Jump to content

Talk:Fairfield, Iowa/Archive 1

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


[edit]

I suggest discussing each of the article's external links individually on their merits instead of disputing on WP:NOT, since the number of links does not 'overwhelm' the article. Check out WP:EL, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV Dreadstar † 22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of edit warring, I suggest you discuss the merits of each link here. Dreadstar † 22:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't dispute them on V, RS, or NPOV grounds. My dispute with them is that there is simply an excessive list of links, and EL says "Links should be kept to a minimum." Look at featured city articles, such as Erie, Pennsylvania or Providence, Rhode Island. Nyttend 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, WP:NOT is clear: "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines."
You left out part of the quote from WP:EL, which states: "This page in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article".
That last part is significant and is what I am suggesting that you and User:TimidGuy discuss here. Dreadstar † 22:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll not discuss it more; it's not a big deal to me, and I guess I'll just drop it. Nyttend 22:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to chase you away, you may have some really good points about the links! Check out Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, there may be some helpful advice there! Dreadstar † 22:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on this. It occurs to me that the best way to resolve this is simply to add material to the article. Things like the trails and the new civic center could really be in the article itself, given their importance to the community. I'll work on this. TimidGuy 10:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green strategic plan

[edit]

I've removed the green strategic plan bit from the article for the following reasons:

  • This sounds much more like a mission statement, which doesn't belong
  • This also uses peacock language: while of course it's quoting the city rather than failing WP:PEACOCK, inclusion still doesn't help the reader
  • Finally, not everything that can be reliably sourced belongs on the article. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend, thanks for your comments. Unfortunately I disagree with your assessment and deletion of my addition to the article. However, in the community spirit of Wiki I would like to suggest that we add the following sentence to the article as a compromise:

  • The city received an $80,000 grant from Iowa's Office of Energy Independence for its green strategic plan. [1]

Can we compromise in this way?-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including something of this sort helps the article, as far as I can see; I'll put it into the article. Sorry for not understanding what this was before; if I had, I would have reworded it rather than removing. By the way, is there an article to which you could link the Office title? Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for compromising and for admitting that it might have been better to edit the text rather than revert. You are a good editor. Thanks! -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I not add it myself? I'm confused now; I was sure that I added it. Sorry for making you do it. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, you are forgiven. :-)-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone wants to add this

[edit]

Fairfield just received three state awards.[1] TimidGuy (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great article on Fairfield's green initiatives.[2]

Thanks, I'll get to this later today. --BwB (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents

[edit]

I've seen a couple names deleted from that Notable Residents section as nonnotable that surprised me. Both Walter Day and Jon Foster are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles about them. Wouldn't they be notable enough to include in this article? Both have been covered in major national news media. A search in Google News Archives on "Walter Day" "Twin Galaxies" brings up 135 results.[3] Here's a USA Today article on Jon Foster.[4] TimidGuy (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please write articles about them before restoring them: the standard procedure for these sections is not to include redlinks, except for individuals such as high-up politicians and professional athletes that are automatically notable. Nyttend (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Their Wikipedia articles are linked above. TimidGuy (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't understand when I make an obvious error like that; sorry! Note that when I removed Foster, the link went to John Foster (actor), which doesn't exist. I don't know when Day was removed, but as far as I can see, he's not a Fairfield resident, so he doesn't belong here. Nyttend (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for restoring Ben Foster. You removed Day here.[5] Here's a Google News Archives search that shows he's a resident.[6] I do appreciate your keeping an eye on this article and maintaining the quality. TimidGuy (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched through this link, and all I can find is either (1) potentially unreliable sources, (2) paywalled sources about this specific man that don't say whether he resides in Fairfield, or (3) sources about a Fairfield resident that don't clearly refer to a video games guy. If you can find a reliable source that discusses this specific Walter Day and have him living in Fairfield, please cite the source at his article and restore him. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple.[7] [8] Please let me know if that won't suffice. TimidGuy (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Cypess Villages

[edit]

