Jump to content

Talk:New Orleans/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

2006 discussion

Wikipedia:WikiProject New Orleans

I started a WikiProject for everything New Orleans: Wikipedia:WikiProject New Orleans. Please join and contribute! Staroftheshow86 22:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

2007 discussion

Latest changes

I have fully protected the article for 72 hours. Please discuss the changes and get an agreement. Both are to be warned about the three revert rules. If by the time the protection expires the edit war continues, I will block you both instead. -- ReyBrujo 02:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Ok so is the article still protected? and by whom and to what end? How do inaccuracies get corrected? Is New Orleans such a special case that it is not open for editing? I understand the focus that was in place PostKatrina. I appreciate that there may need moderation, but WHO gets to decide? This map for instance is WRONG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Msyelevst.jpg The are a marked the 9th Ward is New Orleans East. Only a small portion of New Orleans East is in the 9th Ward. The 9th Ward, like all wards in New Orleans is actually a VOTING area composed of many precincts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NOLA_Wards_1880.jpg Nola a 9th Ward New Orleanian who voted in Ward 9, Precinct 1 for 29 years! Was here for Katrina and is still here. 12.29.2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nola7011770118 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  • The article is only protected from edits by anon and just logged in editors. You've logged in; if you can't edit it now you should be able to soon. We all get to decide. Yes, wards are voting areas, and all of Eastern New Orleans (along with several neighborhoods west of the Industrial Canal) are within the 9th Ward of New Orleans. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

2008 discussion

Good Article nomination failed

According to the quick-fail criteria, any article with cleanup banners, such as the one in the lead section, must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy this issue before choosing to renominate the article. Thanks you for your work so far. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Also note that the nominator failed to properly complete the nomination by placing the appropriate template on this talk page. VanTucky 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I forgot to put the template on the talk page. And of course I know that it must automatically fail if it has a cleanup banner, but I had removed it, apparently under the misconception that was the way it was to be removed. I worked on the article quite a bit and cleaned up all issues I could find that had been previously mentioned, along with removing many redundancies and lots of unnecessary information. How can this banner get removed? It seems strange to leave it there if there are no glaring inconsistencies with wikipedia's standards - just some minor issues.--Bobster687 (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup Banner

I've removed the cleanup banner from the article for a couple of reasons. First, whoever added the banner never listed an explanation on either this talk page or on the Wikipedia:Cleanup page. This is required when adding a banner so it can be decided when cleanup is complete. In addition, extensive work has been done on the article since February 2008 when the banner was added. While the article is still in need of some help, I believe it's not bad enough to warrant a cleanup banner. If someone thinks it should stay, please do so but also list an explanation so those trying to cleanup know what needs to be addressed and when the banner can be removed.Bobster687 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not put the banner there in the first place, but I started editing the article when I saw it was there. When someone removed it, I believe I was the one to put it back, because I think the article does need some serious attention. Here are some reasons why:
These superlatives are unsourced and possibly inappropriate even if sourced:
  • New Orleans is world-famous for its plethora of unique architectural styles
  • New Orleans has always been a significant center for music
  • New Orleans is world-famous for its food
  • New Orleans is the home to one of the largest and busiest ports in the world
  • New Orleans is an industrial and distribution center and the busiest port system in the world by gross tonnage
Much of the article reads like a cross between a tourist brochure and a Guinness Book of Records entry.
It has serious deficiencies with citations. In addition to the superlatives above, entire sections have no citations [or very few; I may have missed one or two], such as:
  • Cityscape
  • Architecture
  • Film
  • Events
  • Sites of Interest
  • Music
  • Food
  • Sports
The article is also quite long, and may be an appropriate candidate for breaking up into [more] smaller articles. Arts & Culture is probably a good place to start with that. Demographics is another.
Don't get me wrong - I think this is a great article, but I also think it can be better, and I don't think it is yet an article that deserves the GA designation. I've been working on it, as others have. I'm not putting the cleanup banner back, but I am going to continue working on it. These are just my opinions. Isaacsf (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

I'm thinking of removing several paragraphs from the Demographics section...they are statistics that can be found in external links and don't really add to the article. They just make it long and boring, in my opinion. I'm thinking of removing a total of three paragraphs starting with:

There were 188,251 households ....

ending with:

... 4.1% of the population was Hispanic or Latino of any race.

