Talk:St. Croix River (Wisconsin-Minnesota)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Minnesota articles.
This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is part of WikiProject Rivers, a WikiProject to systematically present information on rivers. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)
	This article needs a map.

[edit] To-do

Needs section on history of waterway. (Began 11/4/2005)

Needs section on Noteable Bridges

Needs section on activities (canoeing, fishing, camping, boating, sightseeing)

[edit] Other languages

Not sure what the protocol is, or at least the standard, on providing so many names in alternate languages. I like it and find it very interesting personally, but we don't give the names in other languages for the United States in the article about the United States. I don't want to delete it, but it certainly is something worth talking about. Any thoughts out there in Wikiville? the dharma bum 02:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of Native names for geographic features of the Americas is relevant and informative to the history and context of these features and their regions, as is the inclusion of variant names assigned by early European explorers (i.e., there were French names for various features in the upper midwest, some of which were kept, some of which were translated to English, and some of which were discarded). Malepheasant 03:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought some more about it after I posed the question last night and pretty much came to the same conclusion, especially based on the historical insights the names provide. Thanks for the thoughts. --the dharma bum 15:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New fishing section

I'm concerned that an unpublished source should not be used here, these are unverified claims and also probably could be considered unfair to the marinas. Discuss? -- Dskluz 06:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of verifablity. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Because this source is unpublished, other editors and readers cannot verfify this information has been published by a reliable source, as is required for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is therefore not a verified source. I don't question the truth of this, but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. As I said, by Wikipedia standards this is not a verifiable source. --- Dskluz 16:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)