Jump to content

Talk:Columbus, Ohio/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Reminder

Please do not add external links in the body of the article. They should go at the end under ==External links== . Bmills 16:03, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Demographics

Under Demographics, I added the City of Columbus Population by year history from 1840 thru 2000. JeffreyAllen1975 03:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Since the 1950’s Columbus has had an aggressive policy of annexation. “Columbus has used its control of water and sewer lines to expand city boundaries since 1950.” From 1950 through 2000, the city of Columbus grew from 42 square miles to approximately 220 square miles. From 1950 through 1975 the city added on average 5.3 square miles per year. This 25-year period represent the majority of growth of this city.

Columbus is the largest city in Ohio it is 220 square miles with a population of as 2000 of 711,470 people or 3,324 people per square mile.

Cleveland is 77 square miles with 478,403 in population or 6, 213 people per square mile. Densely populated suburbs and counties surround Cleveland; adjacent counties combined total 2.8 million people. Of Ohio 11.4 million 25% live in greater Cleveland/Akron/Lorain metropolitan area.

I offer this information to demonstrate how numbers can be manipulated and the resulting conclusion misleading.

Ohio ranks 9th in population density within the nation, the largest part of that population in North Eastern Ohio, Greater Columbus is 1.6 million people surrounded by corn fields! Yes 10% of the states population lives in greater Columbus, 25% lives around Cleveland!

Largest city POOF! “Smoke and mirrors”!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.43.181.155 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure I see your point. What conclusion is misleading here? It's quite clear I think that Columbus is the largest city in Ohio, and the third largest Metro area. The article says "Unlike Cleveland and Cincinnati, the central cities in Ohio's two largest metropolitan areas, Columbus is ringed by relatively few suburbs; since the 1950s it has made annexation a condition for providing water and sewer service, to which it holds regional rights throughout a large portion of Central Ohio."--Analogue Kid 04:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Shopping

Does anyone else agree that the "Shopping" section contains too many irrelevant details? Stating the specific stores at the Easton mall is a bit iffy, but saying that The Limited carries "polka dotted chiffon skirts" has nothing to do with Columbus or a Columbus-specific mall. Urban48 18:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, both "Nightlife" and "Shopping" are poorly written sections. The whole thing reads like a tourism brochure, not an encyclopedia article. I deleted them. I think some of the stuff in shopping might be incorporated into a brief paragraph about the retail sector in Columbus, categorized under "Economy." But in any case, these additions should strive for paragraph form, not a laundry list with bullet points. -- Wild Goose 19:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Nightlife

Under "Nightlife", there are odd statements such as "the best party in town", etc when describing various bars/clubs. This is an opinionated statement really, and shouldn't be in the k we should hold the Columbus article to a higher standard. --Wild Goose 14:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

So should we remove it? --Jshecket 02:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Done. --Wild Goose 04:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't even think the Columbus Capitals mention is appropriate. I think the person who put it there in the first place was only trying to advance a personal agenda. --Jshecket 15:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Arch City"

I have lived in Columbus for 23 years now and this is the first time I have heard it referred to as "The Arch City". Some Google research indicates that although at one point the city council officially nicknamed Columbus "Arch City", this is much more of a historic name than a common or current one. Gmcapt 00:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that.... I know it's not a very well-known nickname, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Besides, I would argue that historical nicknames are the only ones that stick. Pittsburgh doesn't produce much steel anymore, but it's still known as the Steel City. Chicago's politicians aren't the blowhards they once were, but it's still known as the Windy City. The Arch City nickname can become more common and more well-known if we choose to use it publicly in forums such as this. The alternative nickname is "The Discovery City" which might be more current but it seems contrived, like a PR initiative from the city's board of tourism. Wild Goose 15:15 19 July 2005 (UTC)
It should be mentioned in the history section, and tied to the period in which it was used, but not used in the introductory paragraph. That would imply a much greater (and current) usage than is the case. I myself lived in Columbus for 25 years and never heard it. Postdlf 18:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like an acceptable compromise. I encountered the nickname very recently and thought it would be cool to contribute something unique and interesting to Columbus' (mostly bland) identity. But at the risk of misleading Wikipedia readers, it is probably best not to proclaim such an obscure nickname in the opening sentence of the article. Wild Goose 20:21 19 July 2005 (UTC)

In light of this discussion, how is it that the Infobox now has "Nickname: The Arch City"? There's nothing I see in the box or the article itself that implies that the nickname is only of historical interest. Jwolfe 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I was curious why "Discovery City" was deleted from the previous infobox. But to the extent that any city nickname has value besides historical or anecdotal interest, I don't see why this one shouldn't be included in the infobox, too.Wild Goose 21:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Um, isn't "because nobody uses it" a good enough reason? This is not something like "Big Apple" that everybody knows and associates with the city. It's an obscure historical reference at best. Jwolfe 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that the Big Apple is the exception, not the rule. Clearly, there is a precedent for obscure city nicknames, such as City of Oaks, Capital of the New Century, Beehive of Industry, City of Roses, Circle City, and Star City, just to name a few.Wild Goose 14:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Only nicknames that have a documented usage should be documented first of all, and if that usage is long past, then they should only be included in the infobox if followed by the parenthetical "(historical)" or something like that, to make it clear that it's an obsolete nickname. I think that should please everyone. (?) Postdlf 15:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem if you can document a historical usage, so long as it is marked as historical. But listing it without any comment implies a current usage, which isn't the case. Jwolfe 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Both nicknames (Arch and Discovery) are documented in the book by Ed Lentz, which is currently listed as a reference in the article.Wild Goose 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Discovery Place (Discover Columbus) is also a book of it's own. Pushed by Columbus when the campaign name for it was around. It is also mentioned in Henry L Hunker's Columbus Ohio, a ersonal geography. Though it is a term created for columbus based on a political campaing to revamp the image of ohio, and is more like, "Ohio, heart of it all." Which changes over time. That's my understanding anyway. 65.25.155.252 01:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC) dan