Comments? Isaacsf (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree in removing this information. The statistics provide a snapshot of the demographic makeup of the city, that certainly adds to the article. Statistics such as these are more or less universal in articles about US cities, towns, etc. and shouldn't be wholesale removed because one editor finds it boring. VerruckteDan (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This issue was raised a year ago and then again in my comment above. When I got no response, I went ahead and made the change. I have more than one objection to that bit of text:
  • It is dry statistical information that only a geek could love.
  • As noted by others, NOLA is definitely a city with vibrant and varied culture. To attempt to nail it down to a point in time is really beside the point.
  • There was unsourced/WP:OR material.
  • The copy was awkward at best.
That last point may be the main one, because Wikipedia is built on consensus, not ownership. So if the consensus is that it belongs, I want to at least insist that it be readable and concise. If it is restored, I would probably advocate for it to be in a separate article.
My interest in this article is to create a readable snapshot of the city. Knowing how many households there were/are/will be in NOLA is not really part of a snapshot, IMHO. That's hard-core statistician material. Isaacsf (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the demographic section can be reworked into a better flowing text. That's more in line with the comments from last March, a reworking of the section, not a removal. My objection is to the complete removal of the paragraphs.
  • You may find it a dry statistic, but its inclusion provides more information about New Orleans' population than not providing any of the statistics.
  • I don't think the demographic section detracts any from the vibrant culture of the city. The culture is discussed in other parts of the article.
  • I'm not sure which part you are referring to as unsourced or original research, I'm only objecting to the the removal of the sourced information from the Census.
  • Yes, the wording of the paragraphs could be improved, and should be.
Wikipedia is built on consensus, and I think the inclusion of the demographic data is the consensus. This data has been part of the New Orleans article since its creation and is data that is found in articles for pretty much every US city, town, etc. The Census data is sourced and allows for a consistent comparison to other US locations. Additionally, the guidelines of WP:USCITY reflect the consensus that Census data should be used, but also points out the benefits of more dynamic prose.
More specifically to New Orleans, facts about the racial makeup and socioeconomic makeup of the city are important as they are both products of the city's history and for better or worse are factors that also effect the city's history. So ultimately, I think the material should be re-added and perhaps a cleanup tag added so that multiple editors will feel inclined to work on improving the section. If it becomes much more developed, then I'd agree with you that it could be spun off as it's own article Demographics of New Orleans. VerruckteDan (talk)
Agree. WP:USCITY provides a nice guideline here saying automated statistics should be kept by default until editors get around to finding more interesting trends to incorporate into prose.--Loodog (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I'm not going to stand in the way of putting the info back, but I really think it should be put in carefully and thoughtfully. I'm very much of the opinion that small, good additions are far better than bad, large additions. (I'm not pointing any fingers anywhere...just commenting on a trend that editors seem to think "more is better.") At any rate, I think if there are going to be long lists of dry statistical information, they should either be in tables, or they should be in readable prose form that doesn't dance all over the place. If we are covering demographics and income, that should go in one section. Demographics and race, or sex, or age, or whatever...let's group together.

Regarding uncited and OR information, here are two examples from just before my chop job:

  • "(thus, any pre-Katrina/post-Katrina analysis should use this figure, rather than the 2000 figure)"
  • "A more precise population number will not be known until the Census Bureau's official population count in 2010."

I didn't advocate for removal of the section, just cleanup. I only deleted what I thought was really the low-hanging fruit, without changing the general tone of the section.

Having said all that, I encourage other editors to be bold. I really think this article has a lot going for it and I'd like to continue to improve it, so I'm not giving up! Isaacsf (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Largest city- Baton rouge or New orleans?

according to their wikipedia articles, the population of New Orleans in 2006 is 223,388. the population of Baton rouge is 229,553 in 2006. both of these figures match the census bureau's american fact finder stats. Unless someone has a recent figure that they can cite and footnote, I'm thinking the "new orleans is the largest city in louisiana" and "Baton rouge is the second largest" claims need to be reversed. thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.103.201.130 (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been a fluid situation still since Katrina, and estimates differ. However it is certain that New Orleans has continued to gradually regain population. The Greater New Orleans Metro surpassed Greater Baton Rouge by last year. The population within the city limits seems to have different conflicting estimates, but it is certainly higher now than it was in 2006. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I almost made this change, but then I looked for more data. I think in 2006 you were correct (probably 2005 as well). But it looks like in 2007 NOLA has increased enough. Check the link (from the NOLA article): Nagin urges census revision - here's a quote: "The census data, released Wednesday, indicate the population in New Orleans increased from 210,198 in July 2006 to 239,124 in July 2007, a jump of 28,926. But city officials said they believe the 2007 figure is closer to 300,000." Either one would surpass Baton Rouge.  Frank  |  talk  01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
While there are new figures with higher population figures, article cites a 2006 population estimate. If you live in New Orleans (and I do), a lot has changed since 2006. The Census bureau accepted the City of New Orleans' challenge as to its July 2007 population figures. The revised July 2007 population estimate is 288,113. Please see the 2007 challenges section on the Census bureau's website (the specific link is http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/2000s/vintage_2007/07s_challenges.html). While the population projections based on US Postal Service data put the number at well over 300,000 as of December 2008 (see gnocdc.org), at the very least, someone should edit the population figure at the beginning of the article from the 223,388 (which is woefully out of date) to the revised July 2007 census bureau estimate of 288,113. Thanks. Chadvader78 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cajun

The repeated addition to New Orleans as being culturaly Cajun is incorrect. The Cajuns were settled in Louisiana to the West of the city, mostly rural and small town, and a historically and culturally seperate people from the Louisiana Creole people. Certainly since Paul Prudhomme came to New Orleans from South West Louisiana and made Cajun food world famous, the local tourism industry has found it profitable to slap the label "Cajun" on lots of things, but there was no significant Cajun presence in the city until recent generations (a good number moved to the metro area during the oil boom), but they are still not one of the city's largest ethnic groups. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

a new main image?

i'm not really into editing articles but, i think headline picture of new orleans is somewhat boring. I mean take a look at new york city's or hong kong's main city picture. those are awesome and make me interested in reading about those cities. Can anybody get a better picture, maybe one at night time by the river showing the city lights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoo orleans (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • i certainly agree with you on that one. it's definitely a good picture that is all-encompassing of the skyline, but it doesn't incite much interest. i'm sure other people are doing this as well, but i'll try to take a better picture sometime soon. --Bobster687 (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • We have a few thousand New Orleans images on Commons; feel free to substitute images you think might be better-- and taking new photos and uploading them under a free license is very welcome. -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This might be a year coming but I updated the main image with a montage which falls more in like with other big city articles. What do you guys think? Gonk (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

the city that care forgot?

