Talk:History of Lake Charles, Louisiana

Questioning separate article status
I am trying to figure out why this article was started. The article Lake Charles, Louisiana refers to this article in the history section. This article is wanting and it made a better addition to the Lake Charles article. If someone is planning an expansion then this talk page would be a great place to express these intentions otherwise it probably should be redirected and placed in the Lake Charles article. I do not have a problem with having this article but only if it is complete and possibly when the Lake Charles article gets too big. Otr500 (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved it because I felt the History section was too long for the Lake Charles, Louisiana article. This article needs more sources, and needs to be cleaned up. I disagree that the entirety of it made a better addition to the Lake Charles article. I would be okay with having a portion of this article in the main Lake Charles article as a sort of preview, with more details being placed in the History of Lake Charles, Louisiana page. I would not advise moving it 'as is' since it needs more sources and needs a general clean up in terms of style and wording. It can certainly be expanded to include more modern history of the city. However, sources must be used. I planned on going back and working on it when I created it, but have not found the time to do so. If you want, we can work on it together. CTtcg (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While I do occasionally boldly do certain things it is only if the situation calls for it. I am against editors making drastic changes with only an edit summary when there are others working on an article. This, as I have seen, creates edit wars, discontent, and various other problems, and I do not wish to get involved in those things. I also find that consensus can change guidlines ("rules") even if they are against fundamental policy. I found this out when I discovered new words could be weaseled into WP, which is against WP:NAD, with the right steering and so I will stay away from such things. With that said, my issue is that the article was created March 2, 2007, and although there have been edits, the issue of a lack of sources and references have been since the beginning.

I believe that reference to a sibling article of a section should not just include the "Main article template" without a little information but not necessarily anything long.
 * Orphan tag: This article can not possible be an orphan (tagged January 13, 2010) unless I totally misunderstand the definition. The article Lake Charles, Louisiana is the parent article but there was no reference to this fact so it appeared to me, and possible the tagging editor, as a stand-alone article. I made some corrections and links to "de-orphan" the article, as well as actually doing so, and can provide more links later.
 * Collaboration: I would be happy to provide contributions to the article but "if" it was created and forgotten I was going to decide if re-merging, until a point, was warranted. This is not the case as it stands. The reason I stated it made a better addition to the main article is that references now in place can be contended as not relevant to the contents (or parts) and could be tagged as such or even marked as WP:OR, those parts deleted, or the article nominated for deletion. Of course this has not happen since 2007, nor has anyone placed warranted reference tags on the article, which fairness necessitates I do.
 * I don't know where you are located but I live in Sulphur, about ten minutes from Lake Charles, and when time allows will be able to do some research. Otr500 (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I look forward to working with you. When I have time I will add some references. The McNeese State University Archives website has several books listed online which have plenty of history for Lake Charles. You can find that link here: http://library.mcneese.edu/depts/Archive/FTBooks/index.htm - Hopefully that will help. CTtcg (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)