only have one suggestion for simplifying the main article: eliminate the list of St. Louis neighborhoods. There is a section with a brief mention of the neighborhoods with a link to a sub-article containing the same list of neighborhoods. For this reason, I think the list of neighborhoods within the main article is redundant.

To all St. Louis page watchers: any thoughts about simplifying the article, pro or con? If pro, does anyone have a specific proposal? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree we could remove that list of neighborhoods (I was actually the one who added it, a few years ago, and I pulled it from that List of neighborhoods of St. Louis page). In terms of simplification, I think the Economy and Government sections is what could use the most work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoseArentMuskets (talk • contribs) 22:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Removed the list of neighborhoods, also removed the 'very long' template. This article (160k bytes) is of comparable length to other cities of the same size like Denver (160k bytes) and Baltimore (233k bytes). ThoseArentMuskets (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Other than the neighborhood list, I had no opinion about the length of the article, but was willing to consider proposals. No argument from me. Best regards, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

@Ponydepression: What did you mean by "not for the city" when you reverted my edit? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Murder rate for St Louis

‎@Sphilbrick: Thanks for checking for close paraphrasing. Did you have any problems with the content of the text? It seems that it was appropriately sourced to the NYT article. I would like to post a rephrasing of similar content. Do you have any objection? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Oldsanfelipe2, I did read the edit but not with a focus on the content. No red flags emerged except for the fact that it was to close a paraphrase. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Election results table

I don't understand why there are two separate tables for election results, one for recent election results and one for all election results. They provide the same exact data but one provides less. It just takes up unnecessary space and no other county results page has it. chri. (talk) February 5, 2021, 11:59 EST

This is the article on the city, not the county. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
You know what I meant. It's a county-equivalent, therefore should be kept consistent with county-equivalent articles in the election results section. Not to mention having two tables say the same thing but one just says less is dumb regardless of consistency. chri. (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I did not know what you meant. I thought you may be legitimately confused. Regardless, I'm generally ambivalent on this. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how you didn't know what I meant, but regardless – there is no reason there should be two separate tables for the presidential election results, one that just shows recent elections and one that shows all elections. It makes no sense when they show the same data – it just takes up space. So it should probably be removed. chri. (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The entire table is cruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and there is nothing at WP:USCITIES#Government suggesting that presidential election results should clog every city and county article on Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with you on that. Every county/county-equivalent has an equivalent table and its important to provide political contetx. You can add a show/hide function if you're concerned about that. But that's not what I'm talking about – I'm concerned with removing the "recent election results" table because there's literally no reason it should be there, because the other table provides the exact same + more information. The most recent edit said that there needed to be a consensus to remove it, that's why I'm doing this on the talk page. chri. (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The entire table is out-of-scope. I understand adding historic demographic data, but what it the value to readers of adding historic presidential election results? What about a table for the depth of water in the Mississippi River as is flows through the city, back to 1880? These presidential election results have been spammed to hundreds of articles, and offer little value to readers. The entire table should be deleted. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not "indiscriminate" or "out of scope." It provides vital historical context for the political climate of St. Louis, as does every single other county election article. It is also really the only place anybody can get comprehensive results for one county in it's entire history and makes it easier to compare results over time and contextualize the county/county-equivalent's historical political climate. If you think it "clogs the article" then you can add a show/hide function. But this isn't "excessive listings of unexplained statistics", as described on WP:INDISCRIMINATE.chri. (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, that's not what this original comment was about, it was about removing the recent election results table. That's all I wanted to discuss. If you have problems with the election results table as a concept bring it up at another article, not just any random county-equivalent. chri. (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Skyline & architecture

I'm surprised by how small a skyline (ie how few tall buildings) there are with a city with such a large metropolitan area. Is it really spread out? Did it take in a lot of smaller towns? Why the low density? --- Because it's a typical shrinking rust belt city.

The section on Architecture is really lacking. Some info about the long standing brick industry and how that had an effect on vernacular architecture especially in the early part of the 20th century would be a nice addition.

Also most of what is currently in this section seems irrelevant to the subject of St. Louis Architecture.

This section was not signed. CapnZapp (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Climate Verification

Article claims avg. Jan temp is 31.8F. Embedded chart just below claims 39.9F.

This section was not signed. CapnZapp (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

St. Louis Metropolitan Area

In addition to the City of St. Louis, the St. Louis Metropolitan Area includes 6 counties in Missouri and 8 counties in Illinois[1]. The metro population is 2.82 million, ranking just below Balitmore and just above Orlando in population[2].

Yes, but it encompasses only 5 counties in Illinois, not 8. - JGabbard (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.ewgateway.org/about-us/where-we-are/
  2. ^ https://www.ewgateway.org/research-center/where-we-stand/

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2021

Interstate 170 needs to be added to the interstate portion of the description. 2600:6C40:4A7F:BE5A:A07D:C98F:7540:DCBD (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

In the second sentence on Wiki's entry for Saint Louis, MO : "It sits near the confluence of the Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers, on the western bank of the latter," change latter to former. (St. Louis is definitely west of the Mississippi). PineTreesKnow (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've boldly removed that entire clause. Cardinal directions get kinda messy when it comes to confluences of rivers, and besides, the metropolitan area crosses the river. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead name

The title of the infobox should be "St. Louis, Missouri" per every other US city. St. Louis is part of the state, the page is only titled "St. Louis" because it is a primary topic and major settlement. If for not any other reason, take a look at the number of St. Louis-es in the US there are, let alone the world; it will make it clear to the reader which St. Louis they have landed on. --IWI (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Mario macker

Thx 65.130.15.171 (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Population Decline of St. Louis.

The two major reasons for the demographic decline of St Louis are the rise of crime and the rise of taxes - yet neither of these factors is mentioned in the demography section. The population of the city has more than halved - most people have gone. Yet there is no serious treatment of the matter.2A02:C7E:1CC3:8A00:282D:AE84:1EC2:FB13 (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

Add “Boeing” to the list or corporations that are headquartered or have significant operations in St Louis. 75.128.175.18 (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Update list of largest employers

Please update the article to include the more recent St. Louis' largest employers list from 1 April 2022. --Stevi4080 (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the source, perhaps this is something you could tackle? I can help you format it properly. Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd be willing to, but I currently don't have access to editing the article. Stevi4080 (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah I see, pardon me. If you make just eight more edits to Wikipedia you will be autoconfirmed and will be able to edit semi-protected articles like St. Louis. You may be able to find some ideas at WikiProject St. Louis or WikiProject Missouri. I may also find time to update the article at some point, but your help would be very appreciated. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll see what I can do. Stevi4080 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St._Louis/Archive_4&oldid=1166844799"