I noticed the nickname in the infobox and thought it had some reference to Katrina or something. Upon further research, I found that its origins go back quite deeper. Should we mention this on the article? Perhaps an "origins of nicknames for new orleans" page would work? "The Big Easy" could use some explaining too, or something. --yuor faec (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

o/~ New Orleans is the City that Care Forgot / But when it comes to crime, we care a lot o/~ -- or so went the public announcement jingle. (Could have been "litter", not "crime". I was young when the jingle came out.) It seems that the reference has already been added, though it would be appreciated if one could find the exact reference from Twain on TCTCF. L (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in the "nicknames" section, "The City that Care Forgot" was not penned by Mark Twain, according to the New Orleans Public Library. Here is a link to the Library's discussion of the nickname: http://nutrias.org/facts/careforgot.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolakai (talk • contribs) 02:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

People

This article seems to lack distinctive info on the people and lifestyles and heritages that make New Orleans unique. That is: Cajun, Creole, French, French Huguenot, Spanish, African, multi-cultural intermixing, Voodoo, Mardi Gras, Jazz, Zydeco, cuisine, music, and a dozen other signficators of New Orleans and the surrounding parishes (parishes! that in itself is unique!! no other are in the U.S. divides itself into parishes!). The article seems short, dry, and academic to the point of sounding like a governmental tract, and the fact that a large part of it is about Katrina shows that it is too short and inadequate. OK, now that I've said all that, I'll confess that I've never been there and am not the person to remedy the article to insert NOLA's colorful identity into it. (BTW, what do you call someone who lives there -- the way that a New York resident is called a New Yorker -- is there a word?) Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

  • They're called New Orleanians. And the article is undergoing quite a bit of work and has improved substantially in the past months. Unfortunately it's still not up to par, and I agree that it is a little cut-and-dry, but wikipedia articles must cited, so it's hard to find citable information on all the subtleties that are New Orleans. Articles also must be relatively concise, and this one already exceeds wikipedia's recommended size. Hopefully these problems will be remedied soon. Bobster687 (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I hear you, and perhaps it's a matter of relevance and importance. In my opinion, exhaustive information on infrastructure is not nearly as relevant as the identity of the city/area itself. The large section on the hurricanes and recovery can be moved to their own separate article if necessary. It's not hard to find info on all the ethnicities and cultures and activities that make NOLA unique, plus not every single clause need be cited. Someone, preferarably someone very familiar with the area, simply needs to compile and and present it into the article. Nearly every other article in Wikipedia on even a small city has a much more informative and distinctive and identifiable information than this one. Anyway, I'm not criticizing or complaining; I'm just saying I find this very surprising. Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

New Orleans Meetup

For anyone in the area, there's going to be a meetup next saturday (August 23). See Wikipedia:Meetup/New Orleans. Raul654 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

someone might wanna tidy up my last edit

I just did a necessary edit but I don't think I did the cleanest job of it. I did the edit where there were two sentences saying the same thing, and I added the word "to" and added info about hurricane alley, but now there's a footnote that's hanging there unpointed-to. It was a necessary edit but I didn't do the cleanest job in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.198.65 (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we change verbs to past tense?

I mean, if Gustav lands right on New Orleans, there won't be a New Orleans left on the map. Whatever is left of the city will just be blown away by Gustav. Well, either blown away or flooded. "New Orleans was a major American port city that was laid to waste by a hurricane in September of 2008." Or something to that effect. Just thought I'd throw this out there. BurningAfterTheDawn (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

At such time as the City Council formally disolves the City, &/or there is no evidence of any remaining ruin detectable even by an archaeologist. Damaged or not, it is until it is not. (Presuming you were serious) -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Gustav Forces Evacuations

This should be mentioned. 65.163.117.223 (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Just wondering...in the grand scheme of things, is Gustav really that important to the article now? It did minimal damage. Perhaps it can be mentioned at the end of the Katrina section that New Orleans survived the first hurricane threat since Katrina? Not sure, but it seems a little unnecessary to have a whole section on a hurricane that is pretty irrelevant to the overall story of New Orleans, other than the fact that it scared the crap out of everyone. --Bobster687 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed..Remove Gustav

The Hurricane Gustav section should be removed from the article. It is irrelevant to the history of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onilosmada (talk • contribs) 00:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. See WP:RECENTISM. Jack(Lumber) 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Gustav deserves at least a passing mention in the History of New Orleans article or somewhere similar for the massive evacuation if nothing else, but no reason to have a detailed section in the overview article. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Weather events should be added to the article if and only if they cause significant, widespread damage to the city. Gustav should only be mentioned in the sense that it is the 2nd storm in history to call for a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans. (can't remember if Rita called for one. I assume not because most of the population was out of the city anyway.) I do agree that hurricanes are a BIG threat to the city due to its low elevation; However, I do not want to clutter the article with hurricane reports. Other areas that get hit by hurricanes almost every year, for example the Dominican Republic and Bahamas, mention hurricanes that hit them, but do not dedicate entire sections to them. Besides Katrina and Rita (for obvious reasons) why should we be any different when it comes to natural disasters in New Orleans? --Onilosmada —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC).
I agree, the information about Gustav isn't notable enough to stay in the article since it didn't hit the city or cause any damage. Though I can see mentioning that it caused an evacuation, but even that is barely notable.(D.c.camero (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC))
I disagree, the city wide evacuation was directly related to Katrina. I don't have research to back it up, only common sense. It disrupted a national presidential party convention. It's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.23.139 (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

vandal?

hey what's the population? has that number been vandalized? has everybody made it back into town yet? Stpuidhead (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The number was indeed drastically lowered some edits back. Shall we return to census data?-- Infrogmation (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Consolidate Hurricane sections into one.

