Talk:Windham, Ohio

Notable Windhamites

I wanted to spell out my reasons for removing much of the section and changing the name. First, since not everyone in the list is technically a "Windhamite" (like Stan Parrish who only was at WHS from 1969-1974), I felt using a more generic term was more appropriate, in this case "Notable natives and residents." Second, a full paragraph for each entry is not needed since each entry has their own respective Wikipedia article. Even when an entry does not have a Wikipedia article (and such instances should rarely, if ever, be included on a list such as this), only a brief explanation of why the person is notable enough to be listed is needed. And while I kept the sources listed, if the person listed has a Wikipedia article, even then we don't necessarily need a source in this article too if one exists in the main article on that person. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Jon, I gotta disagree with you here. First of all, the Manual of Style suggests that prose is preferable to lists. To wit, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." Secondly, because "Windhamite" is a demonym, its definition is rather ambiguous. Five years, after all, can be enough time for one to be considered a New Yorker, Angelean, Chicagoan, etc., especially if they made contributions to civic cultural life. Being the head coach of a small town's high school football team would qualify in the eyes of that community as such a contribution, I would think. I also employed the demonym because, frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of seeing the same generic section headings everywhere. Editors should strive to improve articles beyond mediocrity, I think. Speaking of which, I must say I find your statement that "we don't necessarily need a source" to be particularly odd in light of all the unsourced and poorly sourced articles out there. I don't know of any Wikipedia article that couldn't be improved with even more citations to reliable sources. Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• All that said, I am willing to compromise. I will freely admit that the paragraph on Parrish is disproportionally long. Since the paragraphs on both Parrish and deal primarily with the Windham schools, perhaps the paragraphs on Parrish and Angela Johnson could be merged. We could even go so far as stating something like, "Several notable people have been associated with the Windham Exempted Village School District as students or staff, including Stan Parrish and Angela Johnson." Then we could move those paragraphs to the article on the school district. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the paragraph info would be appropriate on the articles on the individuals, not on the Windham page or the district page other than like you said a brief mention. A lot of the info that was there mentioning the schools was along the lines of an advertisement to me or promotional material, which is why I removed it. Usually you find mention of alumni on the high school page more than the district page. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh my gosh we disagree?!? You mean we aren't the same person?!? ;) No I totally understand your points. The reason I don't like Windhamite is not because of some love affair with standard titles, but because it denotes a "native" when the section can also include notable people who lived there but weren't necessarily from there (in this case, Stan Parrish). Calling someone like Parrish a Windhamite in my mind crosses into POV since we don't have any source where he ever refers to himself as a "Windhamite" and he was only there a few years and has lived in several other communities before and since then. It would be like calling all the notable KSU grads "Kentites" because they lived in Kent for 4 years. The same is true with John Brown in Kent. He lived there for about 4 years and operated businesses, but no one would ever classify him as a "Kentite". Yes, they could fall under a broad definition of "Kentite", but I've found that type of designation is generally thought of someone who either was born there or lived there for a significant time. I don't mind a longer title either, so maybe "Notable residents and Windhamites" or something along those lines. As for prose, yes, you are correct, but you'll notice in more developed city articles, the notable natives/residents section is usually spun off into an actual list or chart; not an article. I don't think I've ever seen a notable natives section that is prose unless it is a reduction of a larger list (a lot of the developed University articles do this as well). Even then, it only contains the link to the notable person and maybe a line about why they are notable if anything. The reductions made were necessary because they were entire detailed bios on each person which are only tangentially related to the main subject of the article, that of course being Windham. As for the sources, I was referring to the fact that if the article on the person has sources stating he is from a certain place, we don't need to have multiple sources on the city article stating the same thing since they link together. I've seen that on a number of lists of notable people. Not promoting fewer sources, but more along the lines of not making more work where it isn't needed. :) --JonRidinger (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If that were the case, wouldn't the phrase Native New Yorker be redundant? ;-) I see your point, but I'd have to say the quality of the time spent in a community is more important than the quantity. Would I consider Drew Carey a Kentite? Eh... probably not. How about Mark Mothersbaugh? Yeah, maybe. I sense we draw the line between these two (but again, I could be wrong), based on their contributions during their time spent in the community (or, in some cases, afterwards). Carey attended Kent State. Mothersbaugh contributed heavily to the local music scene whilst attending. A small, yet significant difference. Parrish's first HC job was at WHS; I think this is notable to the community in the same way that Earl Bruce's first HC job was at Salem High School, or that he remains the only undefeated HC in Massillon Washington High School history. Still, it's a judgment call, and I like the alternative you offered on my talk page. -- JeffBillman (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What about my uncle Matt Pig he is the de facto mayor of windham ohio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Rusinek (talk • contribs) 03:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:CITY

This is the section in the Cities Wikiproject guidelines: Provide information, preferably in prose form, of any famous or notable individuals that were born in, or have lived for a significant amount of time, in the city. A bulleted list is usually acceptable in the early stages of an article's development, but such lists are frequently vandalized, and the higher level review processes (WP:GA and WP:FA), prefer that this section be written out as prose. If there are a lot of notable individuals, such as for larger cities and major metropolitan areas, it is common to link to a separate List of famous people from _ article, which you can link to under the 'see also' section (below).

What I would imagine seeing for this article is a small paragraph mentioning the 4 individuals and including a line about them being from Windham or when they lived there and what they are notable for. My worry is extensive paragraphs like before that contain too much tangential information about the individual. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Mayor update needed

Shouldn't we add that Scott Garrett was, until recently, the mayor of Windham, and that Lawrence "Mac" Cunningham (the first black mayor in Portage County, Ohio history) is the new mayor? Source: https://www.record-courier.com/story/news/local/2024/02/27/mac-cunningham-of-windham-is-1st-black-mayor-in-portage-county/72675026007/ 76.190.213.189 (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)