Jump to content

Talk:Billings, Montana/Archive 1

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

older comments

The "future" section is very brief and outdated. It should either be removed or completely rewritten with new information. Lannocc1 20:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point

Cleanup Co-ordination
This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:

  • the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
  • the article has multiple overlapping problems.
  • the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.

Discussion

the statement "In the 1970s, Billings suffered a short decline in population due to the oil crisis." is very wrong. This was one of the strongest periods of growth in Billings and it was because of the oil crisis.

Something is very wrong in the discussion of the population of Billings. I believe the population is just over 100,000, but this article proposes a preposterous figure of more than 500,000.

Cobb Field Renovation

Should we mention that Cobb Field will be torn down and replaced with a new ballpark after the 2007 season?--Rubiksphere 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(comment) Hello, Where did it state that Billings had a population of more than 500,000??? I didn't see that anywhere in the article or the discussion. Also Cobb Field is already demolished and is being replaced by Dehler Park. Wolfdog (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Billings city logo.gif

Image:Billings city logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be featured...

It seems this article has been nominated and rejected by a wide margin for FA status. Twice. If the editors of this article would like to see FA status, I recommend:

  • Including sources
  • Removing the redlinks
  • Copy editing
  • Remove that lauding "future" section from history

And most importantly: Get GA status before attempting an FA nomination. --Loodog 01:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yc logo cr5.gif

Image:Yc logo cr5.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Billings Bighorns.gif

Image:Billings Bighorns.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Billings.jpg

Image:Billings.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BOutlawslogo.PNG

Image:BOutlawslogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

clima section - table

I just added metric data to the climatic table of this article. I'm, however, not very good at editing wikitables. Could someone please look over it so it'll look better? --Maxl (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Community

There's a famous incident, of which I don't recall the dates or details, involving the small Jewish synagogue in Billings. It seems some synagogue members, on Hanukkah, had placed menorah's with lit candles in their windows, and as a result, the windows were either broken by a group of anti-Semites, or swastikas were painted, or something. In response, the churches of Billlings, or the community as a whole, got together and they all displayed menorahs or Jewish stars in their windows, to let the hate-mongers know that the entire community stood with the Jews. It's a great story and a documentary about it is frequently shown in synagogues. 68.116.40.228 (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


http://www.pbs.org/niot/about/niot1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.82.228 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to discuss about few links that I want to add to this page and think that they can be helpful. Please let me know your thoughts. I really donot want to be aggressive and insert it and get it removed by somebody.Rather I would like to discuss and insert them so that they are added as enhancements to the page. Here are the links:-

ci.billings.mt.us/

www.billingsgazette.com

www.msubillings.edu/

Please let me know your thoughts

--PhoneBookHistorianGeek (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You've posted the official city government website, the site of the largest newspaper in the city (and state), and the site for the state university in Billings. All are notable. They're all fine as external links. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 23:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion--PhoneBookHistorianGeek (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Largest City

Because Billings is the largest city in a 350-mile (560 km) radius that includes Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Saskatchewan, and Alberta (and inside a circle going through Spokane, Boise, Salt Lake City, Fort Collins, Sioux Falls, Fargo, Regina, and Calgary)...

Regina is twice the size of Billings, and Calgary is ten times the size, so this statement is obviously incorrect. I'd simply remove the reference to Regina and Calgary except I think the claim that it's the largest city within a 350 mile radius would still be incorrect, but I can't verify it just now. Lexington50 (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement isn't that those cities are within the 350 mile radius: it means that it's the largest city within 350 miles, and the largest city in the territory surrounded by those cities, all of which are more than 350 miles away; Fargo and Sioux Falls, incidentally, are probably 500 miles away. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the closest city larger than Billings is probably Salt Lake City or Denver, both of which are probably about 500 miles away.--Loodog (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, going by the rough measurement of the ruler that I was using on my computer screen, S.L.C. and Ft. Collins aren't much more than 350 miles away; consequently, many of the other cities (and Denver) are a bit under that. Or do you mean by road? My measurements were as-the-crow-flies. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
When you say that Billings is the largest city "inside a circle going through...Regina, and Calgary" I don't see how this can be interpreted as other than Regina and Calgary are within 350mi and smaller than Billings; at the very least I submit this is what any reasonable person would understand it to mean, and moreover the only interpretation that makes any sort of sense. What you seem to be implying is that Billings' economic (and possibly other) influence extends to the very city limits of Regina and Calgary, and that those cities exert no influence on territory that is much closer to them than to Billings, which is obviously ridiculous, especially since they are significantly larger than Billings (by a very large margin in the case of Calgary). A simple statement that Billings is the largest city within a 350mi (or whatever) radius of itself would be fine, without mentioning any of the other larger cities outside of this radius whose influence is being (intentionally or otherwise) marginalized. Lexington50 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't at least some reasonable people see "inside a circle..." as indicative that Regina, Calgary, etc. aren't within this 350-mile radius? If it's the largest inside that circle, the statement is accurate; moreover, if we wanted to say that it was larger than those cities, we'd say that it was the largest within a circle including those cities — "inside" conveys that it's separate quite effectively. Moreover, because any reasonable person would understand that 350 miles or more would be a rather long distance to travel just to go shopping, the other wording isn't a problem

Updating

This page needs some serious updating!