It would make sense to consolidate all the hurricane information into one large section titled "Hurricanes" --Onilosmada —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onilosmada (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

café au lait

"coffee and chicory, known as café au lait" - Cafe au lait is coffee with milk. Coffee and chicory is not the same thing as cafe au lait. Roasted chicory was used to extend precious coffee when it was scarce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.23.139 (talk) 05:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made edits reflecting this. L (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Coastal settlements

This article is currently listed in Category:Coastal settlements in the United States - a category that has recently been reorganized to list only geographic subdivisions of the United States. Hence could someone with a registered account please remove the Category:Coastal settlements in the United States from this article. You could also list this article in the subcategory Category:Coastal settlements in Louisiana if you wanted to. Thank you. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cities settled on rivers are considered "Coastal"? I don't think it belongs in such a category anyhow. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to New Orleans. I find sufficient consensus in this discussion to enact the move in agreement with the naming guidelines. Shereth 15:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Just like the article titles for Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle and many other major American cities, the state is used for the title so just have New Orleans, Louisiana redirect to New Orleans. Boris Badinov44 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Most everyone knows New Orleans is in Louisiana. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 04:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Similar arguments have come up fairly often. There is also Boston, Massachusetts and Los Angeles, California, two very important cities. Boston and Los Angeles redirect to those articles. The argument could be made for other important cities, too, and possibly for unimportant towns whose name is entirely unique to that settlement. Personally, I don't see why these articles shouldn't be moved to the simpler "CityName" without "StateName" as a qualifier, but I foresee any moment now, a swarm of MOS police will come to oppose this. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reopened the discussion at Boston.--Loodog (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral In fact, the relevant naming convention is Wikipedia:NC_(settlements)#United States, which specifies a list of major American cities which may use State or not, because they are clearly primary usage, and idiom may not require the State. New Orleans is one of these; but we should consider that this is a world encyclopedia, and it may not be true that most all of our readers do know New Orleans is in Louisiana. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Septentrionalis's comment is a bit vague on whether he/she supports the move request or not. To be fair, there are other towns named Boston and Philadelphia, while there isn't one other state besides Louisiana that has a New Orleans. The first line the article has Louisiana in it and we want to be wordly about it, you can go even further for retitle it New Orleans, Louisiana, United States of America The information that Septentrionalis requests is in the 1st sentence of the article and so still support shorten the title to just New Orleans since this is a city known globally Boris Badinov44 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I was not "a bit vague"; I was neutral. Almost all American municipalities are named City, State, as is idiom, but New Orleans is a permissible exception. Whether we should use that permission or not depends largely on what will be most widely understood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's some links to the spanish, french and german wikipedia articles about New Orleans. If these are just "New Orleans", why shouldn't ours be? spanish wikipedia, french wikipedia, german wikipedia. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 18:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Though convention dictates [city, state], this convention has been broken in cases of Chicago, New York, Philadelphia because (1) these are older, more well-established cities, and (2) the cities are better known than the states they're in (ask an Italian what state Chicago is in). Also, WP:NAME states "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." "New Orleans, Louisiana" is the editor's convention, while "New Orleans" is how people refer to it.--Loodog (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support this move. I've long wondered why it isn't just New Orleans. This is a city that is known world-wide, and whether or not the state is known to potential readers is really beside the point, because anyone who happens to want to type in the name WITH the state will still get where they are going. That is the very essence of optimizing for "readers over editors", as quoted above.  Frank  |  talk  17:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Other than New York, New York, which means something different from New York City, there's no good reason for any exceptions to the standard City,_State format for article titles for U.S. cities. —WWoods (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    First, there is a good reason to move this article to New Orleans, and it is this: New Orleans is the unambiguous and clearly most common name of the subject of this article (not to mention all of the other good reasons cited in the comments of all the Support votes). Second, even if there wasn't a good reason, that might be relevant if there was a good reason to have the convention of using the disambiguating "City, State" format when disambiguation is not needed, but there isn't. --Serge (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Renaming this city goes against current WP:MOS guidelines for the naming of US city articles, and New Orleans does not meet any exception criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    All the WP:MOS says is to follow the naming conventions, and the naming conventions say the City, State format need not be used when so decided by a discussion such as this. Renaming this city does not go against WP:MOS guidelines. --Serge (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. In the same way that the city of Seattle was renamed, I feel that one cannot simply dismiss a commonly accepted thought that they do not support as a "guideline" without a real argument. We are thinking this through as Americans, but we also have to keep in mind that we are only 300,000,000 of 6.4 billion people on this planet. Surely, there are people in Kenya or Nepal (both English-speaking countries) who have not heard of New Orleans. A title is purposed to inform the reader of the situation so they are prepared to delve into the text. Keep in mind that we are not the only English-speaking country in the United States; just because Maza, North Dakota and St. Augustine, Florida are unique doesn't mean we'll move them to the names "Maza" and "St. Augustine", right? --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 20:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    My own opinion is that an international reader that hasn't heard of New Orleans is even less likely to have heard of Louisiana, and less likely still to be able to fathom the nuance of a city name AND a state name, but NOT a country name. Since the first sentence of the article will identify that it is in a US state, the context is immediately established. And, in the unlikely event that a reader expects to type in the full city and state name to reach the article, a redirect will get them there.  Frank  |  talk  22:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Starstriker7 claims there is no good argument to move this article from New Orleans, Louisiana to New Orleans. The good argument to move this article is very simple: New Orleans is the unambiguous and clearly most common name of the subject of this article, and New Orleans, Louisiana is not. --Serge (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support, as with Boston and Seattle. Makes sense, and is actually easier for an international audience to understand. --Ckatzchatspy 21:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, this is easily the primary meaning of "New Orleans", and New Orleans meets the excpetion criteria listed at WP:NC:CITY as pointed out above. Cheers, Rai•me 01:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The naming convention does not mandate this move. Moving simply creates a headache for editors if the categories are also moved. What is gained by adding confusion for editors? Keep what is a clear nameing convention clean and simple. Also what is to say that the city is what is commonly referred to as New Orleans? As we are finding out in other discussions, the name of the central city is applied to the area and communities around that city. So making the city the default article can be misleading at best. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the naming convention does not mandate this move. So what? The convention allows it, per a discussion like this; that's all that matters. There is no evidence from the other similar moves that such moves create headaches or confusion for editors. Besides, the interests of readers are more important that avoiding headaches for editors. As to your other argument, it was addressed with in the decision to move Seattle, Washington to Seattle: "The argument, raised by Vegaswikian, about multiple usage with city-proper and metro area is a topical issue relevant to most major cities of the world, and it is difficult to see its relevancy to this particular discussion." It's just as "difficult to see its relevance to this particular discussion" as well. --Serge (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as consistent with both the use Wikipedia-wide common names principle and the U.S. city naming guideline which allows for this to be an exception if the primary topic of the unqualified name is the city. Is there another usage of "new orleans" that is on the same level as the city? --Polaron | Talk 01:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support An article's title should not be needlessly specific. There are no other cities named New Orleans, so why do we need to specify which one we're talking about? AlexiusHoratius 02:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Clear and simple.--Justfred (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per the cogent arguments and comments in support of the move made by Boris Badinov44, Burner0718, Georgia guy, Loodog, Ckatz,  Frank , Rai, Alexius, Polaron, and Justfred, not to mention the dearth of any good reasons presented in any of the comments in opposition. There is no reason to dab New Orleans, which is the unambiguous and clearly most common name for the subject of this article, except to follow a pointless convention for the sake of following a pointless convention. Editors of other U.S. city articles have bucked the pointless convention and the ill effects have been nil, nada and zilch. --Serge (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tourists Thoughts