Only five more days

After next Wednesday, I'm going to start asking people which state's capital is Columbus, just to see if they can spot the pun. — JIP | Talk 13:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Um... I don't get it. Wild Goose 14:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a Finnish thing. — JIP | Talk 14:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Explanation

"Ohion", the Finnish language genitive case of Ohio, sounds like "ohi on", meaning "it's over". — JIP | Talk 10:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Patently Silly Statement

The article notes, "Residents of Columbus include an eclectic mix of students, politicians, artists, and entrepreneurs who participate in a diverse economy supported by government agencies, educational institutions, and the white-collar service sector."

Well d'oh. That could describe pretty much any city in America. What, someone thinks Denver is populated only by Italian-American accountants named Vito? Raleigh has only left-handed lesbian typists? You get the idea.

This sounds like some kind of tripe snipped from a Chamber of Commerce brochure or something mouthed by those upbeat guys who narrate promotional films, "Columbus, city of progress, city of industry, city of tomorrow!" BehroozZ 05:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This particular tripe was snipped from Austin, Texas. Wild Goose 22:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Test Market

I have reinserted the statement that COlumbus is a oft-used test market for new products. http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9273747; hopefully some experts on the subject of consumer goods can back me up on this with more citations and more detailed material. -User:Electrostal17Feb06 800EST

That's cool, the info is good and credible. But I don't think that one sentence about a topic should warrant its own subject heading. Also, future citations should be included as footnotes in the article, preferably with books or published media as references. Sorry to single out the "test market" info in this case. The lack of citations is really something that applies to the "Columbus" article as a whole. Thanks! Wild Goose 14:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Quotation

The James T. Quote might be a true qquote, but in a Fragile Capital, identity and the early years of Columbus, Ohio: Charles C. Cole jr. This Lancaster vote isn't mentioned. For a short time the capitol was in Chillicothe and then Zanesvile. According to the book, Deleware was the other major contender in the end. "The final vote was 13 to 11." p. 6 of that book.

Also, shouldn't all quotes be moved to wikiquote? 65.25.155.252 05:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC) -dan

Downtown Pictures

While this article contains severall nice pictures of downtown, I am going to try and get pictures from other parts of downtown, including behind the river (instead of in front of the river), because Columbus is bigger than what is shown in these pictures. Ajwebb 03:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


That is a good idea, I thought the same thing.71.74.70.152 02:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hilltop, Columbus, Ohio

The "Hilltop, Columbus, Ohio" article needs some attention. Are there any editors here who wanna take a crack at it? -MrFizyx 06:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at it; I removed the pure garbage, and tagged the crime claims for needed citations. The gist of it being poverty-stricken and crime-ridden is true, however, from everything I remember about it. And I added info about the now-destroyed State Hospital for the Insane—the creepiest building I've ever seen in my life. The Forgotten Columbus book in the "Images of America" series has some good public domain pictures of it that I'll scan once I get a chance. The West Broad street Hilltop sign (really close to where the hospital used to be) would be a good pic subject too. Postdlf 07:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardesty Heights, Columbus, Ohio

As with Hilltop (written by the same individual), this neighborhood article needs serious work. Postdlf 22:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see an article done about some of the Public Access TV people like Squirtman and Damon Zex... It seemed to be a big issue in the 90's in Columbus.

"By far, the sports team that draws the most attention in Columbus is the Ohio State Buckeyes college football team..."

As someone who grew up in Columbus, this statement is an obvious and uncontroversial fact, even though I've never been a football fan. You can't help but notice that no other sports team comes close to receiving the scope and intensity of focus in Columbus that the Buckeyes football team does. However, it isn't exactly the kind of statement that one can find a specific citation for. I know that if we could cite to attendance records, analyze media coverage, and count the percentage of people wearing scarlet and gray in the city and its suburbs on game day Saturday, take a verbal poll, observe bumper stickers...any measure of "attention," these would all support the statement. But do we need to go to that length in this case? We don't as a practice give a citation for every statement of fact in every article. Could someone explain why this particular statement is disputed or questionable? Postdlf 17:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me about the statement itself is that it is just not encyclopedic. Yes, I know, the Buckeyes are the team in Columbus, and many people would agree with this both in Columbus, in Ohio, and sports fans across the United States. Anyone living in or from Columbus would agree with this statement.
I admit, I may have been hasty to add a [citation needed] note to the first sentence, however the opening -- "By far" -- does not work when you're trying to avoid POV. In general, the section on the Buckeyes could use some work to become more NPOV and add references (like was done with the "greatest sports rivalry"). I started a little on it by revamping the whole paragraph on non-OSU teams, since it smacked of a bias against teams that were not the "big three" (which in itself is a conflict over it's that or the "big four" (see: big four). College football, however, isn't really something I grasp all too well or am as keen on research when compared to other sports. I do know, though, that saying things such as "80% to 90% of market share tunes in to OSU's game against Michigan" demands citations. Or that they play "in front of over 100,000 rabid Buckeye fans" (98% capacity of people who go to the games are "rabid" fans?) isn't at all possible to prove, and is mainly just POV fluff.--Resident Lune 17:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing "by far," and "rabid" is certainly POV (I'd more describe Buckeye fans as "fanatically partisan"). I agree that the market share claim is one for which a cite should be provided (and providing one should be quite possible, if it's a true statement). I tried doing a little online searching for that, but without any luck so far. The ESPN greatest sports rivalry claim was easy to verify. Postdlf 17:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think maybe rewording the comment about "100,000 rabid fans" to something more informative such as "the Buckeyes regularly play home games to capacity or near capacity" with a reference to attendance records (those tend to be pretty easy to grab) would be better, as it would show that they are very popular in Columbus by attendance alone, without the need for suspicious wording. "By far" can be dropped and the citation request can be removed once that's also gone. The comment about the team drawing the most attention won't need a citation in itself because the references to their attendance, its #1 spot as the greatest rivalry in ESPN's eyes, and the (hopefully findable) reference to their local ratings in the Columbus market will all prove that well enough, hopefully.--Resident Lune 17:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Postdlf 18:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Climate?