Sara goth (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It really does. It also needs a lot of cleaning up. The grammar is all over the place. It could use some new and better pictures. I think it would be nice to have pictures of the Rims and the Beartooths and the Pryors. A few of the attractions such as Sacrifice Cliff, the Moss mansion, the Depot, the little bighorn battlefield the Beartooth pass maybe the park. Linda Rider (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel like all the information in the first paragraph is important but it needs rephrasing. It seems to ramble on to the point of, ok ok we get it Billings is the largest city in the world. lol Linda Rider (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

White supremacist problems

The mid-1990s white supremacist crisis Billings faced, so I take it we're just going to be pretend that never happened? --98.232.176.109 (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Important Tips Before Editing This Article

webcomic xkcd 285

Please review the following to get a better idea of what you should add to this article:

  1. Please follow the Wikipedia USCITY guideline for layout and content.
  2. Please ensure a person meets Wikipedia Notability requirements before adding to the "Notable People" section.

Please review the following before editing:

  1. Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
  2. Please add text that has a neutral point of view instead of sounding like an advertisement.
  3. Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, ISBN 9780596515164.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Racial make-up of Billings, MT

Hi, can someone update the Racial make-up for 2010. I don't believe the racial make-up by User:71.126.174.193 that was on the page was accurate. Wolfdog406 (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, So I delete the racial makeup for now and replaced it with the 2007-09 American Community Survey until we can find the OFFICIAL 2010 racial makeup from the Census.Wolfdog406 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Dangerous!

This article states: "The tornado was accompanied by heavy hail up to softball size, dangerous cloud to ground lightning, and dangerous heavy winds." Surprised that it doesn't read: "The dangerous tornado was accompanied by dangerous heavy hail up to dangerous softball size, dangerous cloud to ground lightning, and dangerous heavy winds." Or maybe just drop the dangerouses in the original... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous section

Some of the information in the miscellaneous section needs citations or removal. I've lived in Billings my entire life and have never heard of Billings referred to as "The Yellowstone City" or ever seen anyone refer to it as such in print (other than on Wikipedia). I propose that statement be removed entirely until an example is given showing that it's a common enough term to warrant a mention. In Addition, the statement that Billings is "THE gateway to Yellowstone National Park" is not factually correct. According to the National Parks Conservation Association (http://www.npca.org/northernrockies/gateways_yellowstone/) no cities in Yellowstone county are gateways to the park, or part of the gateway region. (follow link for a list of actual gateway communities)I will also note the Wikipedia page for the Park also does not list Billings as a nearby community, much less an actual gateway. I'll give it a few weeks for people to input their $0.02 and if nobody has removed the entries or objected by then I'll delete them. 69.145.252.41 (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Pictures.

Why are there so many pictures in this article? I can understand having them there for illustrative purposes, but this article is littered with them. I'm not saying they should all be removed, but can't they at least be moved to a gallery? TheNewKarl (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The images are fine and the number of images is appropriate. Sara goth (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is an excessive number of images, and most of them seem to be coming from you. Some of them don't even have captions, which makes me suspect that you are putting them up simply to showcase your own work. I will restate what I said, they should either be thinned out or moved to a gallery. TheNewKarl (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a considerable amount of my time to take images and donate them to wikkimedia commons so that this page and others would have current images, which this page did not. These images are relevant to this page and the number of images not out of line for a city page. Many of the more recent images are mine, as stated because I took the time to take and donate them. However many more of them were added by others. If any of them need updating and I have the time I will update them that is a good thing I am sorry if you can't see that. If you feel like taking the time to contribute I would highly recommend it. Sara goth (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I only see two small nighttime skyline images (pretty self-explanatory) that don’t have or need captions so I fail to understand your argument there. I did however notice that you deleted germane information from one image. Sara goth (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

First, all pictures are supposed to have captions saying how they relate to the section, but more on those pictures later. Second, if you prefer the other caption, change it back. I feel that saying that it's the tallest building in Montana is more descriptive than saying it's the tallest building in between certain cities. Now, those two particular night images are part of the reason that prompted me to say that there are too many pictures in this article. They are pushing all the way down from "Sections" into the start of "Economy". This is something that isn't supposed to happen. Pictures that are of "Attractions near Billings" dominate the entire start of the "Attractions" section, and I would say that pictures of Red Lodge Ski Mountain and the Beartooth Highway aren't relevant in the "Culture" section, because they aren't mentioned at all. As for other pictures, the Wells Fargo Center would fit better in the "Economy" section than the "Population" section. The Federal Courthouse would probably be more relevant in the "Government" section as opposed to "Sections," but those two are just personal preferences. Now, please let me state that this not a personal vendetta against you, I just feel that the article has become too cluttered with pictures. TheNewKarl (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sara, I've donated several hundred photos to commons, I don't expect to put them all in wikipedia articles. Full disclosure: I do have some Billings photos in Zoo Montana, but that's because it didn't have ANY photos. This article also has a lot of redundant material and could use some solid streamlining. You really need to compare this article to better-written ones, such as Missoula, Montana, which has been awarded Good article status. While I hesitate to accuse anyone of WP:OWN, you DO have to remember that others editing in good faith usually are sincere in improving the article and you really can't get too proprietary about your own work on wiki. Montanabw(talk) 23:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a travelogue