I am not sure about anyone elses experience with New Orleans, but, New Orleans has always been really good to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.3.77 (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm it really surprised me that I don't see any information related to gambling whatsoever. Shouldn't at least be mentioned somewhere? I'm planning on going mainly for gambling, but I can't seem to find any information of casinos and such. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.38 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

canvas: Very similar move request at Boston, Massachusetts

Hi, there is a very similar move request for Boston, Massachusetts to move to "Boston". I can't think of any reason that this move discussion is different or should have a different conclusion, so any additional opinions here obviously would have enormous relevance there. Thanks.--Loodog (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

how about this picture for the headline.

i saw this on wiki commons and i think it reflects nola alot more than the current picture. i don't know how so can someone post it as the main image. 

[1]

if not,can somebody make a montage for nola like the other big cities got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoo orleans (talk • contribs) 05:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Please update the population figures

The local demographer here, based on election turnout data, has estimated the city population to be 330,000 (1.16 million metro). The people of the world need to know this. If they think we're still living with a half population it discourages businesses and tourists from coming here. Please don't wait until the 2010 census to update this. People need to know the truth and wikipedia is one major source of it. I have a AP story link to prove what I say. Please do not use 2006 data; the city was in a major state of flux when that information was published.

The link:

http://www.nola.com/ap/stories/index.ssf?/base/politics-0/1226006060240100.xml&storylist=topstories

If you investigate the demographer, Greg Rigamer, he is a big wig locally. All of the local media trust and use his expertise for population estimates.

Jeff Planchard, med student 70.171.115.227 (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of Andrew Jackson here

"During the War of 1812, the British sent a force to conquer the city. The Americans decisively defeated the British troops, led by Sir Edward Pakenham, in the Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815."

Somewhere in the above paragraph Andrew Jackson's name should be mentioned, especially since the losing British general, Sir Edward Pakenham, is noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy2323 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Election Results

What's up with adding a section for election results. I'm pretty sure the only important and relevant information that can be gleaned from it is that the city overwhelmingly votes democratic, even after Katrina. Even if this information was somewhere in the article, I would imagine it should be in the demographics? Personally I think the entire thing is useless, and it completely ignores the headers used for every other city article. Bobster687 (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's too much recentism in the context of an encyclopedia article about New Orleans. --Jh12 (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


2009 discussion

Architectural treasures

Some of the outstanding examples of historical architecture, such as the Ursuline Convent, deserve mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Population of New Orleans

The Population of New Orleans is now larger than that of Baton Rouge and the opening section should be changed. Also a more flattering picture of the skyline should be used for the opener. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase500 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Until reliable figures from the U.S. Census Bureauis found, the unsourced figure of 288,000 was reverted. See List of United States cities by population --Moreau36 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline for more details in which U.S. Census Bureau numbers are strictly used for major city articles for consistencey purposes. --Moreau36 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yank Porter

Please add Yank Porter to the "See Also" section. Thanks y'all! Noo awwleans (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Why? The Yank Porter article gives no indication that it is important to understanding a general overview of New Orleans. Perhaps adding Category:Musicians from New Orleans to the Porter article would be more appropriate-- although even that seems to need a reference. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should surely mention Hurricane Katrina and the devastation. I can't believe it doesn't... it's infinitely more important and notable than the fact that New Orleans is bounded by the parish of St. Tammany to the north, for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.194.173 (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RECENTISM.  Frank  |  talk  01:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of that guideline. It's meant to discourage undue prominence being attached to recent events that in years to come will seem relatively unimportant. That's not the case here, so the guideline is not relevant. 86.152.243.174 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC).
I think you've hit the nail on the head: in the long view, Katrina will seem relatively unimportant. New Orleans is a world-class city that has a rich, centuries-old history. It is - and will continue to be - far better known for Mardi Gras than for Katrina. I could name any number of other cities which don't lead with catastrophes which have happened in those cities; there's no point in singling out any particular one...it's just not commonly done. Now, if Katrina had wiped out New Orleans and people had given up on it, that would be a different story...but New Orleans is most definitely bigger than Katrina.  Frank  |  talk  03:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I totally disagree with your opening statement. 86.150.101.118 (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC).
Unregistered user, I think we understand that you disagree with Frank. What we don't understand, however, is your position; your statements are largely vague and non-NPOV. You have an opinion and seem unwilling to offer any explanation as to why you consider it to be superior. Unless you can provide some sort of rationale, this conversation seems to be going nowhere fast. --Aepoutre (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing "vague" here. There is no confusion about "positions". I'm suggesting that Katrina is important enough, in a non-recentism kind of way, to be mentioned in the lead. Frank disagrees, which he's entitled to do. It's that simple. 11:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.230.218 (talk)