I really think that the Columbus, Ohio article is great and well written to everyones needs. I like how its written and its very interesting to most people. It would be nice if there was a climate section added to this article.--JeffreyAllen1975 02:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Done.Analoguekid 20:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable buildings in Columbus

I added this section so that there was an easily found section collecting all the cool buildings of columbus but maybe a new page similar to notable buildings of cleveland page....--Stranger 11:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure having a list is the best way to present this topic. I definitely agree it should be addressed, but bullet points don't set a good precident, IMHO. There is already a section titled 'Landmarks and Museums', perhaps this could be expanded/merged rather than having a list. At the very least, merging would help reduce the redundancy that is so prevalent in this article. Analoguekid 14:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. All of the buildings in the list are already mentioned and wikilinked elsewhere in the article. Not to be harsh, Stranger, but this is a redundant section. --Wild Goose 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

As those of you who have this page on their watchlist have probably noticed, I have been heavily updating the page over the past few weeks. It is my intention to improve the page to featured article status, hopefully with some help from others. As a proud citizen of this fair city, I cannot stand idle as that city up north has FA status, and ours does not. Thus do I work with a strong impetus. I thought I'd start a discussion topic where we can discuss changes and make suggestions. This isn't a processed to be rushed, I want to make sure we get it right before millions of people look at the page.

The work I've done on the article so far has been mostly re-writing what is already there. However, the article suffers from too much information, IMHO. Thus there will probably need to be some sections removed from this article and placed elsewhere. Since this has the potential to be controversial, I figure it should be discussed prior to changes being made. See the To Do list for subpages which will be created, and could serve as a repository for some info that doesn't belong on the main page.

I'm trying to conform to these standards. I'm also looking at other good articles such as Detroit, Cleveland, San Francisco, and Boston.

To Do

See History of Detroit, Michigan as an example. The history section is getting longer, and there is much more to say than could be comfortably stated in a main article.
See Neighborhoods in San Francisco, California as an example. That way we don't have to have that awkward list of every neighborhood and crossroads in the main article.
See Culture in Boston, Massachusetts as an example. This would be a good place to move the massive paragraph about every festival that goes on here.
Dunno what to model this after yet. I'm just concerned about the 231 5th avenue address example that's in the article now. Seems a bit trivial for the main article but not unimportant in a more specific venue.


--Analogue Kid 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds ambitious. Somebody must be on winter break ;) Anyway, yeah, I'd like to help with this. Thanks for getting the ball rolling. Regarding the sports infobox: I added one a long time ago, but then deleted it a few months later. After the inclusion of team logos was determined to be against wikipedia policy, the box looked less appealing. Then there were people who kept insisting their semi-pro or amateur teams should be added to the list, which undercut its notability. Then there's the fact that most of the info contained in the infobox was already stated elsewhere in paragraph form, so it seemed redundant. For these reasons, I decided the infobox was just taking up space. Thoughts? --Wild Goose 15:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean about the sports box. Only Boston has one in their article, and it includes all their championships (Seems they're very proud of those 6 world series wins). I'm content to omit it from the article.--Analogue Kid 19:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at other FA pages, I've noticed that one of their common characteristics is they are tightly focused on the city, not on seperate suburban areas. The Columbus article devotes quite a bit of time talking about things going on in the wider Columbus Metro Area. Because of this, I'm thinking I will move most items related to suburbs to the Columbus Metropolitan Area article and expand things there. It would be something like Metro Detroit. (Perhaps we can ponder a name change for the Columbus Metro article? Anyway, there we can talk about such things as The Memorial Tournament, Hilliard's antique TV museum, and other things that are not located in the city proper. To verify what's what, I'm referencing the Auditor's website, which gives jursdictions. --Analogue Kid 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In looking at the Detroit, Michigan article, it appears that it talks about things in the metro area quite a bit. The danger I see in moving stuff over is that you could end up with a bunch of duplication, or worse, conflicting information. If things are moved over, we would need prominent links to the Columbus Metro article in the intro to this article and in the Columbus disambiguation page. Jwolfe 02:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It's true that the Detroit article does mention things that go on in the area. However, it usually mentions stuff that relates to the city proper and isn't just a hanging fact, such as the note that Detroit is very poor and the suburbs are very affluent. Not so much less "notable" things that go on in the suburbs (for example noting the Scotts Company is in Marysville). The point I'm trying to make is that the Columbus article needs a tighter focus, and should stand on it's own without referring to what goes on in the suburbs except where it has a large impact on the city. Good point on the conflicting information. As for referring to the Metro page, Cleveland does it well. They put it right on top and then mention it in the text where relevant. Thanks for the comments! --Analogue Kid 04:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not that I'm opposed to what you propose, I just think you have to be careful not to create a mess. I suppose the examples you cite suggest that it's doable. It does seem rather strange to talk about thinks going on in Dublin and Hilliard (and the other suburbs) in an article ostensibly about the city itself. By the way, I think Columbus Metropolitan Area is as good a name as any for the metro article. Jwolfe 09:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved most references about the suburbs to the metro page. There should be almost no duplication now between the city and metro pages. As long as things don't creep back to the city article, it shouldn't get messy. --Analogue Kid 21:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead photo