Totally inappropriate violation of WP:NPOV to use "just minutes from" when you can specify distance and direction. This article isn't horrible overall, but the breathless bureau-of-tourism section of the section I edited is over the top. The whole list is actually kind of silly, and it repeats material elsewhere in the article. It could work to add info on flying into Billings works if you are entering the park via Cody or Cooke City, but that's a different issue from YNP being an "area attraction." Even by Montana standards, if you can't go there and back in a day, it's hardly "in the area." We had issues about people trying to claim Glacier Park for Missoula, too, which was equally exaggerated. Montanabw(talk) 23:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This may help further explain what a good city article is like: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline. Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all do not distort the truth nice try; I never used "just minutes from” and YOU never cited a source for any of your mileage figures.No I take that back you did for one and it was subjective. And you never stated the route taken. One edit you would say 45 miles the next 40 so it pretty much looks like you were just making up numbers. That is why I did not put miles in. It is so simple (attractions near Billings) how is that hard to understand? Maybe it should be (attractions around Billings). I realize near and around are relative but we are talking about things that are all day trips or less. The City of Billings website, Big Sky Economic Development and many others claim Yellowstone Park as a nearby attraction but you are saying they are all wrong, why is that? Billings, Bozeman and Idaho Falls all claim to be gateways to Yellowstone National Park. Billings is 121 Miles away Bozeman 92 miles and Idaho Falls 108 miles all depending on the route taken lol. All easy day trips, I have been taking day trips to Yellowstone since I was a kid my parents liked to go most every weekend in the summer. Most Billings people would laugh if you told them Yellowstone was not near by, as would the residents of Bozeman and Idaho Falls. The boiling river is practically a Billings hangout anymore. Whenever I go there which is often half of the people there are Billings people that I know. Why on earth would so many Billings people have season passes to the park if it weren’t close? Always seemed to me that Most of the Montana license plates in the Park were Billings plates.

Oh I see you took Cody Wyoming out also that is almost laughable it’s such an easy day trip. Now admittedly you are going to need the whole day for the museum if you go down for that but that is just because it is so big and wonderful. Still the drive part is beautiful and easy about the same distance as Bozeman to West Yellowstone but I guess you would say Bozeman to West Yellowstone isn’t a day trip either. What is a day trip to you anyway? To me it means you can easily do it in a day but see that is relative too, If you are a sit at home kind of person you wouldn’t be into it but if out like to get out and live life…well anyway like I say relative.

All of your edits fall under suspicion when you keep editing it back in to say that Pompey's Pillar is west of Billings most anyone from Billings or for that matter Montana would know that it is due east of Billings just off Interstate 94. For that Matter I pointed it out in my comment when I fixed the edit to say east after you changed to west. So had you bothered to do just a tiny bit of research you would have seen that Pompey’s Pillar is indeed east of Billings NOT WEST.

Now you obviously have and an agenda here, your edits seem vindictive, to what end I can only guess. For some reason you don’t like Billings. "About" this many miles and "approximately" that many miles is not how things are meant to be done on WP is it? Or maybe you can point out to me how that is the way it is to be done? Can you give me a truthful explanation of how simply not listing mileage that is subjective would not be better than listing some arbitrary mileage. That is a question it is not meant to be rhetorical.

Now I am not under any illusions that you will let this be fixed to tell the truth without an argument, well I don't want to argue. Why not tell the world Pompey’s Pillar is now where Laurel once stood. WP is just getting to be the POV of retired white men that have an obsessive-compulsive disorder to edit. They have the time and disorder thus a huge editing history to back them up to their retired white male obsessive-compulsive disorder-editing buddies.

This is why WP will become irrelevant.

Question: not rhetorical, are you a retired white male? Damn I should write a paper about this.

My suggestion is allow the nearby attractions to be listed where they really are and dump the subjective mileage, pretty simple solution. Yes; everything on this list is nearby and you know it!

