Talk:Lovelock, Nevada

New rating

Now that the article has been tidied up and three large new sections have been added, it would be appreciated if the article could be given a new rating. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lovelock, Nevada. 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://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lovelock, Nevada. 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://archive.is/20130926150048/http://mines.findthedata.org/l/40370/Colado-Mine to http://mines.findthedata.org/l/40370/Colado-Mine
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415122942/http://www.hotbutteredrum.net/pdf/BT6.pdf to http://www.hotbutteredrum.net/pdf/BT6.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821123325/http://www.loverslock.com/About-Lovelock-Nevada.html to http://www.loverslock.com/About-Lovelock-Nevada.html

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Arts section

[From Magnolia 677's talk page] I'm afraid I found your reversions on the arts section of this article excessive. It is your judgment that several of the authors and artists involved are non-notable. I found plenty of mentions of them on the web although not always in connection with Lovelock. Buck Nimy was though, in a book I found on Nevada, and if Maggie Remington was in a several news feeds, I would have judged that she belongs too. What you had reduced the section to was little better than a list, where guidelines suggest that material "should usually be entirely reworked into the main flow of the article" so as to avoid becoming a trivia magnet.

As you see, I'm happy to discuss and arrive at an agreed solution. I should mention that I have been editing on WP longer than you, and as it happens editing the article in question too, though back then before a change of name. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: Thank you for writing. My edit removed all the non-notable artists, which made up about half the article. Could you start a discussion on the article's talk page so other editors can join in? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll replace the missing material for now, then, since we'll need that for discussion. It seems some agreement needs to be reached on what constitutes notability and respect for tertiary sources. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I've now rewritten the section, chiefly bearing in mind WP:TOPIC. The objection of WP:UNDUE plainly did not apply to the article since that guideline centers more on fringe theory emphasis. Again, WP:NOTABILITY applies to the creation of articles, not to mention in a themed subsection. There the criterion is whether there are good sources. Valid secondary and tertiary sources are given in most cases, and where an artist's website is mentioned, that is largely to allow access to a particular artwork. Most writers and artists are of regional importance and appear in relevant directories and other publications. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Farming and mining?

The introduction says "town's economy remains based on farming, mining and increasingly on tourism", but the Economy section says nothing about farming and mining. Here's an example of something that could be said about mining. (https://epminerals.com). - Dough34 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)