I'm thinking perhaps we should change the photo at the top of the article. Although the quality is good, there are a number of artifacts that are unflattering. There is a chain link fence as well as a Jersey barrier in the lower left, and a wire running across the top of the picture. It also shows only 3 skyscrapers, and we have many more. Here are a couple of options, and feel free to submit an idea if you know of another good pic.

This is a good panorama taken by Derek, and I cleaned it up a bit to have fewer dark areas. Panoramas are fairly prevalent on other city pages.
This is one of my pictures, which seemed to come out ok.

Thoughts? --Analogue Kid 04:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not a big fan of the current lead-in photo. If we were to change it, I'd prefer Derek's tighter, more balanced composition, but I bet we can find an even better photo of the Columbus skyline out there. And just to stir the pot a little bit: does it really have to be a skyline photo? Don't all urban American skylines look more or less the same? Is there another way to identify Columbus visually without using a skyline photo? Maybe a landmark, or a picture of people at an event, or a statue of the ol' Admiral himself... I dunno, just brainstorming right now... --Wild Goose 20:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting thought, perhaps something like this? The one other distinctive element might be the Union Station Arch in the Arena District. True that skylines tend to look the same but come 2009 we'll have this to photograph. I have to say though that the powers that be (read people who decide on FA status) tend to like things to be traditional. Not a knock, just an observation based on past experience. I'll put Derek's pic in for the time being to have something a little nicer.

--Analogue Kid 06:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't seem to make sense to me: A charter commission, elected in 1913, submitted, in May, 1914, a new charter offering a modified Federal form, with a number of progressive features, such as nonpartisan ballot, preferential voting, recall of elected officials, the referendum, and a small council elected at large. It doesn't read well at least. I would re-write it but since I don't want to screw up the facts, maybe someone who knows about it can fix it.--Analogue Kid 05:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Boring layout

This article suffers from the same malaise that a lot of Wikipedia articles do. All the photos are small thumbs shoved over to the right side. Several of the photos are mine, so I won't make changes. Incidentally, you're welcome to use any other of my photos of Columbus for more variety. --Tysto 14:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason it looks the same as a lot of other articles is that most people have been trying to follow the Manual of style which specifies such things as image size, etc. In my experience, an interesting layout is not a plus when considering what makes a featured article. Accurate, complete, and well cited information is foremost, followed by proper grammar and spelling. If you have ideas for a more engaging experience, you can suggest them over here. Honestly I agree that most featured articles are a boring read unless the subject matter happens to be of interest to me. Thanks for the photos.--Analogue Kid 15:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-Columbus based institutions

To clarify, this page is about Columbus. It is not about Bexley, Westerville, Hilliard, or any other area outside of the city. Thus, things or places that are not in the City of Columbus proper should not be included in this article. Entries such as these can be contained within their respective city pages as well as the Columbus Metropolitan Area page. To verify location, please check the Auditor's website. --Analogue Kid 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume good faith in your attempts to improve the article by removing content from it, but, based on your content removal which went beyond your stated objectives, I may no longer be able to assume the assumption of good faith on your part. To clarify, there are many places and things outside the city of Columbus that are referenced in the article and should continue to be so referenced. The fact that Bexley, Westerville, Hilliard, or any other area outside of the city are referenced in the article does not change the subject of the article. In fact, the inclusion of Bexley, Westerville, Hilliard, or any other area outside of the city improves the article by providing a context and establishing Columbus's credentials as a center for education (in this example).
If we were to remove all references to anything outside the municipal boundaries of Columbus, the article could conceivably shrink by a third or more and be much less useful for its lack of context. Things outside Columbus contribute to a full understanding and appreciation of what Columbus is and what it has to offer. Such references are eminently germane to an article about Columbus.
I generally need no helpful hints or links to Joe Testa's office to figure out that Bexley, Ohio isn't Columbus, Ohio. To insinuate otherwise is, to say the least unfair.
If you feel that consensus supports your view that this article should restrict itself to only referencing places and institutions within the city limits, feel free to demonstrate that consensus here. Until there is a consensus, I would view it as uncivil for you to repeatedly remove content without consensus supporting such removal. --Ssbohio 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, SSB, Analogue is working in good faith and has the best interests of the article at heart. But I think it is going a little far to exclude both Capital University and Otterbein. It's a good rule of thumb to eliminate suburban details in order to create a sharper focus on the city of Columbus itself, but high-profile institutions such as universities and major events such as Muirfield are certainly notable enough to be among the exceptions to the rule. --Wild Goose 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't assume bad faith on your edits SSB, but I have never seen you edit this page before, thus I have no idea as to your level of knowledge about the city. That's the reason I included the Auditor's link, as some people are not familiar with the various jurisdictions.
What concerns me is encountering a slippery slope back into mentioning all the suburban things I moved over to the metro page. People can say, well if you mention stuff if Bexley, why not stuff in Canal Winchester or Groveport? As Jwolfe mentioned on an above post, we risk having a really messy article if we have duplication between the city and metro pages. I would really like for this to be avoided. I'll go along with having the Universities and Muirfield mentioned, provided we're very cautious about further suburban invasion. --Analogue Kid 13:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


I don't know, I would kind of consider Bexley as being in Columbus, It is definitely surrounded by the city. It is definitley not a typical suburb. I mean, I would consider Grandview as well. However, not Upper Arlington, Westerville, Worthington, Groveport, Dublin, or other areas that are farther out. That's just my opinion. 71.74.70.152 02:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Capital University Law School actually is located in the City of Columbus. Never mind, of course, that the main campus is literally across the street from the city limits. IMO, Capital University deserves mention in both articles. -- JeffBillman (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

references in pop culture?