Linda Rider (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Linda Rider, you're quite out of line. Expressions like "All of your edits fall under suspicion", "you obviously have and an agenda here", "your edits seem vindictive", and "obsessive-compulsive disorder" are all unacceptable violations of the expectation of good faith, collegial editing. You need to dial the rhetoric back about three notches. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I made No personal attacks read what I wrote in its entirety and don’t take my words out of context.Linda Rider (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh I did read it all. I quoted the worst of it but anyone is free to look at the full context, just above. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup you are correct you did take it out of context, yes PLEASE read it all. Thank You Linda Rider (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Bzzt. That's called trolling. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Linda, I am female, a fourth-generation Montanan (who has even lived in Eastern Montana, though I don't now - and Billings looks DAMN GOOD when you live in the far east! It's civilization!) , and you and sara are exhibiting on-wiki behavior that resembles two little girls in a junior high clique, mad that others are telling you that they also have a right to join your little club. So lay off the personal attacks and accusing others of "vindictiveness," because, frankly, you don't get it. Had you and sara not done a wholesale revert of my fairly minor edit of one section, you might have noticed that I sourced all my actual changes, (they call those "footnotes" I added several) and a typo of west and east, when working on several sections is something that is easily fixed, (and the article says Pompey's Pillar IS east anyway) what you were doing was a wholesale revert of my very sincere attempt to IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE. WITH SOURCES. Yes I have an agenda: TO IMPROVE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES. I have a second agenda: to COLLABORATE with people who have a sincere interest in IMPROVING ARTICLES. I don't give a flying rip about who edited what, and phrases like "just minutes from" anywhere are not appropriate encyclopedic tone, and I took them out; numbers are neutral. "Just nearby" means, basically, commuting distance, not a daylong slog where you are on the highway for hours and get home tired. Yes, a person can, in theory, do the grand loop of Yellowstone in a day, if you start at about 6am and get home about 10 at night, with few stops along the way other than for fast food and gas. Ditto Cody, which is poorly maintained two-lane highway all the way once you leave I-90, and a tiring trip dodging deer and other roadkill-in-waiting. Now grow up and let people help improve this article, which, frankly, whoever has worked on it, reads like it was some 15 year old's term paper - and gets a "C." If you'd read the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, you'd see this article needs a LOT of work to become a quality article. If, however, you want to run off everyone and just have your own little self-promotion club, well good luck with all that. Montanabw(talk) 16:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Montanabw - I see that you have discovered why many of us shy away from the Billings page (don't touch the airport either). It's a lost cause. Dsetay (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, this is the first article I've actually started to seriously help with. Between how bad this article is in certain spots and the fighting to get anything done, I'm wondering what on earth I got myself into. TheNewKarl (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Ceding articles to trolls? That's not appropriate. Take them back, easy-peasy. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say I was going to give up, and I guess why not dive straight into the deep end with a difficult article? TheNewKarl (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh good heavens if I had to head out at 6:00am I wouldn't be going anywhere but "a daylong slog" is kind of a personal perspective. I enjoy exploring the beautiful country around Billings so I never view it as a slog and none of them would take all day if I didn't take the time to hike, set, climb and enjoy. That is why you take a day trip and that is why it is called a day trip, it doesn't really have to last all day but why would you not try to make it. They really are all an easy commute. I don't know what the road to Cody was like in the 70's but now it is a well maintained road, easy pretty drive. I have never had deer problems on that drive, sounds like you just had a bad day. Deer however are everywhere in Montana, I hit one deer in my life and that was on Interstate 90. Deer don't know a two lane highway from a six lane highway as you will see if you ever drive 87 in Billings Heights. I don’t’ apologize for my passion, because I live in Billings and know that all of the things that were on that list are nearby. But I would like to push the reset button with you so we can work together and not apart. NOTE: if in the future I get passionate about something don’t take it personally, it is not meant that way. But please also don’t try to push my buttons that is not constructive. Linda Rider (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm good with a hit on the reset button, so don't push mine, either. It's fine to be passionate about Billings, but we still have to be neutral on the topic when writing here. My suggestion is that you need to reread WP:NPOV to refresh your memory (also, WP:OWN, which others sometimes point me to when I get too touchy) and then look at how the city articles for communities of comparable size to Billings that have WP:FA status are structured and written. Imitate those. Also, for practice, pick an article about a town where you have some minor interest, like, perhaps the articles on Spokane, or Butte or Bozeman, and look at them with an editor's eye, see if you can fix a few things, then come back to this one. As for deer, I've not yet hit one on the interstate, but have hit two on secondary roads, one over by Broadus, in fact. And a "slog" is, I admit, relative. To someplace like Cody, two hours one way on secondary roads for scenic windshield time is not a slog. Two hours one way on a secondary road when you have to make a 9am meeting that will be boring, last all day, and you return after dark in January on an icy road IS a slog. It's also a slog anywhere in March, if you drive between spring breakup and the arrival of the road crew to fix the potholes. And ever been to, say, Lambert? Or try doing the Beartooth Highway with a fussy toddler! =:-O Montanabw(talk) 17:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
A slog is relative. Try overflying a few states, Canada, the Arctic, Russia, and China. And then making a connection (ya prolly have, thou ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"You gals"

Nothing to do with article, take it elsewhere please
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would Like to point out that after Montanabw posted their last comment to me on this talk page that another editor posted a comment that started like this. "Linda and Sara. You gals seem well-intentioned but allow me to give some pointers. Do you gals have any FAs to your credit? You may want to listen to people who do."