What was left of the Cypress Villages article got merged into this article as a separate Section. I'll pose the question - is a new subdivision notable enough to be included as its own section in this article? My inclination is that it isn't. Thoughts? Fladrif (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't really have anything to do with Fairfield, since it's outside city limits. TimidGuy (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it doesn't seem to be relevant. It's like an abandoned baby on the doorstep of this article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The status of this development is apparently in flux and the encyclopedia material shares the problem. If so, it reflects reality correctly. We could move it to Jefferson County, Iowa while waiting for resolution of its status.   Will Beback  talk  12:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be even more of a sore thumb in the Jefferson County article. Let me see about cutting this down to size in this article. Fladrif (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to have 6 reference on the one sentence: "Recently, the City has considered or has actively sought to annex areas outside the City Limits, including the Cypress Villages, a 145-acre subdivision under development as a "green" community using principles of Maharishi Sthapatya Veda to the Northwest of the City, and the Fairfield County Airport."? --BwB (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are inherited from the merged article.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One solution might be to create a section to cover nearby unincorporated developments? It's not usually done, but there seems to be a need.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Housing Sources

[edit]

Sources for sustainable housing developments in Fairfield: [9][10][11][12][13][14]

Some of those concern " Abundance Ecovillage", whichI believe is outside the city limits. Or has it been annexed?   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was Cypress Village that was outside the city? The sources refer to Abundance Ecovillage as Fairfield, so I'm assuming its in the city, yes?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The development's own website says it is in Center Township.
  • Currently the residential property tax for Center Township, where Abundance Ecovillage is located, is $27 per $1000 of a property’s taxable value. For comparison purposes, the city of Fairfield residential property tax is $41 per $1000 of a property’s taxable value. [15]
  • Abundance Ecovillage, a loosly incorporated, ecologically sustainable housing project near Fairfield, Iowa, ...[16]
  • Abundance Ecovillage Is a residential community set up just outside of Fairfield in 1992.[17]
  • There's a small community in Southeast Iowa you won't find on any map. The people are living in a way some might assume is impossible. But the small village near Fairfield has been turning possibility into reality since 2002.[18]
  • 15 homes have been built at the Abundance EcoVillage, which is located on 15 acres of land north of Fairfield. [19]
Since it's more or less adjacent, and there's not much else around, it's easy to see why some writers would mistakenly describe it as "in" Fairfield.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sperling

[edit]

From the grammar I don't know what is being asserted here. The page on the Sperling site just gives some statistics about the place, as it does for every city and town. It might be a suitable source for those statistics.   Will Beback  talk  02:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could just say that FF is listed on Sperling's Best Places to Live. --BwB (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So is every place.   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi School

[edit]

The content on Maharishi school sounds a bit like an advert, although sourced... Maybe the section could do with some more information about the other schools in the area and their achievements, and info about MS, size, buildings, student population and so on, to make a more balanced section.(olive (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Most articles on cities simply list the local schools. I suggest we go to that format here and leave out all of the explanatory text. Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment has an article of its own so there wouldn't be any loss of information there. The cost of building the public high school in 1939 seems like trivia.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that.(olive (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Me too. --BwB (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Also section

[edit]

yes there is a connection between "See_Clearly_Method" and FF, but do we need a "See Also" section to accommodate this? No IMHO. --BwB (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Economy" or "notable businesses" sections are typical, though less routine that "notable residents". Only companies with HQs or division HQ here would usually qualify, not chain stores or franchise outlets. A list of them could be combined with a sentence or two on "Silicorn Valley". There are actually several sources that have commented on the city's mix of businesses and its relative economic health compared to other small towns.   Will Beback  talk  08:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Source

[edit]

Here is a source that may be useful for the article.

  • So in 1974, the town recruited Maharishi International University. This university was founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who was once the spiritual advisor to the Beatles and other celebrities.This conservative farming community recruited a university founded by an Indian religious leader. For example, Lambe said people at the university in Fairfield believe that they can levitate through meditation. Fairfield has been called a “national magnet” for practitioners of Transcendental Meditation.Fairfield now has a thriving downtown and a revitalized economy. “This town is unbelievable,” said Lambe.----The McDowell News of NC [20]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that. The article you cite is essentially a report on a forum conducted byWill Lambe, author of Small towns, big ideas : case studies in small town community economic development 2009. It'd be ideal to go to the actual book. However Worldcat, perhaps mistakenly, shows it as an "ebook" that's only available in two libraries.[21] However the minimal comments he made in the forum are fine to use too.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Sources

