Jump to content

Talk:Atlanta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BWD (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 15 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fulton and DeKalb

Why does the map only show the Fulton part of Atlanta?

On the other hand, why do the numbers show only the "city of Atlanta" area for Fulton County but the entire area of DeKalb County, GA?

Located in Fulton County and Dekalb County in the state of Georgia County Fulton County, Georgia Area 

- Total
- Water

343.0 km² (132.4 mi²) 1.8 km² (0.7 mi²) 0.51% County Dekalb County, Georgia Area 

- Total
- Water

695.0 km² (268.0 mi²) 7.0 km² (3.0 mi²) 1.00%

→ R Young {yakłtalk} 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Piedmont Park

Piedmont Park may be the most visited park in Atlanta, but it is not be the largest park in Atlanta by area. According to the AJC, Piedmont Park is 185 acres, but Freedom Park is 197 acres. [1]

==errata== the masquerade is closed? news to me, since masq.com is still up, shows are scheduled, and there's always cars there when i drive by....

No, it's not closed yet, but the land is up for bid and will likely be sold within the year. [2] -- uberpenguin 15:13, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

News report a couple of weeks ago in the AJC said it will close by or before Spring 2006. Too bad. I used to go there when it was Excelsior Mill, with a dinner club upstairs and cinema downstairs (Heaven and Hell, respectively, in Masquerade).Uncle Bubba 06:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==elevation== Albuquerque, El Paso, and Las Vegas also major cities, sits higher than Atlanta.

Refactoring RFC

In reviewing this page, I realize it is in need of better organization. A quick glance at the table of contents reveals both City attractions and Major attractions sections. The City attractions section contains significant info on businesses, yet there is a Businesses section as well. I know there other who watch this page, so I wanted to get some input before doing something dramatic.

I'm thinking of a new structure something like this:

  • History
  • Geography
    • Climate
    • Neighborhoods
    • Metropolitan area
    • Suburbs
  • Government and politics
  • Demographics
  • Business and development
    • Headquarters
    • Skyscrapers
  • Colleges and universities
  • Recreation
    • Sports teams
    • Major attractions
    • Arts, culture, music
    • Major events
  • Other
    • Atlanta in film and television
    • Famous Atlantans
  • References and further reading
  • External links

It also need a transportation (sub)section but I'm undecided where it should go.

Thoughts? Autiger 17:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Refactored as above with existing inforamation; moved some paragraphs to reflect appropriate sectioning. I will be adding and revising information for flow in this structure. Autiger 04:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Elton John, Atlantan? Is that where he's living right now? I would think an "Atlantan" is someone who was born in (or grew up in) Atlanta, not a simple matter of residency. --Feitclub 18:41, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Elevation

My point is that major city is too broad of a term. It can mean a number of things. Where is the cut off...

Removed some boosterist stuff from second para

I have removed the following from the first para:

CNN and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution have reported that the city's explosive growth, both in geographic size and number of inhabitants, is the fastest of any metropolitan area in the history of the world.

on the grounds that:

  • it is a bit too boosterist in tone for an encyclopedia
  • it quotes two sources but fails to mention both are headquartered in Atlanta and therefore hardly likely to be impartial
  • given the growth rates of some of the third-world mega-cities, I find it hard to believe
  • it presumably relates to the metropolitan area, not the city

I've no objection to similar text being replaced (preferably in Atlanta metropolitan area rather than Atlanta, Georgia, and minus words like explosive), if someone can come up with a respectable and impartial source for the claim. -- Chris j wood 13:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I believe you are mistaken in the meaning of the claim. It may be used as boosterism by some, but to others it has exactly the opposite import. Environmental organizations in Atlanta use it to provoke alarm, at the high rate of expansion of developed areas at the expense of open space. For them, the fastest-expanding human settlement in history is something to be worried at or ashamed of, not proud of. I disagree that CNN and the AJC are incapable of presenting a fact about Atlanta honestly just because they are based in Atlanta (they merely have a greater incentive to care, one way or the other); on the other hand, I think the fact is impossible to know or prove, and must in any case be clarified. (I believe the claim refers to consumption of open space in absolute area, over a period of three decades. But at best it was only an estimate. The records for historic settlements are hardly definitive.) Leaving it here (or in metro Atlanta) would be fine with the attribution. That is a good deal better than the “some say” formula that prevails in the rest of the encyclopedia.
— Ford 14:32, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