Chauvinist without a doubt and I read a somewhat veiled threat. Maybe the threat part is an over reaction but I don’t need chauvinist crap.

The editor deleted his comment after I responded to him but you can find that in the edit history of this page. This is how I responded

I don’t appreciate your chauvinist tone. You just lump all women together don't you. Is this what Wikkipedia is all about? I guess maybe it is have fun editing. I guess that is why women only make up 13% of the editors on Wikkipedia. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427626/the-worrying-consequences-of-the-wikipedia-gender/ And not to be rude but "gals" how old are you? My grandpa used that term.

He deleted this from his talk page also but as an edit comment he wrote “you are gals, don't be so defensive”

Linda Rider (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No other editors were mentioned just Sara and Myself better known to chauvinists as “you gals”

Linda Rider (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lighten up; you're resorting to personal attacks over an innocuous comment. I'm sure PumpkinSky will not use the term again in regard to you two, so problem solved, unless you want to be the problem. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I rest my case, put the woman back in her place. How dare the woman stand up against a personal attack? OMG Now I am threaten for standing up against a Chauvinist remark directed at me. I'm being accused of a personal attack when all I did is post the real words this editor wrote to me. I must tweet this one. Is this what Jimmy Wales wants Wikipedia to be? And BTW I just called him an editor I didn’t list a name you did. Linda Rider (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Grow up, you have no case, just bad faith. You're walking around with a chip on your shoulder looking for offence. Tweet away, troll.
It was quite clear who you were talking about: diff of User talk:PumpkinSky. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Now do you consider a remark like "Grow up" to be Good Faith? And did you mean that in a kind way or was that a personal attack? And "You're walking around with a chip on your shoulder" was that the good faith that you speak of or was that a personal attack? just asking Thank you : ) Linda Rider (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In all good faith, I believe that you need to grow up and stop looking for offence. My comments are not kind and are not attacks (hint; they're apt;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In all good faith, I thank you stating on this page your opinion and POV ; ) Linda Rider (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My POV? Taht like WP:POV? Or the view taht you're trolling? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
For the record, Linda, I'm female and a fourth-generation Montanan. And your on-wiki behavior reminds me of some silly little junior high "gal" who is all pouting that the grownups have put red pen marks on her nice paper. Which is silly Montanabw(talk) 16:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.albertabairtheater.org/history.php and http://www.albertabairtheater.org/facility.php. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Verno, I agree that copyvios do not belong in any wikipedia article; however, I think it is more suitable to rewrite and fix rather than a wholesale deletion, so I am going to try to fix those sections. Sara and the other main editor on this article have limited wikipedia experience elsewhere, and they have been rather possessive of this article until lately, when they have shown some willingness to let other editor contribute, so let's try to help. Montanabw(talk) 20:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly concur. If you have the time/knowledge/motivation to rewrite problem sections then that's the preferred method of dealing with copyright issues. I am just now trying to ramp my contributions back up here to help with the ever-expanding backlog of copyright violations, and so I fall short on at least the required time to rewrite significant chunks of content, particularly when it also involves judging what's important for an overview article like this one. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I did a rewrite, see if it suits. My thinking on this is to give the editors a chance to fix things whenever possible. I wasn't particularly active on this article until recently, but I have some concerns about material being deleted without warning. Montanabw(talk) 20:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have learned from this I have read up and think I understand better now. My intent was only to create a better understanding of this historic building but I now understand in doing that I need to be careful to not cut and paste. I understand the harm of copyright violations. I created another article at about the same time Four Dances Natural Area. It also had some copyright violations but I did better on it. Another editor helped out with that and it seems to be ok now. Montanabw has been very helpful guiding me in the proper way to do things. Given the chance I would have fixed the article myself or at least tried.

Sara goth (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sara. Verno: Carrot! Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Coulson/Billings Section - "Borrowed"?

The entire first paragraph (along with some others in the section) looks to be a direct copy from this, with one or two small changes (which may simply be typos). Our first paragraph: "Billings was established in 1882 in Montana Territory near the already existing town of Coulson. The city of Billings was a rail hub founded by the Northern Pacific Railroad on a site originally known as Clark's Fork Bottom. The location was steered by a plan to develop freight hauling up Alkali Creek to Ft Benton and beyond into the productive Judith and Musselshell Basins. This inauspicious location was three miles (5 km) from fresh water on the alkali flats above the Yellowstone River, and was far from an ideal location to start a town." The first paragraph from the linked website (which our article cites): "Born in 1882, the city of Billings was a rail hub founded by the Northern Pacific Railroad on a site originally known as Clark's Fork Bottom. The location was steered by a plan to develop freight hauling up Alkali Creek to Ft Benton and beyond into the productive Judith and Musselshell Basins. Still, this inauspicious spot, three miles from fresh water on the alkali flats above the Yellowstone River may not, at a first glance, seem the most desirable location to start a town."

