Talk:Enoch, Utah

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Enoch, Utah. 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/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
 * 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

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

reversions
I jus had dental surgery, figured i could maybe update a few thins, but I'll circle back. Valereee (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

reversions 2
Hey,, let's talk. Valereee (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I really (I mean really) didn't think you'd add that back, but here we are.  You've added four paragraphs (longer than the entire history section) about a single isolated event (which has it's own article that pretty much says the same thing you added).  Imagine a little girl at the playground, waiting for someone to join her on the teeter totter, then along comes an enormous 2000 pound hippopotamus who sits down on the other end. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, @Magnolia677! The fact the article is short doesn't necessarily mean a section should be shortened because of that. We could probably make the article much longer if someone bothered to do the research. I don't think we should say, "Hey, this section is longer than the rest of the article, so the solution is to cut the section." We could decide to spin it off, if someone found other sources. But just getting rid of it doesn't seem like the best answer. Open to discussion, but to me in absence of an article about the PD, this is important here. Valereee (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed the other incident was removed...I really think this kind of thing is reasonable to include. Valereee (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And now you added back a police shooting which has little relevance to this article. The depth of detail, and quantity of text, unbalances the article per WP:UNDUE. Please revert or significantly trim your edits. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, let's talk. The fact this article is short doesn't to me mean we need to not cover in necessary detail these incidents. Valereee (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with that the content under "Police department" about two episodes involving police is WP:Undue. I also don't think that adding information to city pages about crimes is common in city articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure lists out the common components of a city article. It doesn't include crimes that occurred in the city, even crimes that attracted national attention. But even if a highly condensed version of the crimes should be added, what is there right now is far too long and includes anecdotal detail that can't be said to be WP:Notable with respect to the crime at this time. Novellasyes (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

So immediately going to noticeboards is better than simply talking? I really feel like trying to work things out at talk pages is better. Valereee (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Trying to build up an article about a sleepy little town is hard. When only one particularly interesting thing has ever happened there, it makes sense to mention it briefly and link to the article about the event. That's what I did at Marion, Utah. But you have to be careful about including too much. I would certainly cut back on what's been added here. Ntsimp (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But, @Ntsimp, shouldn't we then just add to it rather than ignoring or minimizing something? This is something that's gotten coverage and relates to the town. I'm not sure how we can ignore that simply because there's not much else to say about this town. Valereee (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The police shooting should be removed. No charges were laid as the incident was justified. No evidence of ongoing significance. As for the Haight shooting, it can be covered adequately in one sentence in the History section, with a link to the shooting article. Absolutely does not belong in a Police Department subsection. WWGB (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree with WWGB. Just because it's "gotten coverage and relates to the town" doesn't mean all of the material belongs here. The WP:SS guideline may be helpful here, especially the WP:SYNC section. The details belong at 2023 Enoch, Utah killings, not at this article. That's not "ignoring or minimizing"; it's putting the information in the correct article. Again, I think Marion, Utah sets a good example here. I didn't let the story of the Singer-Swapp Standoff take over the article about the town, which is what has happened to this article. I say trim it all down to a sentence or two, and develop the full story in the other article. Ntsimp (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

noticeboard discussion
Apparently we need a noticeboard discussion for this. Not sure why, but it's at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Valereee (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)