Talk:Indianapolis

Age breakdown
The age breakdown adds up to about 60% in Demographics, and the 21-65 age group is almost certainly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndyDanno (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Black or black
for consistencies sake, I agree with 's. Since there is no preference in MOS:PEOPLANG, consistency is the best policy, and the demographics section currently uses a capital-B. I don't see any reason to change those to lowercase and plenty of reasons not to, so I believe it makes sense to align all uses in the article to a capital-B. --Cerebral726 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read the policy? "The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort", but the edits they made were to the history section, not to the demographic section. Moreover, MOS:VAR ruled "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." There are other policies on Wikipedia that also support this.   is a student editor, and it would be inappropriate to teach them from the start that making pointless cosmetic changes in any way improves Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I did read the policy, which is why I mentioned that it has no preference towards capitalization or not. My argument is based on the fact that the current state of the article is internally inconsistent. Even if the occurrences are in separate section, I think being consistent across the entirety of the article (per the lede of the MoS which states "Where more than one style or format is acceptable under MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason" [emphasis my own]) is the best course of action. I do not think the status of Curacaoache as a student editor is relevant to the policy argument I am trying to make, nor should a decision be made on what is the best lesson for them to learn. If they make cosmetic only changes in, it would definitely be wise to warn them against this behavior. However, regardless of the reason they chose to make the edits they did, I believe it improved the article and made it more inline with policy. --Cerebral726 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Killings
The article currently reads "Homicides hit a spike in 1998 when the city reached 162 murders. Murders drastically decreased in the following years but spiked again in 2006 with 153 murders. Until 2019, annual criminal homicide numbers had grown each year since 2011, reaching record highs from 2015 to 2018. With 144 criminal homicides, 2015 surpassed 1998 as the year with the most murder investigations in the city. With 159 criminal homicides, 2018 stands as the most violent year on record in the city" (emphasis added). Assuming that the undefined phrase "most violent" is referring to people being maliciously killed, it would appear that the article contradicts itself. Or is there a difference between "murders" and "criminal homicides"? To me, as a lay person, these are synonyms. Can some-one in the know clear this up? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F93C:2133:1B30:546E (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Fiction
If a List of fiction set in Indianapolis is ever created, ''Help! I'm a Prisoner in the Library'' by Eth Clifford [novel], An American Crime (movie), maybe Close Encounters of the Third Kind (movie), and The Fault in Our Stars should be included. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F93C:2133:1B30:546E (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Nicknames of Indianapolis into Indianapolis
Unneeded CFORK, merge as an alternative to deletion (WP:AtD)  // Timothy :: talk  22:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. I've deleted a few that weren't realy nicknames. Reywas92Talk 23:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like it's substantial enough that it can't all be incorporated into Indianapolis. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep there are many nicknames in Indianapolis that simply cannot fit into the article all in one, it is notable enough to keep as a separate article. Indiana6724 (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Now that it's been expanded, it looks at least as notable as many similar articles (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Houston, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Portland, San Francisco) OceanGunfish (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep There is RS and the list warrants a stand-alone Bruxton (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep for article size reasons per Indiana6724. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)