Hi, normally it seems the larger and/or more famous cities (especially in North America) have a section on Wikipedia that lists the times/places where pop culture (books, TV shows, movies) have events/story elements that center on that city (I'm talking about when that city's involvement in the story is *different* than in The Real World, i.e. Washington D.C. is the U.S. capital in real life so it's unnecessary for the Wikipedia page for D.C. to mention it has acted as the U.S. capital in such and such a film or TV show). I'm mainly asking because in a recent episode of "Jericho" (TV) someone mentions (though they may not be telling the truth) Columbus as being the "new" U.S. Capital after the bombs. 199.214.28.246 20:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it here. Such lists usually turn into interminable trivial clutter in articles, so they are widely hated and often removed. See Wikipedia:Trivia for some thoughts on this. A mere "mention" of a city really isn't very important to the city; a more substantial fact would be that the 1980s sitcom Family Ties was set in Columbus (the only national network show that was?). But starting a separate article on Columbus, Ohio in popular culture might be feasible, if you have enough information; see the entries of Category:Locations in popular culture for other examples. Postdlf 23:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't have minor references in here because trivia usually isn't very encyclopedic. The only place it's really appropriate to mention is on the page itself, and I see it's already there.--Analogue Kid 18:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


Good article

This is an excellent example of a city article. As such, I've now passed it as a good article. The article is well written, factually accurate (with reliable inline citations), rather broad in coverage (considering that this is an article about a particular city), and includes a good selection of GNU images. The only suggestions I'd make for improving the article is to include a short subsection on the Columbus Metropolitan Area (instead of just linking to that article) and including more information on how Columbus has influenced the nation's history. Best, --Alabamaboy 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for the recognition! --Wild Goose 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos on TV

Anyone posting photos to this article should be aware that several of them are being used in the introduction to the paid commercial TV program Columbus Real Estate Showcase, broadcast every Sunday at 11:30am on WSYX. As far as I can tell, this is within the terms and conditions of the GFDL, but any comments or opinions on this matter would be welcome. Thanks. --Wild Goose 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, good to know. I wonder if they used one of mine? I took the pic from North Bank Park last year. I think I have it licensed as Attribution, so I'll try to look into that. Thanks for noticing.--Analogue Kid 19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The user Georgeccampbell has added a link to (apparently his own) web page with a collection of postcard images. User Analogue Kid has deleted the link. There is at this moment a debate which may become unmannerly. My view:

  • The (possibly abrupt or inadequately explained) deletion of the link shouldn't be called vandalism, but it seems as unmannerly to delete the work of an experienced contributer without discussion, as it is to call another experienced contributor a vandal. So let's all try to play nice.
  • The external link can be judged on it's own merits, and not merely be dismissed on account of it appearing to be owned by the editor who created the link. I could claim to be Bill Gates and edit a link to Microsoft, or claim to be a neutral party and extol a link to myself; claimed or denied ownership doesn't dicatate teh value or suitablility of a link. The author's self-admission should not be a condemnation in itself.
  • The Postcard link looks fine. It's not selling anything, it provides exactly what it purrports (images of postcards of columbus), the material suits the article (for people curious about Columbus), and the copyright issues pertian to his site and not to Wiki. So the link is fine to me.

I'd appreciate it if we argue to the merits of the case, here, instead of name-calling on talk pages. Thanks. Pete St.John 19:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I hope everyone understands that external links on Wikipedia are a touchy subject. Most are spam outright. I would say that this website is useful. However, I am concerned about the lack of licensing information on the page. This is specifically restricted as described here and here. Thus until some more information is provided regarding the copyright status on that website, I feel that the page should not be linked.--Analogue Kid 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Since neither Wiki, nor the "fan site", is making any money, or attempting to make any money, from commercial use of the images, the only thing a civil court could do is order us to desist. I favor erring on the side of disemminating information. Since the images are a poor resolution (compared to the original postcards) they arguably promote the postcards, more than compete with them. So I favor keeping the link, but I don't mind either way if a concensus evolves. I'm glad we're not having an edit war over it, there are bigger problems, like, **why** are there twenty-eight nondiffeomorphic seven-spheres?? :-) Pete St.John 20:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If you click on the image, a high resolution scan comes up. george 16:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see the harm in providing a link to my postcard page - let the article readers decide! I often use my personal site to flesh out a topic and add information that Wikipedia "hall monitors" deem to be "crufty", whatever that means. As for asserted copyrights on the cards - I haven't heard a peep from the dead and out-of-business postcard publishers that created them. george 16:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand your frustration with the sometimes bureaucratic nature of Wikipedia, George. Believe me I've run into it myself. That being said, your photos don't fall under what's termed fair use, because as you say, the images are high resolution. It sets a very bad precedent to start linking to sites that throw copyright laws to the wayside. The fact of the matter is, you don't know who has the copyright. A business might go under, but somebody may have picked up their assets. Your site is good George, and it could be incorporated into references in the article perhaps. However, I'm still uncomfortable with having a link on this or any page on Wiki.--Analogue Kid 11:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's why the postcards are NOT on wikipedia. The copyright status of a 1930\'s era postcard will produce oceans of angst on Wikipedia while nary a thought was given to the issue on my personal site. george 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Columbusites