I agree the claim is almost impossible to substantiate. It should be in Atlanta metropolitan area if anywhere; the City of Atlanta proper has not expanded appreciately in land area (would require annexations) in the last ten years at least. The city has also just recorded its first population increase (year over year) in several years as well. I honestly don't know that it's worthy of inclusion even as an attribution. Autiger 20:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MARTA

The new transportation section says 'However, the public transportation in Atlanta is seen by many residents as unreliable and not comprehensive enough, so many commuters in Atlanta and the surrounding suburbs use automobiles as their primary mode of transportation.' I wonder about this, as it has a hint of NPOV about it, and it doesn't quite match my experience.

I'm a Brit who for some years worked for a high tech company HQed in Atlanta. As a consequence I was a frequent visitor, and a reasonable frequent user of MARTA (it really is the best way from Hartsfield to Sandy Springs). My experience of MARTA is that it is actually pretty reliable and comprehensive, although the frequencies of both rail and bus could be better and the bus obviously gets impacted by traffic delays. My experience of discussing MARTA with my Atlanta based colleagues was that very few of them knew enough about the subject to make a judgement on reliability or comprehensiveness; many had never ridden MARTA despite having lived in Atlanta for long periods. My conclusion was that the lack of ridership was more a socio-economic thing rather than a usability thing. All of this is a bit too much like 'original research' to include in the article; but what do other contributors think. -- Chris j wood 13:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concur, though I think you meant a hint of POV, and I was planning to revise the new addition after seeing it. At best, it's a gross over-simplification and somewhat inaccurate rendering of MARTA's condition/perception. The writer's proposition (that commuters use cars because of the perception) is not supportable as a direct cause and effect. MARTA rail's issues are directly related to historical factors such as low densities, Georgia tranporation funding limitations, and "white-flight" suburbs rejecting the system at it's origin. Automobile preference is related to the sprawl (low-density), and as you indicate, socio-economic perceptions. Autiger 16:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, after rereading what I wrote, I agree with Chris. I went back and removed the reference to reliability and usability. Sayeth 18:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Failed Feature Article objections

The major unresolved objections to this article as a featured article candidate:

  • History section needs work
    • I have added a bit on Reconstruction, WWII, and race riots at the turn of the century Sayeth 21:29, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • More pictures
    • a map of Atlanta would be nice
    • Added two pictures to history section Sayeth 22:08, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Geography section needs something on neighborhoods and sections of Atlanta
    • Describe Buckhead, East Atlanta, Downtown, Midtown, Bankhead, Inman Park, etc.
  • Rewrite prose
    • Rambot info
    • Educational institutions
    • Sports
  • A new section on culture

Photos

The photos on this page are really, really lacking. One modern photo of buildings and the rest are black-and-white historical photos?? If anyone reading this lives in Atlanta, your help is urgently requested! Take some photos for this page. Yikes. Moncrief 18:39, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