[edit]

Roos

[edit]

Both the Salon and the NYTimes articles agree that the term "Roos" is used locally, and has been appropropriated by the TM practitioners in Fairfield for self-description. Nothing in either article states that TM practioners instead call themselves "meditators". Fladrif (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's in the Forbes article:
  • Almost all of the new businesses have been founded by the TM crowd, whom the natives call "Rus"--pronounced "rooz," as in "gurus"--though the TM folk refer to themselves as "meditators."[38]
So Kbob was correct to add "meditators". However he also added an unsourced weasel word, "sometimes". So I'll restore the "meditators" but leave out the "sometimes".   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a conflict among the sources, then. The Salon and NY Times articles are quite explicit that the term "Roos" has been appropriated by the TM crowd for self-description. The article as written suggests that tney don't use the term for self-description, rejecting it in favor of meditators, which is contrary to the sources. Fladrif (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We must reflect the sources accurately. --BwB (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs banned?

[edit]

The article says that Fairfield has banned certain breeds of dogs, but that's not accurate. If you look at the ordinance, those dogs are defined as dangerous animals, but are not prohibited. Their only restriction is that they must be kept on a four-foot leash when they are walked. See section 6.14.70 of the municipal code that's linked to in the article. Also, one of the citations is to a 1996 article in the Cincinnati Post, but the ordinance was passed in 2004. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Desert News nor the St. Louis Post Dispatch say that the dogs are banned:

"For example, in Fairfield, Iowa, the following are considered restricted breeds: Akbash, Anatolian shepherd, Alapaha blue blood bulldog, Borzoi, bull mastiff, Dogue de Bordeauxs, Estrela mountain dog, Great Pyrenees, Italian mastiff, Komondor, Kangal dog, Kuvasz, Leonberger, Neopolitan mastiff, Newfoundland, Otterhound, St. Bernard and the Spanish mastiff."

"In Fairfield, Iowa, for example, any dog over 100 pounds is subject to regulations."

It's a bit of a stretch to say that this ordinance received national attention. Both of these are passing mentions. The Deseret News item appears to be an editorial or a column and not a news story. TimidGuy (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points Timid. You are welcome to change the text to reflect the source accurately. --BwB (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation

[edit]

The article says the city "has actively sought" to annex areas outside the city limits. Which source says that? The sources appear to be about Cypress Villages, but they say that developer Dan Walker who sought annexation of Cypress Villages, not the city. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sought" doesn't mean "initiated":
  • City administrator John F. Brown reported on the planning and zoning commission's recommendation to pursue a flag annexation of Cypress Villages, the Fairfield Municipal Airport and a strip of land north along Highway 1...[39]
They apparently made plans to do so.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Considered annexing" would be an accurate alternative.   Will Beback  talk  06:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Will. Have made the change. I understand that this material is a vestige of an earlier article on Cypress Villages. But it seems a bit out of place, since it's unremarkable that a city would consider annexing areas outside the city limits. That constantly happens in cities, almost always at the request of developers who want to have the advantage of being part of the city. It's only noteworthy if a city uses eminent domain, but even this is fairly common. Not sure what I'm suggesting, though. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be interesting to see how many other municipalities in Iowa have considered annexations in the past half-century. My guess is that'd be few, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.   Will Beback  talk  10:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This still sort of bothers me. Unfortunately, the sources were mostly unavailable when I clicked on them. Cypress Villages filed a petition for involuntary annexation (seems oxymoronic)[40]. It's clear that Fairfield considered annexing Cypress Villages, but is there a source for other annexation? If not, I'd like to edit this so that it reads, "As a result of a petition by the developers, the city considered annexing Cypress Villages..." TimidGuy (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support this edit proposed by Timid. --BwB (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is a source for the other annexations. There are multiple sources, which are cited. TimidGuy and Will discussed the sources and their content above just over a month ago. One, referring to the flag annexation of Cypress Villages, the airport, and a strip of land along the highway, is quoted in the discussion above!!! To now ask "is there a source for the other annexation" beggars belief. Deleting text because a source with a URL has become a dead link is a violation of WP:DEADLINK: Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line. The newspaper article still exists, it accurately supports the text in this article, it can be verified by retreiving it from the newspaper's physical archives even if the online archive it dead. This policy has been discussed numerous times, including less than three weeks ago at Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement, a discussion that BwB participated in. I am perplexed and disturbed to read yet another proposal to delete reliably-sourced material in violation of Wikipedia policies being made by editors who should know better by now. This behavior is unacceptable. Fladrif (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take it easy, Flad. I not suggesting the text be removed because of lack of sources, but because it is not noteworthy. --BwB (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you wrote that you supported TG's proposal to rewrite to refer to the CV annexation alone because he questioned whether the others were sourced. Both of you know better. Only later did you chime in on the separate notability issue. Fladrif (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current text says:

  • The city has considered annexing areas outside the city limits, including the Cypress Villages, a 145-acre (0.59 km2) subdivision under development as a "green" community using principles of Maharishi Sthapatya Veda to the northwest of the city, and the Fairfield Municipal Airport.

I don't see what's bothersome about this sentence. I don't object to adding that the CV annexation was proposed by the developer. Since the developer's petition probably didn't cover the airport, it'd have to be split off somehow. Reading between the lines of City Development Board minutes, it sounds like CV was not allowed to proceed with incorporation until annexation with its immediate neighbors had been proposed and rejected. Since CV didn't want to be annexed, it was involuntary even if they had to propose it. Basically, FF and MVC have right of first refusal.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what bothers me is that it's just one item of hundreds of items of business that the Fairfield City Council has dealt with in the past couple years. They only considered it because it was proposed, and they turned down the proposal. Their considering this proposal doesn't have any significance. There's no reason this item of business is mentioned and none of the other hundreds. I think the best way to deal with this may be to have a subhead titled "Adjacent subdivisions," and then include Abundance Ecovillage and Cypress Villages. And then we can say that CV petitioned for annexation but that the petition was rejected. And also what bothers me is that annexation is unremarkable. This is how cities grow. Annexation is almost always voluntary. The development or landholder is eager to be part of the city's infrastructure. It's only notable when a city does it by eminent domain, and even that is common. Anyway, let me know how you feel about the subheading. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll contact the FF Ledger and try to find out why the archives are missing. TimidGuy (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This annexation stuff is not noteworthy for the reason Timid outlines. Cities consider proposal at their council meetings week in, week out. Not necessary to mention it in the article. --BwB (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the FFL just retires their archives in the course of things. What is the connection between Fairfield and Abundance Ecovillage? Why would we include coverage of that here? We already have longer coverage of those communities in Maharishi Sthapatya Veda#Other developments near Fairfield, Iowa. If we wanted to discuss them in a geographic article then the logical one would be Jefferson County, Iowa. I'd rather see this material deleted than expanded, but I don't see the need to do either.   Will Beback  talk  13:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Fladrif — The source refers to the flag annexation with the singular noun "area." Because it was clear that the developer didn't want to be annexed (even though he had petitioned for annexation) the city also considered annexing just the airport, which it owns, since they had already done the research on the flag annexation. Any such annexation would have required also annexing a strip of land along the highways between Fairfield and the airport, since only contiguous areas can be annexed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my suggestion for better integrating this material into the article by creating an "Adjacent subdivisions" section, I see that Will made the same suggestion in February:

"One solution might be to create a section to cover nearby unincorporated developments? It's not usually done, but there seems to be a need. Will Beback talk 20:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)."

This section would very briefly include three subdivisions that are within Fairfield's two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction. Maybe just a sentence on each. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

[edit]