  • I've lived in Columbus all my life and never heard that term used even once. The media always referrs to as "Central Ohioans". You have to remember that as far as the media is concerned (Dispatch, the three local news stations, etc.), the only people that matter economically are the ones in the suburbs. If there is a big football game coming up, eyewitness news will always do a live feed from Dublin. If it is "Trick-Or-Treat" night, they are in Upper Arlington live. I would challenge anyone to find the word "Columusites" used once in the upcoming week's Dispatch, and count the number of times "Central Ohioans" is used. george 16:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The media mentioned, such as the Dispatch, are trying to sell to the widest possible audience. They can't compete with the Plain Dealer in Cleveland, but they can grab as much of Central Ohio as they can, so they call their readers Central Ohioans. However, the Mayor of Columbus may refer to his constituents as Columbusites. We don't want to confuse advertising slogans with journalism. Pete St.John 17:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive:

--Analogue Kid 17:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Macho Man

Someone added reference to a "pro wrestler" in the Sports section of the article. I hesitated over this, thinking both, "maybe it should be in a list of notable people from Columbus" and also "Pro Wrestling hasn't been a sport in America since the 19th century" (it's theatre, not sport). But I noticed that the Sport section was consecutive with the Performing Arts section, so I just could not resist simply moving the item from the one to the other. I understand that the sentence "Pro Wrestling is not a sport in the U.S." will confuse many people, and I don't mind if anyone does anything with this item. I just couldn't resist. Sorry. Pete St.John 16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...I don't think that's helping our quest to create an encyclopedia. Sure he could be mentioned on the list of people from Columbus, but there is no reason to include him in the main page.--Analogue Kid 17:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

2nd Largest Metro?

We should reconsider the "second largest metro" in Ohio blurb in the intro paragraph. Cincinnati has a much larger metro, it just expands into Kentucky and Indiana. 72.49.80.227 20:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back to what it was a few days ago. It may be true that if you only include Ohio, Cincinnati has a smaller metro area, but that's not a determination that anyone can easily or reliably make. Thus we'll stick with the US census bureau on this one. It's not really worth mention, especially on a lead paragraph. Anyway, a city doesn't define itself by what is located hundreds of miles away, IMHO.--Analogue Kid 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I got the assertion from Metro Columbus. Either I misunderstood what it was referring to (in which case that article needs to be clarified), or that article is incorrect, I don't know which. Postdlf 22:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I will note that Columbus has the second largest airport in Ohio. This is due to the Cincinnati airport being located in Kentucky. Regardless, that fact probably isn't worth mentioning here anyway--Analogue Kid 15:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • Web references should state the author, publisher, publishing date and access date, if known.
  • "It is not clear where funding for such a system would come from, and no firm construction plans have been promulgated." - as of when? A rough date is needed to prevent this becoming outdated.
  • Please provide citations for these statements:
    • "since the 1950s it has made annexation a condition for providing water and sewer service, to which it holds regional rights throughout a large portion of Central Ohio. This policy is credited with preserving Columbus' tax base in the face of the U.S.'s suburbanization and has contributed to its continued economic expansion, much like other cities pursuing similar policies such as San Antonio, Texas,"

**"However, there are sizable differences in elevation through the area, with the high point of Franklin County being 1130ft (345m) above Sea level near New Albany, and the low point being 680ft (207m) where the Scioto River leaves the county near Lockbourne." **"The highest temperature ever recorded in Columbus was 106°F (41°C), which occurred twice during the Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s - once on July 21, 1934, and again two years later, on July 14, 1936. The coldest was -22°F (-30°C), occurring January 19, 1994."

    • "San Margherita is a community formed by Italian immigrants who arrived at the turn of the 20th century."
    • "These two institutions make the city one of the world's leading centers for scientific information distribution."

**"Columbus is also home to Skybus Airlines. The start-up company began flying in May of 2007."

    • "A charter commission, elected in 1913, submitted, in May, 1914, a new charter offering a modified Federal form, with a number of progressive features, such as nonpartisan ballot, preferential voting, recall of elected officials, the referendum, and a small council elected at large. The charter was adopted, effective January 1, 1916. The current mayor of Columbus is Michael B. Coleman."

**"Columbus City Schools (CCS), formally Columbus Public Schools, is the second largest district in Ohio, with 63,000 pupils." **"CCS operates 150 elementary, middle, and high schools," **"Indianola Junior High School became the nation's first middle school in 1909, helping to bridge the difficult transition from elementary to high school at a time when only 48% of students continued their education after the 9th grade."

    • "During the long course of the Statehouse's 22 years of construction, seven architects were employed. Relations between the legislature and the architects were not always cordial: Nathan B. Kelly, who introduced heating and an ingenious system of natural forced ventilation, was dismissed because the commissioners found his designs too lavish for the original intentions of the committee. The Statehouse was opened to the legislature and the public in 1857 and finally completed in 1861. It is located at the intersection of Broad and High Streets in downtown Columbus."
    • "Established in 1848, Green Lawn Cemetery is one of the largest cemeteries in the Midwestern United States"

**"Franklin Park Conservatory, a botanical garden which opened in 1895."

    • "its flagship museum, the 250,000-square-foot (23,000-m²) Ohio Historical Center,"

**"The convention center was designed by famed architect Peter Eisenman, who also designed the aforementioned Wexner Center. Completed in 1993, the convention center now is 1.7 million square feet."

