Talk:Rockford, Illinois/Archive 1

US Census 2006 Estimates
Why are we not using the most recent 2006 Census estimates here. At a population of 170,617, Aurora city is clearly larger then the population of Rockford at 155,138. This is published data by the United States Census with updated numbers for the 2005 mini update. Here is an internal link to justify my changes to this article List of United States cities by population. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Dkriegls (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you answered your own question. estimates, that is all they are. You can put in the article that in 2006 that the US census estimates the population is blah blah, but the official population of the city is what was done in 2000. Sometimes you can have a special census to see how large you are at that time rather than waiting until 2010. Official Wiki policy is to go with the 2000 census.--Kranar drogin 19:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is that official Wiki policy? Every Major city and list of major cities on wiki uses the 2006 estimate. I imagine because it utilizes updated data from the 2005 mini collection.Dkriegls 19:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2000 is the official census date, 2006 is unofficial. That is why United States Census, 2000 gets a page and United States Census, 2006 does not. Estimates are suppose to be mentioned second and so I have changed the page to reflect that.--Kranar drogin 20:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me and the page is fine as I see it. However, the structure of the wikies for the ten largest cities in the US do not follow this policy. They all mention the 2006 only, or the 2006 first and then the 2000 secondary in the Demographics section. If this is wiki policy, can you please site the source.Dkriegls 20:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was told it was policy, but have not personally read it. I will have a couple people help me in tracking it down. I think that mainly because the estimate changes each year, and the official one stays the same. I know that I will get with the Chicago project about Chicago and changing it to official/estimate, but the other cities aren't part of my project so I really don't know much about them (when you have 16,000+ articles for Illinois, hard to watch everything). One good example of an Illinos GA where we use this also is Springfield, Illinois.--Kranar drogin20:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably not policy but it is common sense. Sure, mention it, include it but replace numbers that are grounded in solid census data and are not estimates with estimates, this makes no sense whatsoever. The reason the census is every ten years is because it takes a whole lot of work to count 300 million people. There is no way an estimate from "mini-data," whatever that entails, can possibly be entirely accurate and for that reason the last known, entirely accurate numbers should also be included. As a side note, not that this matters, but Aurora will, unfortunately, never be anything more than another Chicago suburb to most people. Kinda sad too, the place has a pretty unique history.IvoShandor 01:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I lived in Aurora for a year and I can tell you they do not think of themselves as part of the western suburbs. But you are right about how everyone else views them. As for the census, I agree with stating both, however, on a personal note, you should put more stock in the estimates. Your right, they are not "actual" numbers, but the 2000 census isn't either. Both use statistical methods to estimate the unmeasured sections of the population. Our 10 year census collection does not actually count everyone, but does do a good job of coming as close as humanly possible. The census bureau doesn't just use some growth rate number to come up with the estimates, they use aggregate data like home sales, child births, citizenship applications, and so on to come up with estimates of changing population. As you said, the 2000 is the most accurate at the time of measurement, but I would argue less accurate regarding current populations. The US government spends more then anyone to know who is inside it's boarders. Stating sets of data is fine by me, but I give more stock to the estimates as measure of a cities current makeup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkriegls (talk •contribs) 20:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag and Land Size
If anyone knows or has these, could they add them to the Infobox? I can't seem to find them for some reason or another.--Kranar drogin 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
There are some pictures with clear copyright status, I'm listing here since there is some overlap: Image:Rockford City Hall.jpg Image:Downtown Rockford1.jpg Image:A large Rockford Church.jpg Image:Burpee museum rockford.JPG Image:RockfordCityHall.jpg I took the last one, I didn't link it in the article since I was unhappy with the lighting. I may take another picture, although the next one will be a winter shot. If anyone has any pictures they would like to see, let me know. I can always take some pictures since I live nearby. I'm thinking of taking a picture of the airport and few other spots of interest. --Transfinite 06:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I plan on focusing on this city more now, since this city really deserves an "A" rating sometime soon. I will go over those pics soon and see where we can add them or whatnot.--Kranar drogin 05:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I took the first three. If anyone know which church that is (it is on the (west?) side of downtown), add it to the caption on the commons page (it links on the image page. Add them if you want.IvoShandor 06:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

People
The Joel Ross Listed in the people section is not the one it connects to. Can someone fix that? I don't know how to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.208.69.144 (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Postsecondary Education
I once again removed the Rockford Masters Commission from the list of post-secondary institutions. It doesn't really seem to be much more than an intense bible study program. It's not accredited, it doesn't grant degrees, it isn't career training. To me, it doesn't warrant inclusion.PeteJayhawk 02:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

they are accredited through masters commission internation network and other universities. check into it!

they are not a bible study, they are a "School", they have DORMS, they have teachers, classes, curriculum, facilities, and much more. Get your facts right! —Precedingunsigned comment added by 72.198.23.84(talk) 04:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Greater Rockford (Metro) Area / Rockford Notables
What constitutes the greater Rockford area? I ask because of the recent deletion of Danica Patrickfrom the Notables subsection of this article. She is from Roscoe, and the argument for deletion was 'Roscoe-is-not-Rockford'. Although true, one could still say Roscoe is part of the greater Rockford area - it is in the same county, and Rockford is the hub for the area. If we say otherwise, than anyone from Loves Park, Machesney Park or Cherry Vaklley could not be included on the Rockford notables list. I wonder how strict other pages are for other cities regarding their notables. Another example: Janet Lynn; she was born and raised partly in Chicago. But moved to Rockton, and trained from there leading up to the '72 winter Olympics. Rockfordians certainly claimed her as one of their own, and for that alone she should be, and currently is, on this article's notables list. [in 1972 the media would almost always say she was either from Chicago, period, or that she was from a "Chicago suburb"]. I argue for including Danica Patrick in the Rockford notables list, with a notation about Roscoe.Rockford1963 17:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Danica was deleted since she is from Roscoe, not Rockford. The phrase is what, "Notable Rockfordians"? Not only that, but that list is going to go away. If you want a GA article for Rockford eventually, all lists have to be created into articles. Also, if you go by someone being from the area, then the list will go on and on and on. Not only that, everything that has ever been mentioned on her is she is from Roscoe, and even she continues to say that even in interviews. I grew up in the Rockford area, but I would be insulted if I was listed as being from Rockford. Also, if anything, once an article is ever created on the Rock River Valley, she could have a mention in there. Janet Lynn should also be removed from the list then since she didn't live in Rockford. Yes, the area, but she isn't from the city, which is what this article is about. Not the Rock River Valley.--Kranar drogin

03:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess we can agree to disagree. I was born in Rockford proper, so maybe I have a different take.  I know that it is not uncommon for smaller communities surrounding the hub city of a metro area to have issues with their bigger neighbor.  In any case my point was that Rockford does not have to be strictly defined as within the city limits of Rockford.  I understand that different metro area may be handled differently, e.g. Salt Lake may refer to the city, but is often in reference to anyone or any place from the Salt Lake Valley (which has numerous cities other than Salt Lake) - this is quite common in how the press refer to anyone from that area.  For Rockford the question may not be so clear cut, but I lean towards saying Rockford can mean, in the larger sense, anyplace in Winnebago county.  A Winnebago Co. notables? That wouldn't seem to make sense.  Maybe a subsection on notables from the Rockford area, below the subsection for Rockford (city limits only) notables??Rockford1963 12:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can promise you, that if a person is not from an area, they are insulted that they are referred to as being from another area. I will have a few other Illinois members give their take on this, but from the understanding I am under it has to be from the city proper, or borders. Not only that, why in the world would you want to include Danica when you have so many other Category:People from Rockford, Illinois that are from your city! You have Medal of Honor winners, generals, other gamers. Who cares about one person who isn't even from the city itself. Deal with the great list of people that are from the city before branching out to other communitiees.--Kranar drogin 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that this article is meant to cover the census designated Rockford city, if a separate article on the Rockford metro area is wanted it should be done but randomly including information about all of Winnebago County doesn't really make any sense to me, it's misleading and confusing to the reader, it causes the article to stray off topic into issues, events and people that are essentially unrelated to the city of Rockford. I am guessing that places like Pecatonicaand Durand don't consider themselves "Rockford" in anyway yet they are in Winnebago County, as are numerous unincorporated communities whose relationship with Rockford is fleeting at best.


 * Including Danica here is misleading, and to be blunt, just downright inaccurate. As an encyclopedia we must strive for accuracy. No one would try to claim Frank Lloyd Wright was from Chicago even though he worked there and lived a mile from the city limits in Oak Park, Wright has always been and will always be affiliated closely with and as being from Oak Park, not Chicago. This example is apt because it shows that surrounding and suburban communities can possess their own identity. This is clearly reflected when the people who live there tell you where they are from. Some Chicago suburbanites say they're from Chicago, probably because their community lacks identity and character on its own. I am willing to bet that most people from Roscoe claim to be from Roscoe not Rockford.IvoShandor 12:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As an added note, as far as notable people go, I like to add them to relevant sections (i.e. musicians in a culture section), see Springfield, Illinois for an example. I would also note that, the table here in the climate section is large, unwieldy and looks like a 1970s Houston Astrosuniform. Check out what I did with that table in the Springfield article, I think it makes it more usable. IvoShandor 12:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * An article about a geographical area will define very clearly in its WP:LEAD what area it is discussing. The article on Rockford, Illinois seems to be written broadly enough to include the entire metropolitan area.  However, the focus seems to be on the city proper in several important sections.  There is no real consensus on People from categories or notable resident lists.  It is however common for individual biographical articles to include in their categories the "People from" for the largest municipality in their metropolitan area.  Thus, in Category:People from Chicagoyou will find people who were born and raised in nearby suburbs.  It would not be a problem if notable resident lists used the same logic.  I think the guiding principal should be whether the article makes the associations clear.  Since Danica Patrick's article omits mention of Rockford, Illinois and the category list for that page does not include Category:People from Rockford, Illinois it would be perceived as wrong to include her on the list of notable people from Rockford on the Rockford page.  If her article changes at some future point to make a linkage clear and logical such inclusion would be more appropriate. TonyTheTiger 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "The Greater Rockford area" is a myth. I can't remember when that term was coined, but I've never liked it. Rockford is Rockford, despite the circular reasoning. It's always had the west side, south side, down town, and estate. There is no "greater" part unless Rockford possesses the land. And most of those bickerings are with Cherry Valley for what I've known. This would be a geographical issue. However, people from Belvideere or Roscoe or Rockton are not Rockfordians. Nope. I've lived here all my life. I know this is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by75.21.144.24 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...
"In early 2007 the city of Rockford city council voted to end the 90 year old vehicle sticker program. [9] The vehicle sticker was a way of raising tax revenue and it required Rockford residents to display, every year, a new sticker/decal on the inside of registered vehicle windshields. [10] The last sticker, required through the end of 2007, will depict artwork from Rockford's hometown celebrity rock group Cheap Trick, from their latest album called Rockford."

This paragraph, at the end of the History section, IMHO, is entirely not necessary. Many localities have done away with the sticker... why should this be in the article? Any thoughts?  Qb | your 2 cents  15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)