This is concerning to me. Intothatdarkness 14:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I lack the time/energy/strength for a pissing match to go through and fix this, but you are right. Someone needs to rewrite this properly. Montanabw(talk) 21:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
[ec]Adding - I looked over the Early Railroad Town section and, again, it looks to be directly lifted from the website noted above. Since that site appears to be directly reprinting a report done in 1998. Since the first history bit for the article appears in 2005, I think it's pretty clear which came first. I would think that we'd need more than a single footnote at the end of a paragraph to deal with this level of copy-paste. Agree that it would involve a pissing match, and like you I don't really want to deal with that. Intothatdarkness 21:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
We could slap a copyvio tag on the whole thing and make it someone else's pissing match...? Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought about that, but figured it would be more useful if someone with an interest in the article took a stab at reworking it first. And it looks like someone has! It shouldn't be hard to rework, actually, although some of the history is a bit spotty. Intothatdarkness 22:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

i can try and see what i can do but am very busy in rl right now and may not be able to get to it for a few days or may have to do just a bit at a time. may i call on you if i have questions montana? Sara goth (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Basically, look at the rewrite I did for the Alberta Bair theater section, where I completely rewrote the section in my own words and then cited the source. What was there before had two strikes: it was a copy and paste from the source and not cited, either. Montanabw(talk) 21:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Why this article will never be what it could be

User_talk:Montanabw#First_Interstate_Tower PumpkinSky talk 22:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that's the usual crap I get on my talk page by the whiny and disgruntled. I think Sara here is ready to work on the article and if those ofus with more on-wiki experience can help with the copyvio problems and such, we will be moving along nicely. I think this article mostly suffered from isolation for too long. Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

yeah i really hope to get started on the coulson/billings section i'm just crazy busy right now but soon, crossing fingers. Sara goth (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just finished looking over the rest of Sara goth's contributions to other articles for copied material. I'll try to get to her contributions to this article in the next day or two. Please consider this a heads up; as I mentioned above I don't really have the time to attempt rewrites in all situations, but where possible I will tag or blank any problematic sections rather than removing them outright. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. fixing problems in an article of this size and significance beats locking it down as a copyvio. Due to the past "ownership} behavior of a couple of other editors who just ripped anyone who tried to edit anything, a lot of editors who would work on this article were run off, so encouraging folks to come help now might be helpful. Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


Largest place between X and Y

Billings is a large hub of an enormous area; this is one of its hallmark characteristics. Stating that it is the largest city between place X and place Y is therefore not just a trivial travel brochure highlight but instead a worthy fact about the place worth mentioning. However, Billings, both in city limits and its 'micro'politan area, is larger than Fargo, ND. Stating the obvious, that Billings is the largest community or city between Minneapolis-St. Paul and Spokane, Washintgon (and therefore the second largest between the Twin Cities and the Seattle Metro) is not only more revealing/educational/illustrational and interesting, it is also more relevant and 'real world' to more readers of the article. The Twin Cities and Seattle are larger--much--than any community in South Dakota. Interstate 94 travels through the Twin Cities, Fargo, and meets Interstate 90 near/at Billings. Mentioning Fargo and the Twin Cities is even more encyclopedic than merely mentioning Sioux Falls, SD (whose metro area is smaller than Billings). Furthermore, the link mentioning Sioux Falls and Billings is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.14.149 (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on 2010 census data, Sioux Falls is quite a bit larger in population than Billings, actually, Fargo is about the same size, and people can argue all day about the size of the "metropolitan area" or trade area. Not sure if you are trying to make a point here, as it isn't the biggest city between the Twin Cities and Spokane. Montanabw(talk) 22:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Billings the hub of a very larger area and that does make it worth mentioning but I agree with Montanabw I don't really know what your point is. The phrasing is fine. At one point it read; Billings is the largest city between Spokane and Minneapolis except for Sioux Falls, lol that was just silly. It is fine as it is. Sara goth (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Main picture

I have recently participated in inappropriate behavior in relation to the main picture and I do apologize for that. I've decided to duct tape the little know-it-all in my head to a chair so he shouldn't cause any more trouble (that sounded funnier in my head). Now, I'll post a few pictures and we can list our objective opinions on how they would work as the main picture.