    • "This free event is held downtown and draws over 300,000."
    • "In recent years, attendees have numbered over 100,000."

**"Columbus hosts Red, White, and Boom, the largest fireworks display in the Midwest on the Scioto riverfront downtown to crowds of over 500,000 people"

    • "its erstwhile main competitor, the Columbus Citizen-Journal, ceased publication on December 31, 1985."

**"Columbus was also the birthplace of the Pinwheel Network in 1979. The channel then turned into the world-famous Nickelodeon cable network in 1981"

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should get off my rear and actually get back to working on this article again. I'll try and address some of these concerns this week.--Analogue Kid 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the references on the 2006 Census Bureau Estimates per GAR.--OHWiki 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As there is still work to do, I'm afraid I've had to delist the article. Epbr123 13:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's too bad, I did what little I could to this. We don't have enought Wikipedia users interested in helping out. We don't hardly have anybody working on this, but in order for the Columbus, Ohio article to become GA and there-for FA status, the work has to be done and archived first.---OHWiki 21:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I just don't see how a WikiProject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Columbus would do any good because there would not be enought Wikipedia users to join the project.---OHWiki 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wendy's grammar

I would not have changed "Wendy's moved their headquarters..." to "Wendy's moved its headquarters..." as both styles are used. If I say "the flock grazes on the hill" I am treating the collective noun "flock" as singular, as when Russell says "a pride of lions is not a lion". The singular flock does not eat grass in the same sense as an individual sheep; on the other hand, the hillside is bare after the flock has passed. You might say the flock grazes when the predominant part of it's constituent members graze. I can also write "the flock graze on the hillside", treating the collective noun as a plural, shorthand for "most of the sheep in the flock graze...". I think the latter is more typically British, than American, English. I try not to edit things that are clear, and differ from my writing only stylistically. Pete St.John 17:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wendy's

Cesartj has repeatedly removed the reference to Wendy's on the page, citing the fact that the headquarters are now located in Dublin. We had a previous discussion about non-Columbus based institutions and the consensus was that they can and should be mentioned if they are especially notable and relevant to the city itself. I think a large multinational company such as Wendy's that was founded in the city proper deserves mention. At the risk of violating the three revert rule, I'm going to leave it out pending the outcome of this discussion.--Analogue Kid 03:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely Wendy's is a part of the city's economic history. It deserves to be presented in the section in the economy, even if it's not HQ-ed there now. Would we remove steel mills from Youngstown, even though they're probably all bankrupt now? Nyttend 05:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree we need to keep the Wendy's info here. Sounds like there could also be an opportunity to include info about why Wendy's chose to relocate its HQ in Dublin, and more generally the inter-urban development politics between Columbus and its suburbs. --Wild Goose 05:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I re-reverted the Wendy's reference, for the reasons above, and I'll try and initiate a dialogue with Cesartj, who seems to have a beef with them (pardon the pun).Pete St.John 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Cesartj has un-re-reverted, that is, deleted the Wendy's material again. His edit summary says that an historical item does not belong in the economics section of the article. It is not obvious to me that an item about the history of economics would be wrong in either section, and in the case of Wendy's, the recent move of the HQ to a suburb is economic news, not historical research. Also, instead of deleting the material, he could edit it into the format he prefers; e.g. move it to the history section, or create a new historico-economics section, whatever. He seems not interested in discussing it, so it seems now to just be an edit war. If nobody else cares enough to revert him (or rework the item to try and satisfy more people), then I'll just let it go, but anyone who wants to merely revert has my blessing. A large number of people reverting the (vandalism?) of one person could consitute an informal consensus. Pete St.John 21:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Internal contradiction

The article lists a Mayor in 1816, and then a 'first' major in 1834. This seems a bit odd. Anyone want to figure out which is true? See below for the relevant passages.

216.69.219.3 08:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Burough of Columbus [sic] was officially established on February 10, 1816.[13] Nine people were elected to fill the various positions of Mayor, Treasurer, and others. Although the recent War of 1812 had brought prosperity to the area, the subsequent recession and conflicting claims to the land threatened the success of the new town. Early conditions were abysmal, with frequent bouts of fevers and an outbreak of Cholera in 1833.[14]

With a population of 3500, Columbus was officially chartered as a city on March 3, 1834. The legislature carried out a special act on that day, which granted legislative authority to the city council and judicial authority to the mayor. Elections were held in April of that year, with voters choosing one John Brooks as the first mayor.[17]

They're both true. Columbus was first established as a borough, and then John Brooks was the first mayor when it became a city.--Analogue Kid 12:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