I would agree it's pretty simple, but I am not merely disagreeing for its own sake. We need only look at natural disasters and terrorist attacks around the world that have greatly affected cities and even entire countries - some of which have devastated areas and killed far more people than were killed by Katrina - and we can see that these events are not mentioned in the leads of the articles where they occurred. Please take a look at New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, London, Madrid, Indonesia, Bali, Burma...the list goes on. This list is in contrast to places which are primarily known for either no longer existing (such as Pompeii) or for some catastrophe or singly notable event which occurred there, such as Gettysburg, Pennsylvania ("Although known primarily as an attraction because of its proximity to the Gettysburg Battlefield...") or Waterloo, Belgium ("Waterloo's claim to fame is the Battle of Waterloo (18 June 1815)"). Since New Orleans has been known for far longer because of things other than hurricanes, and even now is still known primarily for those other things (jazz and Mardi Gras, to name two), it is not appropriate to lead with a single disaster.  Frank  |  talk  04:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't see that it would need to be incorporated directly into the first paragraph, which is intended to summarize 300+ years of history, geography and culture. I wouldn't have a problem with having the topic introduced in a second paragraph, as it is certainly a notable event that has shaped the current city. See Gulfport, Mississippi for a comparable example. --Dystopos (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Crime statistics

I have some problems with the statement

"After Hurricane Katrina, media attention focused on the reduced violent crime rate following the exodus of many New Orleanians. Conversely, a number of cities that took in Katrina evacuees had a significant increase in their murder rate.[80] Houston, for example, had a 25%[81] increase in murders from the previous year."

Firstly, both the cited sources are news reports, and by the looks of them not particularly rigorous ones at that "By some estimates, hardcore criminals in New Orleans numbered in the tens of thousands, and they're now living in other cities -- Baton Rouge, Dallas, Atlanta, and Houston."

Source 80, as far as I can see, doesn't say anything about murder rates increasing, just crime in general, and it is not clear if it is talking about rates or absolute numbers ("Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt says crime is up in neighborhoods where large numbers of evacuees have settled.").

Further, while the 25% murder rate increase in Houston is true (assuming source 81 is factually correct), the 65 extra "Katrina-related killings" includes those where the victim was from NO, as well as those where the perp was. This should probably be mentioned, to avoid implying it was just a case of NO exporting its murderers to other cities.

Furthermore, the raw statistics given in 81 are for an increase in killings from 252 to 316 (+64, or 25% more), with 65 "Katrina related". Now, its not our place (in the article at least) to question or interpret the sources (or their sources), but I wonder how they know that all the additional killings are Katrina related (and that there would have been 1 fewer killings than the previous year had there been no hurricane).

I think someone needs to dig out some statistics and analysis from official sources directly, rather than just quoting news reports and interviews with police chiefs.

Additionally, I think this section probably ought to differentiate between two different but related issues:

1: The effects of Katrina on crime in NO and elsewhere.
2: How the above was reported in the media.

Wardog (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    • It should also be noted about the Houston "statistics" includes New Orleans evacuees who are victims rather than purps of crimes when they were relocated to dangerous areas of Houston. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The New Orleans radio station WTUL also plays "Americana roots" music on the weekends. This is not mentioned.

Worldrimroamer (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

New York Stock Exchange category

This article is listed in the Category:Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange, but there is no obvious reason why. I noted only one company (a defunct record company) at the dab page at New Orleans (disambiguation). Perhaps this article should be removed from the category; or if it is listed, then more of an explanation of the unusual exchange listing for a municipality should be given in the article text. 69.119.27.73 (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

HIGHEST TEMPERATURE

New record ,plz update: 104F recorded on Wednesday 24 June 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.0.71 (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "New Orleans"

It is disingenuous and an ignoring of cultural history to present the "pronunciation" of the name "New Orleans" as one single prescribed pronunciation. There are many different pronunciations, both inside Louisiana and outside, nationwide. Someone (I haven't looked it up to footnote it, but it's true) actually wrote a Ph.D. dissertation a couple of decades ago that was, in its entirety, about the linguistic history of the pronunciation of "New Orleans". The opening statement(s) in this article about the pronunciation is (are) in need of clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldrimroamer (talk • contribs) 06:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone moved the full info. to a footnote. I'm inclined to agree with you, so I'll move it back. --King of the Arverni (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Radio stations

{{editsemiprotected}}

Sorry if these seem like a trivial suggestion, I think that to anyone serious about music, and in particular New Orleans music, these suggestions would be significant.

The sentence: 

       "WWOZ,[47] the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station, broadcasts 24 hours per day
       of jazz, blues, Zydeco, and New Orleans music at 90.7 FM and at www.wwoz.org."

should include the adjectives "Cajun" and "gospel" and "street brass band", and the word "jazz" should be replaced with "modern and jazz, Dixieland jazz" so that it reads: "24 hours per day of modern jazz, Dixieland jazz, blues, Zydeco, Cajun, gospel, and New Orleans music."