Feel free to add more pictures and your own thoughts. (If you have a better format, please do change it to that)

ALH (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Skyline 2.jpg

Skyline 2.jpg

If this one is used I don't think the caption should read (Downtown Billings) as it is only small part of Downtown. Maybe something like (the Crowne Plaza in Downtown Billings).Sara goth (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Billings MT Downtown.jpg

Billings MT Downtown.jpg

Downtown Billings from grand hill.JPG

Downtown Billings from grand hill.JPG
  • Easy to see on main page. Good lighting. Shows geography SE of downtown. Sort of makes downtown look smaller than it is. -ALH
  • Full discloser I took this image. It’s not that great but I like the Rims as the backdrop, the Rims are an important and unique part of the skyline of Downtown and Billings altogether. I could edit and post an image of this that shows more of the Downtown area. Sara goth (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Skyline 3.JPG

Skyline 3

yes skyline 3 Linda Rider (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I am concerned about the size as well, but (on an unrelated note) I think this one might be cool to include back into the main page until we can get our hands on an updated one. ALH (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Billings MT skyline.jpg

Billings MT skyline


Billings, Montana, downtown.JPG

Billings, Montana, downtown

Again full discloser I took this one also. The thing this image has going for it that the others don't is that it is the only image showing the new construction in east Downtown or the EBURD district as it is now called. There is several new buildings shown in this one that are not shown in any of the others. Downside it totally doesn't have the rest of the Downtown area The tallest building in the state or the Rims also it is already on the Billings page. This would not be my first pick for the Skyline image but I would take it over (Skyline 2.jpg) It shows everything that is in that image plus more and in a better light. Sara goth (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

General Comments

  • Comment: the long narrow panorama generally doesn't work well as a lead photo on WP (though sometimes can be good if enlarged and centered later in the article) because it won't do well as a thumbnail. The tight one of just buildings isn't all of what Billings is, either, so IMHO, the debate is between the first two images, which are basically a narrow versus a wide angle. My own thinking is that the editors need to think about what is unique about Billings -- that it is a metro area in rural Montana (true) - and thus focus on the downtown and tall buildings - or that it is a scenically interesting mid-sized city when most cities have boring scenery (also true) - and thus focus on the rims and other scenic elements in the background of the community? To Montanans, who sometimes jokingly refer to the place as "Buildings", we notice that it's a city. But to non-Montanans, especially the 98% of the USA population that doesn't live in a rural area, it's the unique scenery of The Big Sky Country that is the cool thing. So maybe with a bit of discussion on that note a consensus can be more easily reached. Montanabw(talk) 23:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

im not crazy about any of the first three pictures i pulled a couple more from commons. hella bunch of billings images but none that get it all. Linda Rider (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: There is still many more Billings images in Wikimedia if anyone cares to look. Yet I just don't think the perfect image is in there or here. I would say we pick one for now but we should keep trying to find a better image. I would encourage anyone who can to try and get out there and find that perfect image and contribute it to Wikimedia. You can get a pretty good image with a phone anymore. The way I see it the more we have to choose from the better! Sara goth (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: IMHO, there are too many photos of boring big buildings in the article as it sits today. While many are unique to Montana, someone from LA is going to say "so what?" I am a little concerned that there is too much emphasis on downtown. Does commons have more images of the parks, the river, the rims, etc.? Historic buildings? (Moss Mansion??) Is there an image of the fairgrounds overall (including the Metra, but more of an overview showing that the place is actually pretty well laid-out and landscaped?) For example, (yeah my photos), we have stuff from Great Falls like File:Gibson park duck pond 3.JPG, or from Missoula File:WashingtonGrizzlyNAU.jpg. Just thoughts. Montanabw(talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is what i like about Billings MT skyline.jpg It shows some of the surrounding scenery, The East Rims the South Hills. It is taken from atop the North Rims showing the beautiful urban forest in the valley below. It is set in the early autumn and in the midst of all those trees is part of the Downtown core giving it a nice sense of place. Sara goth (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem solved

Billings, Montana Collage

Problem solved: I made a Collage With some of Billings natural elements some of the historic buildings and yet some newer buildings. I think it addresses most of the concerns raised. Sara goth (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

While this does address some of the issues raised, I wouldn't be so quick to say that this "solves the problem." To begin with, I find it rather redundant to include photos that are already in the article, as the bottom two are. Moving on from that, it's my opinion that the point of collages for city articles is to show an overall view of the downtown area of a city and then move on to unique or interesting features of that town. I would say the bottom-left photo is the weakest because it doesn't show anything unique. Lots of cities have plain, old buildings, and to be really sarcastic, I would say nearly all cites have streets. I would find a shot of the Moss Mansion or Skypoint a lot more appropriate for a collage. In a similar theme, the middle photo also doesn't really show any features of Billings, just some of the buildings of downtown that, quite frankly, aren't that interesting. Moving on, I'm not entirely certain about the landscape shots (top- and bottom-right) because they show the landscape by itself, and not in the context of the city. This makes me wonder if an average viewer who isn't familiar with Billings would wonder if these are things you can actually see from Billings or merely nearby "attractions" that we wanted to showcase. Finally, as Montanabw has said, this collage falls firmly into the problem of focusing exclusively on the downtown area. There's no shots of say, Shiloh Crossing, the Army National Guard Recruiting Center, Lake Elmo, the METRA, or, heck, the airport, just to name a few things off the top of my head. ALH (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Problem made better rather than solved, can’t please all the people all the time, as the saying goes. I think the “redundant” image could be replaced where it appears farther down on the page however I personally don’t think it is a thing. Identifying things in the image could be handled in the caption, most other city collages I looked at as templates did do that. The Moss Mansion, The Western Heritage Center, the Yellowstone Art Museum, the METRA, Skypoint, the Billings Depot, Lake Elmo, The Montana Avenue Historic District all could be very good. When I have good images of some of these things I may try another collage. I was trying to mix natural elements and the city while at the same time trying to concentrate on the cities most recognizable features as well as historic and newer elements. What it does have is the South Hills, the Pryors the skyline, historic Billings and the Rims, for now at least I think it does do a better job of representing the city than any of the single images we had before. Sara goth (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good concept, but no redundant images, maybe all images showing some part of city with scenery. Montanabw(talk) 21:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Billings, Montana Collage #4

