This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Cleveland, the scope of which includes Cleveland and the Greater Cleveland Area. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.ClevelandWikipedia:WikiProject ClevelandTemplate:WikiProject ClevelandCleveland articles
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.
As the initial move was against the guidance in WP:USPLACE, it was a controversial move. There have been enough editors in this thread supporting Dicklyon's belated reversal of that move, for a disinterested editor such as myself to conclude that Dicklyon's opinion is not that of a lone maverick. Therefore it is time for the discussion about the process to end and for those who wish to place this article title under a name not supported by WP:USPLACE to open a WP:RM discussion and justify such a placement. B2C commented "Moving per controversial guidelines which are under discussion is most certainly NOT routine." It may be controversial but it has been in essence stable for many years and such an argument as B2C has presented would in my opinion only carry weight if the controversial guidance had recently changed in such a way that could be seen to contradict the reasons for the initial move and/or the reversal -- which it has not. -- PBS (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was moved unilaterally by Dicklyon today without an RM discussion[1], and I strongly object. "per WP:USPLACE" was cited in the edit summary, but that guideline is known by Dicklyon to be controversial and currently under active discussion. All potentially controversial moves are supposed to go through the RM process prior to moving.
As noted by User Goodnightmush when this article was moved back in August, including the state is "overly specific; no other article by this name, unneeded dab". I concur. In addition, including the state in the title is inconsistent with Cleveland.
I, for one, support the revert of today's unilateral move. If, after it is reverted, someone wants to propose a move at RM, that's the process that should be followed. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All potentially controversial moves are supposed to go through the RM process prior to moving. Very true, but the "potentially controversial" move was when User:Goodnightmush moved Cleveland Heights, Ohio to Cleveland Heights without discussion. (That was the Bold, Dicklyon did the Revert, now we are doing the Discussion.) I will be interested to hear what Goodnightmush has to say, and whether they did it spontaneously or because someone asked them to. I suspect that this may turn out to be a similar situation to this, where the person who boldly moved "Nashville, Tennessee" to "Nashville" said afterward that they hadn't considered USPLACE, that this was a mistake, and that they would have immediately reverted the move if someone had pointed it out. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move. There's no monopoly over the name 'Cleveland', that it can be applied to any sort of place anywhere - a housing estate in Hong Kong, for example. It's helpful for readers to know from the title that this Cleveland Heights is in Cleveland, OH. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke01:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abold move it was, but since it held for over two months that suggests enough support exists for the August move to establish enough apparent consensus to require an RM move now. The process is WP:BRD, not B (2.5 months go by) RD. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not having noticed it sooner. Still, moving per guidelines is pretty routine. So I reverted. Now we're discussing. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move to Cleveland Heights, Ohio, which name is consistent with the established guideline. Consensus to deviate from the established guideline is not demonstrated by the absence of complaints about the name during a 2-month period in which I count only one edit to the article by an experienced contributor. Wikipedia doesn't need the disruption that would ensue if the names of articles about thousands of U.S. towns were continually subject to discussion. --Orlady (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dickylon's assessment that the initial undiscussed move was against current guidelines and should not have been moved without discussion. That no one noticed until now is irrelevant. older ≠ wiser11:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who accidentally noticed this page peacefully existing for two and a half months under the title stripped of redundancy and pointed the irony to B2C on his talk page, I am simply amazed how quickly the group of all the same people gathered here. I don't know how you folks accomplish such amazing team work (and I wish such a feat could be consistently repeated in more productive areas of the encyclopedia), but the fact that there have been no complaints for 2.5 months from the actual readers and the fact that the only opposition now comes from the same old faces frequenting USPLACE-related discussions, all that gives some food for thought...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 30, 2012; 18:06 (UTC)
I don't think it's too mysterious. Your high-fiving with B2C showed up on my watchlist since I've interacted with his talk page before. How he noticed my move, you'll have to ask him. He then posted in places designed to attract attention of people who care about such things. Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that there is not a single fresh face on this page. How you guys and gals don't get tired from following one another around I will never know.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 30, 2012; 18:36 (UTC)
Why WOULD there be a fresh face on this page? This article has fewer than 30 watchers, and it only gets a few dozen pageviews a day - which is undoubtedly why it slipped under the radar for so long. I find it amusing that you comment on the "same old faces" coming here and "how you don't get tired I will never know". Maybe you should ask that of Born2cycle, whose appearance at such discussions (and long-winded responses to EVERYONE on the page) is as predictable as the sun rising. Indeed, he was so upset at having missed one such discussion that he promptly re-opened it. In fact maybe you should ask it of yourself, since I notice that you yourself "showed up" at that discussion as well as this one and this one. As to why I and others are here at this time: simple, Born2cycle told us about it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: long-winded responses to EVERYONE on the page. Thanks for noticing. Poor arguments can be apparently supported by cherry-picking the points to which one chooses to respond. I don't do that. My goal is to demonstrate, to myself as much as to others, that my argument stands up to all the points being made. If it can't, then I've learned something, and I adjust my argument and/or position accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Melanie, duh. It was me whose radar this article didn't slip under and me who pointed it to B2C (and my radar is up in no small part due to the other two "discussions" in which I had a misfortune to participate and, by the looks of it, going to be reminded about for the rest of my days). It's how or, more importantly, why the rest of the Amazing Let's-Predisambiguate-Everything-in-America team ended up here that's the question of the day.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 31, 2012; 12:03 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Could we get some info or maybe link to an article about the village of Fairmount ?
There were roads in the area before 1828: The last historical pamphlet I read that the city put out (probably c 1990) has Superior Road (which according to Robert Hagar was originally the main road of Cleveland) existing in the area before 1828 and has a picture of a stone house on that road built c 1820, another source gives its construction as 1815. Also Fairmount Blvd was an old indian trail that crosses Cleveland Heights on the way to the old salt works at Niles Ohio (there was the last time I looked a plaque to that effect in University Circle near where the path diverges from Euclid Av. (on a building just North of the Old High school).
John5Russell3Finley (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 3 external links on Cleveland Heights, Ohio. 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 trueorfailed 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.
I have just modified one external link on Cleveland Heights, Ohio. 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.
Should this page add a link to the category "People from Cleveland Heights, Ohio"?
I recently found this category, and added it to a few people, but am not sure of best place or format (if at all) to note it in this page.
Sullidav (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