There are actually a number of photos in the sub-articles that have split off from the main Atlanta article. I'll add back in a few. Sayeth 21:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
All right, I've got some better pictures for you. Here you go! - Gray wolf 20:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be in its own section like that? It's not a thumbnail depository, this article. Mike H 07:51, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Mike. They're nice pictures, but I think most should be pruned out and the rest incorporated into the article. There really is no need to have so many pictures of Stone Mountain, especially since it's not actually in Atlanta. There's already a MARTA, an Underground, and a skyline picture in the article. I've incorporated the MLK and Carter library pictures into Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site and Carter Center, respectively. Sayeth 17:00, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of, can anyone get the MARTA logo and put it in its article? Mike H 17:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Done. Autiger 23:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Atlanta, Georgia → Atlanta – How is it logical for this article to be dis-ambiguated even though it is the primary meaning of Atlanta?? Georgia guy 02:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notmoved violet/riga (t) 18:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Strongly object. I voted against moving this article, but it is contrary to established policy to determine that it should not be moved the day after it was proposed. The relevant Wikipedia:Requested moves policy is this:
  • Page moves requested on this page may be actioned if there is a rough consensus supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator.
In other words, a decision to move can be made more speedily. A decision not to move should not be made until the five day period has expired. I am commenting out the notmoved stuff, and reinstating the requested move notice. Gene Nygaard 19:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pretty obvious result, and for future reference editing another user's comments is not appropriate, even if you just hide them. violet/riga (t) 20:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a "comment". It was notice of an administrative action. Gene Nygaard 21:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#United States and Canada. Niteowlneils 23:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • This isn't just a "disambiguation" naming, but rather consistent with the general rule. Furthermore, since "Atlanta" redirects here rather than to [[Atlanta (disambiguation}]], I don't understand what you are bitching about. Gene Nygaard 20:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, let me explain something. Study the history of the Atlanta re-direct. For a long time, it was simply a re-direct. Then one day very recently, somebody removed the re-direct and created a 2-choice dis-ambiguation page, one of its choices was this page itself, the other of which is an article that he created that is orphaned. This is a good advantage of having this article at Atlanta because then the user who created the article would have known that the link belongs in Atlanta (disambiguation). Georgia guy 22:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am the author of the article in question. I don't understand why you consider it "orphaned." I created it recently, as you point out, and I am still working on it. Furthermore, you still have not explained why Atlanta should belong to Atlanta, Georgia instead of simply belonging to the general disambiguation page. Your reasoning isn't justified when you consider the fact that there are other items of interest to the wikipedia community that share the same name. You seem to be ignoring this point. I say put it all in the disambiguation page, without giving special attention to any particular "Atlanta", and let the person accessing wikipedia decide where (s)he wants to go. Yafuetodo 3:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This isn't just a "disambiguation" naming, but rather consistent with the general rule. Furthermore, since "Atlanta" redirects here rather than to Atlanta (disambiguation), I don't understand what you are complaining about. Gene Nygaard 20:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are execptions (eg New York City) to the rule (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#United States and Canada --Philip Baird Shearer 10:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One factor, of course, is the nuber of other places or things with the same name which have articles in Wikipedia (and even other places or things which don't have articles). If you want to claim that it should be an exception, the burden is on you to prove that there is good reason for an exception. Gene Nygaard 13:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, NYC is the only exception in the US, and it was moved there without consensus (the only poll at the time ended in a virtual tie, 17-15. Niteowlneils 23:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Las Vegas is a pretty good (and reasonable) precedent that noteriety being more important in my opinion. The actual title doesn't matter, but that Atlanta should redirect to anything but Atlanta, Georgia is pretty far-fetched. Quite few North Americans would ever expect to get anywhere else but Georgia. I've in all over the US, including a high school year in (that's right) Las Vegas, New Mexico, I know the geography fairly well as well as the 150 (or whatever) Springfields, but I had never, ever thought of more than one Atlanta. Just consider the fact that CNN constantly reminds it viewers of the the location of the CNN Center, the '96 Olympics, all the major league sports team, the Coca Cola HQ, the burning during the American Civil War, etc.
I mean, the combined population of the other Atlantas is barely more than 10,000...
Peter Isotalo 14:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Atlwiki.org

Until lately the Atlanta wiki was okay, but something made it say it cannot be displayed. Is this common with wikis?? Georgia guy 00:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