First kindergarten

An anon IP deleted a mention in the "History, 19th Century" section to "The first kindergarten in the U.S.". I misunderstood his comment, and reverted it. However, the kindergarten page lists several such historical firsts, and none of them is Columbus; so I reverted my own revert. If someone wants to argue that the first was in Columbus, they should fix the kindergarten page also. Pete St.John 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I was taught growing up that the first kindergarten was in Columbus. Looking up info on kindergartens just now, however, there are numerous sites that refer to a school in Watertown, WI as being the first in 1856. There is a site that says Columbus is home to one of the first kindergartens, and some think it is the first ever, but the date on it is 1858. It seems that unless it is more complicated, the notion that Columbus is the home to the first kindergarten is just local folklore. If anyone has any better information that would be helpful too, however. Polypmaster 23:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I found one historical source that said the city was home to the 1st kindergarten (can't remember which one), but I have actually been to Watertown, WI and I think they hold that claim to first. The source was probably wrong. Ah well, we still have the first Junior High :-) --Analogue Kid 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's the quote from Lentz (2003, p. 64): "In 1838, young Louisa Frankenberg stopped briefly in Columbus. A student of a man in Germany named Froebel, Frankenberg is believed to have founded the first kindergarten in America here in Columbus. After leaving for a time, she returned and operated her "children's garden" for a number of years." It's a published source, but kinda vague, so it should probably be corroborated with a second source in order to supplant the Watertown claim. --Wild Goose 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I think that was the only historical source I found the claim in. Anybody care to contact Ed Lentz and ask him what his source is?--Analogue Kid 20:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
So the new claim is that "Columbus was the first town in America to be visited by someone who later would run a kindergarten"? OK, I'm being facetious, but I think we should drop the local-folklore thing unless and until someone comes up with a published date of a kintergarten, not a date of a person visiting who would later, etc etc. Pete St.John 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I think it's saying that it was visited by the founder of kindergartens in America, who founded the institution in Columbus some years after first visiting. Nyttend 04:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fairs and Festivals / Events

Could we rename Fairs and Festivals to be notable events, more broadly? I would think there should be a mention of First Night, and the Arnold Classic - both sizeable recurring events. SvetaOhio (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


I agree, especially the Arnold ClassicWacoJacko (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

meetups

I've been noticing meetups by larger groups of wikipedians, e.g. Wikiproject Philadelphia and New York. Should we have dinner sometime? Maybe not a huge crowd. Pete St.John (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What, you think Wikipedians are sociable people and actually get out on the town?! ;-) Yeah something like that could be interesting if we get at least a few people.--Analogue Kid (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
well, I'll be going to the Chinese New Year's festival at Worthington Kilbourne High School on Sunday, Feb 3 (there's a Go tournament among the festivities). Anyway I'm up for dinner sometime, a meet&greet. Pete St.John (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Columbus Streetcar

ArcAngel seems to object to mentioning the planned streetcar system in the article, claiming that it is not notable because it hasn't been built. I think it is absolutely worth mentioning, and I have in fact created an article about it. It is common practice to mention future public transportation projects in city articles. See Cincinnati#Transportation and Indianapolis#Mass_transit for example. I find it hard to believe that it isn't even worth one sentence. What say you?--Analogue Kid (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My precedent is that I see no mention whatsoever of Columbus' proposed light rail system. You can't have one mentioned without the other. Perhaps a better solution is to link your article into the Columbus article, and then perhaps you could write something up on the proposed light-rail line and link it the same way? ArcAngel (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I certainly have no problem with mentioning the failed light rail system in either the streetcar article or the city article or both. I'm not quite sure what you mean though in terms of linking. Here are some options to consider:
  • Have one sentence that says something to the effect of "Columbus has considered a number of rail transit projects over the years, including a subway system in the 1970s, a monorail in the 1980s, light rail in the 1980s and 90s, and a modern streetcar system in the 2000s."
  • Elaborate a bit more regarding light rail on the city page, but don't include it in the streetcar page
  • Include details about the light rail plans on both the streetcar and city pages
I guess I was confused since you removed the mention of the streetcar but it sounds like you want expanded information on rail transit in general.--Analogue Kid (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make was that if the streetcar proposal was mentioned, then the other transportation proposals would also have to be considered for inclusion into the article. After giving it some thought, I think your first option looks the best to be included into the article, so I would have no problem with that wording. ArcAngel (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This reply is a bit late, However, I think it is definitely worth mentioning the proposed streetcar. If it is covered in the press by reputable sources, than it should be mentioned. All we have to go off of are the sources.WackoJackO 09:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Columbus, Ohio/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article is quiet extensive with a wealth of information and very well referenced, its nearly ready for peer review - its clearly a GA class article. --OHWiki 06:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

I suspect that there is some sockpuppetry going on with certain IP users who keep taking the "Cowtown" name off this entry. Also, one of them put abusive language on my talk page this week after I followed possible general consensus and overturned their edit removing Cowtown nomiker here. I don't know what the exact WP policies regarding verbal abuse (four letter words, specifically), and sockpuppetry are, but they are definitely discouraged and uncool. Thoughts on this anyone? Thanks, Jack B108 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry, here is the WP policy on sockpuppetry: SOC. Two very similar IP addresses making very similar edits to two related pages at nearly the same time looks suspicious to me, esp. when you see that virtually the only edits made by those users removed a specific controversial nickname.... 02:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
They have both been reported to WP:AIV, and placed warnings and IPheaders on the talk pages of both. If the continued IP vandalism occurs, I will request the page be semi-protected for an indefinite about of time.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the IP editor refuses to stop taking out sourced content, I have requested the page be semi-protected indefinitely.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Page is now protected for two weeks.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sister Cities Date Issues?

I notice that Columbus was made a sister city with Genoa, Italy in 1955 by an organization that was created in 1956? Either this or the organization's page is wrong... felinoel (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Marie Claire

What's with the lengthy Marie Claire quote? That doesn't sound very encyclopedic. I was going to add that the band The Black Swans refer to Columbus as "The Existential Capital of the World" and held off for fear of frivolity.

If Marie Claire passes, so should the Black Swans quote. Crasshopper (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I cut that paragraph down which included taking out the unnecessary quote.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of frivolous, I don't get the whole Dating scene section. It's simply a list of "study rankings" that are several years old. Should we remove the section? Rwalker (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Columbus,_Ohio/Archive_1&oldid=1140753366"