Taking into account what has been discussed here I made another. These are stronger images and I think the black boarder works better than the white did. I added the Moss Mansion and the METRA and got a shot from the Four Dances Nature Area in the East Rims. Sara goth (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Also I got some shots of the depot but the main entrance steps were icy so they had that yellow tape blocking the steps so as you can guess those images didn’t look so great hence I did not use them. I put in a shot of some Eagle Sandstone on the top of the North Rims because the terrain in the valley is pretty much defined by Eagle Sandstone. I just put Billings, Montana as the caption is that enough or should we do a grocery list? Sara goth (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Black border better, I would avoid the laundry list in the info box, but maybe if you can find a city article with a similar setup that is also GA or FA quality and see what they do...? Montanabw(talk) 19:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea thanks! Sara goth (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In looking around it does look like most pages list what the images are of however I did find a couple that didn't put any caption under the collage. Sara goth (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Any happen to be a GA or FA-class article?? Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes or formerly, I was a little surprised myself, Boston, San Jose, California, Los Angeles, New York City, to name just a few, Houston didn’t have a list. Sara goth (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Content forks

Per WP:CFORK, we have wayyyyy too many articles about the assorted subsections of Billings. While Lockwood makes sense as a separate article, as (I think?) it's outside the city limits, but I really wonder if there is much of a need for the nothing-but-list article that is Neighborhoods and Zones of Billings, Montana, which I tagged to be merged into Sections of Billings, Montana and which probably needs to be renamed "Neighborhoods of" or something - but frankly, if we compare to an article about a city only a bit larger, Spokane, Washington, which is also GA-class (and thus a good template for us) the ONLY two breakout articles I could find were Downtown Spokane and Neighborhoods in Spokane, Washington. Definitely not a separate article on every neighborhood! I think these collateral articles need merging and cleaning up. FWIW, Missoula, Montana has (IMHO) a few too many breakout articles, but at least they aren't stubs, and Great Falls, Montana (an article that needs some serious work) has none, as far as I can tell. Just a heads up to all. Given the number of passionate editors on this article, I think you guys would do well to try and take this thing to WP:GA after a bit. It's not there yet, but maybe once all the copyright stuff is cleaned up, you could take it to a peer review and then GA. The first time you do so, it's pretty rough on the ego, but you also learn a lot about getting a good WP article! Montanabw(talk) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct Lockwood is not within the city limits it is a separate Census-designated place. However they are tied into the sewage treatment plant and school system of Billings so it really is only a matter of time before they are annexed into the city. I think merging the two is a good idea and renaming seems like a good idea also. Then it could also use some work, more info about some of the neighborhoods, there are many that are still not listed, I would also like to see more on the downtown core. Wolfdog406 created both of these pages and I believe did most of the work on them so I would really like to see his input on this. I would like to see the page go for GA but it does need a lot of work first. As always thank you for your input Montanabw.Sara goth (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In regards to there being too many forks, this: Category:Billings, Montana probably just needs to be weeded through. A. L. H. 09:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh gawd! There has been WAYYYYY too much "forking around" in Billings! (grinning, running and ducking...) I'd say the more merges, the better, and if no one whines on the ones I've tagged already (same editor, I think) I'd also say WP:BEBOLD and just merge all the relevant ones back into this article! Montanabw(talk) 02:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you think it would be wise to move everything in Category:Radio stations in Billings, Montana and Category:Television stations in Billings, Montana to Media in Billings, Montana or would that just overload the page too much? A. L. H. 16:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a need to merge categories, and I think most USA radio stations DO have their own articles (Billings not unique, maybe look at the parent category), but yes, I think they all should be in the media article. One good example of a spinoff list that was needed. Montanabw(talk) 20:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's no point in fixing what isn't broken. Some of them need a bit of work though (references, wikilinks, and the like), so I'll start in on that. A. L. H. 20:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Billings,_Montana/Archive_1&oldid=1136564530"