Talk:Waldorf, Maryland

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kstrong2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hillary Duff

I'm proposing a deletion of that section due to its unencylopedic nature. --Phoon (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Which section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are you using as a guideline? TEDickey (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I believe it doesn't meet the criteria for WP:EVENT. As such I am deleting the section. Unless of course you object. --Phoon (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Guthrie T. Meade

There are three statements made (lifespan, employment, and Waldorf Reel). The last is unsourced, and appears to be the notability claim. According to the source, Meade lived in Waldorf for 3 years. According to the source, the most likely feature for which to base notability would be a collection begun in the mid-1950s. Taking the various features into account, Meade might be topical in Kentucky (where most of the work was done), but is only an incidental item for Waldorf. TEDickey (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Good points. Since Meade's stay in Waldorf was short and not critical for his work, my post about him does not belong under Waldorf. I will delete it. My post attributed the tune to Meade. It seems that Meade recorded and named the "Waldorf Reel" but did not compose it. Do you think there is there any place within the Waldorf page for a note on the tune named after the town? Meade's recording of the tune is here (http://slippery-hill.com/M-K/ contains the music file http://slippery-hill.com/M-K/GDAE/G/WaldorfReel.mp3). Jason.Rafe.Miller (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were a source mentioning the relationship of the recording and the town. TEDickey (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article starts off nice. The sources are properly cited and the organization is well done. This article gets a bit random. The first sentence under Economy and Demographics is a bit of a run on sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstrong2 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Notable (famous or historical) Waldorf residents section is needed

A number of these can be found on the Southern Maryland Wikipedia article.

Others can be found by Google search. Also search historical reference to notable residents of "Beantown" (the areas former name).

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. I'm sure there are more out there. Feel free to add them.

If you don't know how to add them, copy the "Web address" of the website that discusses the person, click "Edit source" (here on this Talk Page) and then write a note and "paste" the web address about the famous or historical Waldorf person. IMPORTANT, then be sure to hit "Submit" (look below what you are posting) or it won't be saved.

Thanks!

Chesapeake77 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Piscataway Indian community related content

@Magnolia677: While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the moving of this content to the "Arts and culture" section, leaving a section with only images and no corresponding text isn't a good idea at all per WP:IG. Perhaps you're still in the process of cleaning things up, which is fine. It might, however, be better to sort things out in your sandbox first and then make the cleanup/move in one edit because piecemeal edits like this can often lead to misunderstanding and possible edit warring. Personally, I don't think a stand-alone level-2 section for this content is justified and doing so seems a bit WP:UNDUE given what little content there was about it. The stand-alone section might've have been added to make space for the multiple images, but again not so many images seem needed. One representative image is probably OK, but again I don't think four are necessary. Perhaps pick one and move it to the new location? In addition, when you're going to be some cleaning up of an article that may require multiple edits, it sometimes helps to use Template:In use (you can also use it for sections) to make others aware of this as a way of avoiding WP:ECFs. I'm mentioning this because there's no need for Waldorf, Maryland#cite_note-auto2-27 to be being used twice for the same sentence about the Piscataway Indian community. I'm assuming you're still working on this section which is why I haven't removed it myself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Hello Marchjuly. I felt the "arts and culture" section was the best place for the cultural information about the Piscataway Indians. There is already a section about their history in the history section. Regarding the images, they are out-of-scope and should not be in the article. None of the photos were taken in Waldorf, and the article is not about the Piscataway Indians. I removed the images per WP:IG, but the edit was reverted as "vandalism" by User:Chesapeake77. I also left a message here for this editor, but it was deleted. You are welcome to move the images some other place in the article, though images taken in another US state have little relevance in an article about an unincorporated community in Maryland, and should be removed along with the awkward section heading. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand there's been disagreement about this content, but leaving things as an images only section like you did isn't really an improvement. As for the photos, it's true that the two taken Virginia probably don't belong, but one of the other two probably is OK (assuming there's more than a casual connection between photo and article content). Anyway, I've temporarily hid the section in the hope that any disagreements over this can be sorted out here. I also posted a note yesterday at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maryland to try and get other input. It's usually better to discuss things on an article talk page when it comes to disagreements like this than via edit summaries. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There are many Wikipedia articles about cities that show resident ethnic groups and cultures. They have lots of details and lots of pictures. That's because they are allowed to become full articles.

There is a tendency on Wikipedia (sometimes) to cut articles down to nothing. The articles end up, after being over-edited, with nothing but a few "fragments", "pieces" and nothing much left-- that really gives any meaningful picture of the place.

Wikipedia rules, taken to excess, were not their intended purpose. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a quality encyclopedic article, not something that someone just reads in 30 seconds while they are doing 6 other things on their cell phone.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: If I were to delete the image gallery a second time, I would be edit warring. Of the four images, none were taken in Waldorf, and none make any mention of Waldorf in the image details. Which two images do you think are probably ok, and what makes them ok? The Piscataway Indian Nation and Tayac Territory has its own article, and make up less than one percent of Waldorf's population. Why is it necessary to find any image of these people, from anywhere, and add it to the article? Imagine someone adding a picture of some random Black person to the article and saying, well, they make up 61 percent of the population. Until there is a photo of a Piscataway Indian doing something notable in Waldorf, the images are primarily decorative and should be removed. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

They (Piscataway Indians) were the first people in Waldorf, they have a vibrant culture and so they matter.

There was nothing "random" about the photos, they showed the culture and that they are an important part of the Waldorf story.

They are a "minority group" in Waldorf-- and it is considered notable on Wikipedia-- to show minority cultures.

I have always planned to include relevent pictures depicting other cultures in Waldorf too-- but I can only do one thing at a time.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has stated that the Piscataway Indians and their cultural contribution to Waldorf doesn't matter; however, creating a stand-alone level-2 section about any one particular group seems rather WP:UNDUE (at least in my opinion), especially given how little textual content was provided. Perhaps there are other ways to incorporate content about the community and its cultural contributions into the article. Similarly, with respect to the images, Magnolia677 has a valid point about WP:IMAGERELEVANCE in that images should be contextually connected in more than just a casual way to the article content they are intended to support. A representative image of the Piscataway Indians seems fine for an article like Piscataway Indians, but such an image should also be connected to the Waldorf in a more direct way. For example, if freely licensed images of the local community in Waldorf can be found (cultural events, notable residents, notable structures, etc.), then those might be images more suitable for use in the article. I thought that possibly File:Piscataway Indian Nation and The Piscataway Conoy Tribe Recognized by Governor Martin O'Malley.jpg might be a candidate for inclusion in the article if the Conoy Tribe has more than a casual connection to Waldorf, but perhaps it's not. File:Piscataway Indian Museum and Cultural Center, Waldorf, Maryland.jpg, which was subsequently added by Magnolia667, seems fine and actually tied into the content about the museum. Same goes for the baseball game photo (also added by Magnolia667) which connects to the Sports section. There is conditional freedom of panorama for architectural structures in the United States, which means photos of the external appearances of significant buildings (like the museum) can probably be taken an uploaded to Commons under an acceptable license without worrying about the copyright status of structure itself; so, this might be another way to incorporate more images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur with this. These images are better at Piscataway Indian Nation and Tayac Territory. Reywas92^Talk 03:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)