These changes are important because:

First, many people do not realize that Zydeco and Cajun are, although related, actually not the same thing. Cajun music was developed by the French Acadians who were exiled from Eastern Canada in the 1750s and ended up in southern Louisiana, and Zydeco is a blending of Cajun instruments and rhythms with New Orleans blues, and it tends to be more electrified (electric guitars). Zydeco is strongly blues-influenced, Cajun is not. But they are both uniquely New Orleans.

Second, to leave out "gospel" is just very bad, bad wrong. There is a reason that the Gospel Tent at the N.O. jazz festival is one of the most popular spots in the entire festival. It's unique.

Third, modern jazz (meaning post-Dixieland -- everything from Gillespie to Parker to Davis to contemporary) is very different from Dixieland jazz, though it all started with Dixieland. But the two have become to be thought of as two distinct categories.

I would personally like to see "street brass band" music added to the WWOZ list, even though this is included under the term "New Orleans music". But the street brass band is so distinct in musicological history that I feel it should be mentioned, but this is just my opinion.

Also, the sentence about radio station WTUL which includes: 

      "... including classical music, reggae, jazz, showtunes, indie rock, electronic music".

should also include in the adjective list "Americana-roots". This is a genre that is not contained in any of the terms used in the current sentence. Americana roots includes what WTUL plays on weekends -- most notably, non-mainstream country and folk and "country twang". These genres (and more) are covered by the rubric "Americana roots".

Finally, just a comment/suggestion. I once added to this article, in the blurb about WWOZ, a comment to the effect: WWOZ is often referred to by New Orleans natives as "the greatest radio station in the world". Someone deleted my addition. Let me assure you (as you already well know if you have ever lived in New Orleans and were paying attention), this is not a statement of personal opinion, it is a fact. It is a very common statement of pride and affection for WWOZ and what it stands for. (Call WWOZ and ask them, if you wish.) Isn't deleting my addition kind of like deleting a claim that New Orleans is known as "The City that Care Forgot" or "The Big Easy"? These are all documentable facts, not opinions.

Worldrimroamer (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry for my bad proofreading. I meant to write: Replace "jazz" with "modern jazz, Dixieland jazz". What I wrote was garbled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldrimroamer (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. Last things first; the person was right to remove your observation about the radio station. It isn't a matter of opinion versus fact; it is a matter of an unverifiable observation versus a verifiable, reliable source. Wikipedia policy requires that facts be supported by reliable sources. That also applies to the description of the two radio stations' formats. Could you find a source to support the descriptions you would like to add? A link to something at each station's website, or something from the visitors bureau or chamber of commerce, or perhaps a book or magazine article. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


WWOZ and WTUL, with references

Never mind, I just added the info, with multiple references.

page redirect

this page should redirect to "New Orleans, Louisiana" instead of that page directing here as it is presently. This would keep uniformity amongst Wikipedia city pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.64.249 (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). While most US city articles follow the 'city, state' convention, the wikipedia community decided about a year or so ago to follow the AP Stylebook for several major cities, allowing their articles names to be simply 'city'. There's a few exemptions, such as Phoenix, Arizona, which needs additional disambiguation from the common term Phoenix. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

New Hurricane Resitance Design and Structures

Any new hurricane resitance house design and city infrastructures have been build? any info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.35.7 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Most unique

The statement that New Orleans is the "most unique" city in America (see lead section), even though it might be supported by references, should be removed IMO. The expression "most unique" is an aberration at the best of times. Here it seems especially nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.109.24 (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the grammar Nazi claim that you can't modify an absolute adjective, this is a well established (and well supported) nickname and so, even if the grammar claim weren't so solidly refuted by Webster's, it would still stand - no popular moniker or phrase is required to satisfy rules of grammar anyway.--Louiedog (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Notwithstanding your alleged "refutation", the expression "most unique" is considered ugly by many English speakers and it's easy enough to find sources supporting that view. It could be, though, that "most unique" is more acceptable in AmE (I'm BrE). Also, you're right that if it's a well-established nickname it may be acceptable and accepted even if it's not good English. I wouldn't know about that. I just read it as being a descriptive phrase that a few people happened to have used. 86.161.40.148 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
To the poster who refers to "grammar Nazis": I have a great love and pride for New Orleans, and on that basis I strongly disagree with your defense of the modification of an "absolute adjective" in an article about New Orleans. Not all New Orleanians speak incorrectly. The simple fact is, whether you like it or not, the use of "most unique" immediately leaps out at many, many people as a red flag of ignorance. You may disagree that it's ignorance, but the fact I cite still stands. Argue the politically correct merits of descriptive grammar all you like, but at the end of the day these bad usages are perceived as ignorance by many -- you know, like writing "I wished I would of known about this before" or "If he did that to me I would have hit him". The latter of those two examples is an example of the disappearance of the pluperfect from English, and it's an example of an error in logic, not in idiom. "Most unique" is also an error logic, not just idiom. This is the worst kind of grammatical error; I can see no valid excuse for it except ignorance. And BTW, the term "grammar Nazi" is not only offensive (it's Rush Limbaugh's kind of talk), it implies that the person using the term is unaware of the ongoing and legitimate academic debate about descriptive versus prescriptive grammar. And when you quote recent dictionaries on these usages, please note this: If you read the introductory essays in those same dictionaries about the English language (and other topics) their grammar and style adheres impeccably and beautifully to prescriptive grammar. The writers do not practice what they preach. (I believe that in the vernacular this would be referred to as hypocrisy.)
Worldrimroamer (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
On the pertinent issue of this article, I refer you to the abundance of sources that show "most unique" to be common use, and common use is how wikipedia functions. Wikipedia is a descriptive collaboration, not a prescriptive one, which is why we name and give primary usage to things after what's common, not what is "correct". Notability is an inherently descriptive term.
Since this isn't the place to have the old descriptive grammar vs prescriptive grammar debate. I'll simply refer you to The Language Instinct. My "grammar Nazi" comment is, as you guessed, directed at those who cling to the notion that language is static (and fixed by their arbitrary entry time into the language) instead of defined by usage. I'd love to continue the debate on something more appropriate, like reddit, but not on this talk page.--Louiedog (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This is my final comment on this topic. I appreciate your responding to my previous comment. But perhaps I failed to emphasize adequately my main point -- the only point, really, for my bothering to post at all. My intent is not to discuss (or debate) grammar. I was simply trying to point out that the use of "most unique" is often perceived as an indication of "ignorance". I hate for the world to think something like ... "All them New Orleans swamp people, their teachers just never learnt 'em how to talk right."
The original poster made a good comment: If it's a well established nickname, then use it. If it's just something that a few people have used as a descriptive phrase, then it should not stand without some kind of comment.
I appreciate the fact that the "most unique" is put inside quotation marks in the article. The quotation marks should be retained. But I think the occurrence of "most unique" could be made a clickable hyperlink which redirects both to descriptive and prescriptive opinions as to the usage and to the illogic thereof (in many persons' opinion). There are many such links, and there are many usage guides in paper-book form which agree with me. I would be willing to do it, but I just don't have time to engage in wikiwars. Worldrimroamer (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't a hurricane flood the whole city 5 years ago?