This section, and a few other sections, appear to be the remaining remnants of a nicely written, rather literary actually, but entirely unsourced addition by an anon IP in 2005, as amended and supplemented from time to time by other editors. The problem is that it is still unsourced, and parts of it appear to be untrue. As near as I can tell from my research, there are no Frank Lloyd Wright-designed strutures in Fairfield. There are some Wright-inspired structures, and a home designed by one of Wright's students, but none by Wright that I can confirm. I assume that the lovely streamline moderne bank is the one being referred to in this passage, but I can find no mention anywhere that it is a Wright-designed building. Perhaps whoever added that tidbit was confused because Lippman's book on the Johnson Wax Buildings contains a picture of the bank as an example of the typical streamline moderne architecture of the era that Wright emulated in the Johnson Wax Buildings. [41] But, he doesn't say that Wright designed it. This stuff needs to be souced. And, if it can't be, it should be removed. Fladrif (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem odd that editors here are eager to delete sourced, neutral material, but don't mind this unsourced, non-neutral material.   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd indeed. --BwB (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain it?   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cannot. --BwB (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I've never actually read the article. (I just happened to notice a couple factual errors in the Government section -- banned dogs, city actively sought to annex -- and focused on those.) Yes, the only Wright-related building I've heard of is the Clarke House, designed by an architect who trained under Wright. Perhaps delete that and tag other information that needs sourcing. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've made 31 edits over four years to an article you haven't read?[42] "Yikes" indeed. ;)   Will Beback  talk  23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parking material here that was added by anon editor and deleted

[edit]

Seems like this could be included in the article someplace:

Fairfield has received recognitions for entrepreneurship and arts including the 2003 Grassroots Rural Entrepreneurship Award for the most entrepreneurial city under 10,000 population from the National Center for Small Communities and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundationhttp://www.natat.org/; the Iowa Entrepreneurial City Award 2004 from the Iowa Community Vitality Center of Iowa State Universityhttp://www.cvcia.org/ ; 2005 Tourism Event of the Year for the 1st Friday's Art Walk; 2006 Iowa Great Places designation from the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs http://www.iowagreatplaces.gov/.

The entrepreneurship points could go in the Economy section. Not sure about the Great Places and Tourism recognitions. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the above was deleted I added back some of the info along with sources. I didn't add the 2004 award, though, because I couldn't find it any place in the cvic.org source that was given in the original edit. And got the impression from that website that this information is mistaken. Seems like unless someone can find a source for this award it should be removed. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Lakes

[edit]
  • ...and Prairie Lakes, which lies east of Fairfield.

I can't find any mention of this place in the cited sources. A search on the Internet turns up a Fairfield City Council agenda mentioning rezoning the Prairie Lakes subdivision.[43] Since they can only rezone areas inside the city, this does not appear to be an adjacent subdivision. If there are noteworthy neighborhoods and subdivisions within the city those would be covered best in the "Geography" section.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going twice...   Will Beback  talk  11:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gone! --BwB (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Feb 28. 2008 issue of the Fairfield Ledger:

In other council business, sidewalks were again the sticking point for a group of developers looking to build a subdivision in Fairfield. Lakeside Partners LLC requested the Fairfield City Council annex a little more than 19 acres of land north of Walton Road and west of Walton Lake for the development of approximately 24 lots. Although the Prairie Lakes Subdivision preliminary plat includes a trail system that will accommodate almost all the lots, it does not provide for sidewalks. Councilman Daryn Hamilton said under city ordinances, the developers either need to modify their plans or submit an application for the sidewalk requirement to be waived. However, councilman John Revolinski said, "My personal feeling is that this layout and the trails that are developed here make perfect sense for this subdivision. If we're constrained by an ordinance that doesn't really meet the current needs, then we should really think about amending the ordinance." Hamilton agreed the trails are a nice addition to the subdivision, but he believes the sidewalk issue should be given due consideration. "I appreciate the work that the developers have done, and we certainly want to see this development go forward. We do have a political issue to uphold standards in the community," Mayor Ed Malloy said. He recommended the issue be referred to the property committee for further review with the developers. The public hearing on the annexation and preliminary plat was continued to March 10.