I have restored the four paragraphs deleted by User:Nikostar from the lead as the mass deletion hurt the article per the recommendations for that section. It is slightly long by those standards, but mass deletion was not the answer - judicous thoughtful edits are welcome. Autiger 16:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mass edit was more than justified although i probably took out a bit too much but I will leave it until we have some more opinions here. Have you actually read the lead sections - its ridiculously long and absolutely untypical for the lead section of a city article or for a lead section in general. It is certainly not just "slightly long" - six long paragraphs for a lead sections is not normal for wikipedia (for a good reason). Also it is extremely repetitive; half of it is devoted to the city's history, which is covered in the History section right below the lead section. Look at the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead section compared to the first sentence in the History section.
Lead section, second paragraph- The Atlanta area was originally inhabited by Cherokee and Creek Indians, and was named Standing Peachtree. In 1823, the area was opened to white settlement. It remained mostly woods until 1836, when the area was chosen as the southern "Terminus"
History section- The region where Atlanta and its suburbs were built was originally Creek and Cherokee Native American territory. In 1835, leaders of the Cherokee nation ceded their land to the government in exchange for land out west under the Treaty of New Echota, and act that eventually led to the Trail of Tears. In 1836 the Georgia General Assembly voted to build the Western and Atlantic Railroad to provide a trade route to the Midwest, with the area around Atlanta--then called Terminus--serving as the terminal.
Almost all of the facts in the extremely long lead section - beyond the first paragraph that is - could be added to other sections or are already mentioned. It really hurts the article and makes it quite unattractive and somebody who contributes here regurlarly needs to edit it extensively.I still beleive extensive editing of the lead section is neccesary and needs to be carried out to bring that section up to a higher standard. --Nikostar 02:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If you read something like a World Book Encyclopedia article, there is an emphasis on history and population. Let's face it, some people are full of themselves and like bluster, hip-hop, modern marketing, etc. Yet, isn't this supposed to be an "encyclopedia?" Also, if you don't put some history at the top, most people won't read it. As for the repetition, Wikipedia has plenty of space...this is not a problem. Further, a lack of history was one of the criticisms levelled at the "lead article" nomination. Finally, some people think Atlanta "emerged" in just the last 40 years; this type of thinking is a problem and unfounded. There is little more important about a city than history and population. → R Young {yakłtalk} 08:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sections are going to be proportional to the article length and Atlanta is a pretty long article (with good reason) and with long articles, are necessarily going to be repetitive. The lead needs to hit the highlights of the article such that it may stand alone as a summary giving the most important points for a casual reader. The remainder of the article goes into further detail with sections that can even point to stand-alone article for full treatment of certain subjects for the truly geeky. It's a heirarchy of information. I understand Nikostar's position and agree the lead section as it is now should be reigned in - I've been looking at it off and on since Niko posted the comment with an eye towards tightening it up a bit, but it's a challenging balancing act. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 21:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV statements removed from introductory section

I removed the following information from the intro section, as it largely seems POV, not to mention seriously racially divisive. At the very least, I do not think this belongs in an introductory paragraph, paricularly one that has grown as long as it has in this article. Dr. Cash 21:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta is circled by Interstate 285, called the "Perimeter" by locals, which has come to delineate the interior of the city from the surrounding suburbs. This has given rise to the terms ITP (inside the Perimeter) and OTP (outside the Perimeter) to describe area neighborhoods, residents, and businesses. In this respect, the Perimeter plays a social and geographical role similar to that of the Capital Beltway around Washington, DC.
It is fairly common, although by no means universal, among some residents of the city to make concerted efforts to stay "ITP" in daily life. Likewise many residents of the suburban area refrain from venturing "ITP," often citing fear of crime. Most often these attitudes draw their origins from racial and cultural divisions in Georiga. There is a sometimes considerable friction between the area including the city of Atlanta, and other "ITP" communties with their their majority black populations, as well as considerable gay populations, from the mostly white and far more conservative suburbs.
None of that is POV. That's simply terminology used in Atlanta. If one was to remove all terminology deemed offensive by some, then a good portion of wikipedia would become useless. You didn't make the article more NPOV since the terminology used previously is inherently NPOV. There's a big difference between describing social dynamics in a city and POV. --BWD 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, it's mostly true, though neglects to say how the suburbs came to that condition, i.e. white flight. Since racial issues are usually so charged though, it has at least the potential of appearing POV without some decent sourcing. So if it is to be added it should be with good references and in the main body of the article, not the lead. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to give a lengthy treatment to white flight since the focus of those two paragraphs wasn't necessarily how they got that way, but rather the social construct right now. Besides, white flight has its own article. There's plenty of documentation on "ITP." The paragraphs can be cleaned up a bit, but the content appears exceptionally balanced and uses NPOV language. Removing it completely would rob the article of useful information, particularly for people who don't live or know anything about Atlanta. I suspect that's the target audience we're writing for. --BWD 22:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atlanta&oldid=35323151"