Talk:Chehalis, Washington

Origin of name

What is the origin of the name? Badagnani 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably the Indian tribes of the Upper and Lower Chehalis. Should be part of the article. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chehalis, Washington. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531210815/http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx to http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64vfLAeJ2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fwww%2Fgazetteer%2Ffiles%2FGaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

NRHP list dates

@Shortiefourten: @SounderBruce:

It looks like you two are at loggerheads with regard to whether the NRHP list dates should be added to the article or not. Since Bruce mentioned going to the talk page and hashing it out here, I figured I would ping you both and try to see what your opinions were on the issue. jp×g 07:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is not a directory and not an indiscriminate collection of information, we should not be putting so much emphasis on NRHP designation dates rather than the context as to why each listed landmark is historic and warrants mention. The whole section needs to be reworked anyway, as it is an unsightly list that does not conform with the embedded lists section of MOS:LIST. SounderBruce 04:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not dead set that the dates have to be listed. The issue I have is that the entire edit was removed rather than limited in scope. I love historical context when it includes dates...for instance, was the NRHP designation recent? If not, how long has it been? Is there a correlation between the dates, i.e. was there some movement in the local community back then to add all these designations? If it were recent, why? Was there a local government push, perhaps a change in community environment, that made this happen? Granted, I don't have those answers yet, but another reader might. Another reader may investigate further, adding their knowledge to the Chehalis page.

But to consider the dates I added as an emphasis would be a stretch...I mean, three dates, one of which was just a mention of the year. Detail? Yes. Overly detailed? Come on.

I agree, the context of each historical location is crucial and it will take time to get there. I believe the page is succeeding. If SounderBruce wants to pitch in, then great. If all he wants to do is remove massive edits that help us get there, then I'll continue to stand up for the work being put in.

Unfortunately, both the WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE do not apply here as no one on the Chehalis page is trying to accomplish any of those issues. As for the MOS:LIST, it seems that most of what is accomplished here is within the many, many, many guidelines for such. Seeing as the section in question is mostly my own work, I will offer that I am naturally defensive.

I am trying to be helpful and productive on this page.  SounderBruce has a history on the Chehalis page of immediately requiring changes of me but not offering to make them, just delete it all because it's "pointless", "unnecessary", and as above, "unsightly"...his negativity is not helpful and easily comes across as superior.  This removal of my edit was done 5 minutes after I posted...meaning he had time to read all I wrote, plus the references, compared it to the Wiki requirements, and made a complete removal although a several changes I made in that original edit did not fall under his NRHP date issues.  

Thanks, g, for reaching out. I wouldn't label it as loggerheads just over that issue...SounderBruce doesn't care for my work and I don't know how to genuflect. As a note, I have mentioned I will not ever directly respond to SounderBruce for his accusation to me about page ownership and his severe tone of condescension. And as more and more of my edits are completely removed or blocked my him, sometimes in mere minutes, I have growing concerns that his approach to my work is going beyond regular editor duty.

But a resolution is needed because while no one owns the Chehalis page, no one should have a superior opinion, either.Shortiefourten (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Went through and cleaned up a lot of uncited and overly-detailed entries in the two list sections, but it still needs further work (with help from non-city sources). Regarding the above, AGF is still a policy. SounderBruce 01:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Work In Progress on the Chehalis page

Added a Transportation section that is basic for now considering it's only about the highway infrastructure. Hoping to complete the section with information about the local airport, then the massive railroad presence, and finish up with the local public transit. This could, in the future, help move info regarding I-5 and the airport from the Geography section to here.

Seeing as I thought cabooses were still a thing, the railroad part should be interesting to type up. Shortiefourten — Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Working on changing the lists for Historical Buildings and Parks to prose so bear with it for just a bit longer. And still trying to figure out what to write down as far as railroads because, dude...it's a lot of history here at this railroad-founded city.Shortiefourten (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Completed the list to prose in the Historical Buildings and Parks and Rec sections...still need to get the railroad thing down in Transportation. Next up - HISTORY! Shortiefourten (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Argument against removal of promotional tone and cross-interest

[1]

My points -

I. Common for economic sections in cities/towns to discuss specific achievements for companies/businesses including such details as shipping tonnage, employee numbers, sales, and other records or numbers of note. Information was reported in the reliable sources referenced; published information from the company in said reliable source would be considered reliable. Otherwise, the section becomes a listing of businesses without context of the company's value or importance. A company who processes 90% of the world's mint supply and/or involved in 60-70% of mint products world-wide is an important and notable statistic to mention.

II. There was removal of cross-interest that devalues the addition and prohibits a reader from further exploration. The company has a direct connection to its sister city, Centralia. Reliably sourced.

III. I will not argue that ThurstonTalk is a guaranteed, reliable source, however, in this context, it was used as a companion to the more reliable news sources. Had ThurstonTalk been the primary reference, I would agree that the information could be circumspect.

TheGREYHORSE (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A discussion has been agreed to bring consensus to this matter at the Talk:Centralia,_Washington page regarding a very similar issue. Feel free to join that discussion there.

TheGREYHORSE (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

As per Talk:Centralia,_Washington, I'll be standing by until deeper sources can be found to expand on the original edit.

TheGREYHORSE (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mural in either Chehalis or Centralia (15292446811).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Potential sources for spin-off article of proposed Chehalis River dam

Added in dam proposal under the Infrastructure/Flood Control subsection. When the dam is built, any info supplied on the Chehalis article could be whittled down after a spin-off of the dam's own article. When that happens, future editors can use the following news articles to build up the history of the dam -

• Budgeting and proposed plans

• Budgeting and Quinault Indian Tribe viewpoints

• Detailed plans and phase work

Shortiefourten (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Newspaper history in Chehalis

Hey everyone!

Found a large article about a small, one-man non-profit newspaper based out of the Yard Birds Mall called, The Insider, that was geared towards readers with mental health issues. The article mentions the paper published just three or four issues over two years, but with a readership of 2,700. Combined with the attention of mental health in our current age, I'd love to add this in...

However, the Newspapers subsection (as of 2024) is focused on larger news sources so I don't think this 3-4 issue newspaper could make the cut for notabilty, even via WP:LOCAL, at this time. If any reader or other editor can find more on this so it could be given more due, please help out. I haven't found anything past this 2004 article.

Thanks!

References

Shortiefourten (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)