Hope that helps. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's from Feb. 2008. Since then it's been annexed and it's now a neighborhood or subdivision of Fairfield, not a neighboring development or "adjacent subdivision". Soon we'll be writing about metropolitan Fairfield and its suburbs. ;)   Will Beback  talk  12:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

There's a 400-page history of Fairfield published in 1968 that has a ton of information. What's the convention? What sort of information should be added? How about info on how the name was selected? (The author says that Martha Bonnifield suggested the name, and that it was a play of words on her own name: bonny field/fair field.) TimidGuy (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some local history books are self-published, so the first question should be whether it qualifies as a reliable source. As for the amount of detail to include, it might be worthwhile looking at other county seats in Iowa to see the community norm. There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline, which includes guidance on history sections.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

The photo in the History section duplicates the photo in the Arts section. It appears to be the exact same plaque. It's my opinion that one of them should be removed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there don't seem to be any objections I have removed this duplicate photo of the commemorative plaque.[Image:First-Iowa-State-Fair-Monument.jpg|thumb|right|Site of First Iowa State Fair]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Christian School

[edit]

I believe I was the one who added this. I see that it was recently removed, then restored. Then an anonymous editor added the adjective "defunct." I would like to remove this information. Just last week the Fairfield Ledger came out with their annual Info Guide. It's quite a comprehensive survey of everything in the community, and I noticed that Fairfield Christian wasn't included in their list of private schools. It appears that the school no longer exists. Are there any objections to removing Fairfield Christian from the article? Also, the list included a school I've never heard of, so I'll go ahead and add that. TimidGuy (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the editors who restored the information about the school being in Fairfield. Wikipedia does not accept "personal research" as to say I walked by the school and it was closed so I will change Wikipedia, — and unfortunately there is much vandalism to Wikipedia articles so a change without a reference to back it up is suspect. That said I only had internet sources to use and they may be outdated. If a recent reliable source is available showing a change in the school situation in Fairfield and you properly cite the source (see WP:CITEHOWand WP:CITET ) by all means update the information. It is not required to have the reference be from the internet but if you have an internet source to show these changes use that also. There is no rule about using only one source in fact more than one source can be a good thing. I would encourage you to not lose the information about Fairfield Christian School but rather turn it into part of the history of Fairfield (providing a reference of course).
--RifeIdeas Talk 18:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you were correct to restore sourced info. I've updated the info on private schools based on the Annual Info Guide. This may be a good source for other facts. They Ledger staff puts quite a bit of time into compiling it. I'll check to see what else we might use. Thanks for your input. TimidGuy (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:GeorgeFranklinBarber.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:GeorgeFranklinBarber.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

[edit]

I wikilinked several notable residents in the list at the end, but then realized the reason they weren't linked there was because they were linked above. So should I revert? It somehow looks odd not to have them wikilinked in that list. If someone doesn't notice that they're linked above, it might give the impression that they're not notable enough to have their own WP article. But whatever. TimidGuy (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have had this same mental conversation myself on other articles. Its perplexing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to merge

[edit]

I do not believe that the article Fairfield Arts & Convention Center is notable enough for a stand alone article. It consists of one paragraph I havesuggested on that talk page that it be merged. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor on the FAAC article agrees with the merger. I'm thinking to go ahead with this soon. Any objections?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. TimidGuy (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per consensus on this page and FACC talk page I have made the merge.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion is MERGE. — Keithbob • Talk • 17:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the Stephen Sondheim Center for the Performing Arts is notable and feel it should be merged into this article. All three sources (two of them local news stories) are from 2007 and the theater has not recvd any news coverage since. I think a merge to here is in order. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already information in this article about it. Some of it could be added, but it should be a reasonable size. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note left on the talk page at Stephen Sondheim Center for the Performing Arts:

  • Yes, good idea to merge. It's not notable. At first it was the only theater to have the Sondheim name, but he has since lent his name to two other theaters. So it's no longer unique even in this regard. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge; no reason I can see why this shouldn't happen. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nearest commercial airport is Cedar Rapids?

[edit]

People sometimes use the Burlington airport, which is closer. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from notable visitors

[edit]

I removed the mentions of Harkin and Leach's visits to Fairfield. For the former, while not every statewide official does the "full Grassley", it would still be more notable if Harkin hadn't visited a county seat than that he did. It's just expected these days. Much the same applies to Leach. He may not be a current Representative, but for an Iowa politician to visit an Iowa county seat, especially one within the borders of the district he formerly represented - I just don't see how that's worth mentioning. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fairfield, Iowa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fairfield, Iowa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Fairfield, Iowa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fairfield, Iowa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ The Hawk Eye, Aug 15, 2009, [44]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fairfield,_Iowa/Archive_1&oldid=1069860216"