Because it's been completely removed from the history section. People speak in terms of pre-Katrina and post-Katrina. The city still hasn't recovered its pre-Katrina population and yet Katrina is somehow absent from the history section. Maybe my memory serves me poorly, was I thinking of Houston?--Louiedog (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Paris of the South Nickname

Sorry this discussion from the Asheville, North Carolina page spilled over to the New Orleans page, but I deleted New Orleans on the Asheville, aka the Paris of the South, page as one of the listed cities also claiming the nickname. So, of course, someone adds it here. Asheville along with Atlanta, Augusta, Birmingham, Charleston, Mobile, Savannah, Buenos Aires, Barcelona, and any other city south of something with an artist and a coffee shop claim that name or have been called it by some travel reporter. Just about any nickname you can plausibly connect to New Orleans has been used and is capable of being cited, see “Saintsland” or "Paris on the Mississippi". We have omitted even notable nicknames such as “Queen City of the South” on this page in an effort to keep the nicknames to those unique and commonly used.[1] I am not going to edit the page only because hopefully some third-parties can finally give provide some conclusion to this ongoing edit dispute. So, for the love of God, please delete it or discuss it so I can go on with my life. Mdlawmba (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"most unique"vs Unique

{{editsemiprotected}}

Hello,

In the opening statement about New Orleans it is quoted as a final salvo that "New Orleans is Amaerica's most unique city."

This is the last paragraph:

The city is named after Philippe II, Duc d'Orléans, Regent of France, and is well known for its multicultural and multilingual heritage,[5] cuisine, architecture, music (particularly as the birthplace of jazz),[6][7] and its annual celebrations and festivals, particularly Mardi Gras. The city is often referred to as the "most unique" city in America.[8][9][10][11][12]

Something is either Unique or it isn't. By definition, there is no such thing as something more or less unique.

I like Wikipedia and this is the first time I've thought to holla at'cha here. Seemed like something worth talkin'bout.

Thank you,

JL NOLA—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.137.145 (talk • contribs)

I agree that "most unique" isn't a good phrase to use, but the article only mentions that New Orleans is referred to as the "most unique city" (with several sources cited), and not that it is, so this doesn't appear to be an error (maybe it's used as a nickname or slogan). The {{editsemiprotected}} template should only be used to request specific changes. snigbrook (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
JL. Please see the above discussion for my polemic on "grammar Nazis".--Louiedog (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The citations provided regarding "most unique"

You write: "with several sources cited". Yes, there are "citations" provided. Have you actually checked out these citations? They carry no historical or sociological weight whatsoever. I just checked out the web sites referenced by footnotes 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. The articles to which 8, 9, 10, and 12 contain the phrase "most unique" only in arbitrary quotes from the likes of journalists and jazz musicians and so on. They are from local news articles. The article to which footnote 11 refers uses the phrase with capitals: "Most Unique City", but it provides no hint as to why the phrase is presumed to have iconic, capital-letter status. It simply uses the term.
For me and for many others, there is no question that this reference to the babarism "most unique" needs to include a reference to the grammatical issue, so the reader at least knows that the authors of the New Orleans article are aware of the issue. I would be willing to do so in a polite, intelligent manner, provided that somebody is not going to come along and immediately delete what I inserted. Any comments? Worldrimroamer (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


"Hurricanes" section

I was about to object to the mess at the "Hurricanes" section, starting inexplicably at hundreds of years into the city's history in 2005 and then in vague and contradictory ways discussing Hurricane Ike -- a tragic storm certainly, but on the Texas coast, not New Orleans-- while not only ignoring all pre-Katrina hurricane history, but skipping over Hurricane Gustav, which actually hit the city and prompted one of its only two manditory evacuation orders. However seeing the section above supporting deleting some earlier Hurricane Gustav section, I have been bold and removed the muddled and questionably relvent Ike section. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Orleans/Archive_2#Nickname_The_Magnolia
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Orleans/Archive_4&oldid=1251609771"