Talk:Duluth, Minnesota

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Minnesota This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within Minnesota articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the priority scale.
Duluth, Minnesota was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: August 9, 2007


Contents

[edit] Furthest seaport from the ocean

This title is awarded to Iquitos, Peru, which is some 3,000 km from the Atlantic, in the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann. Since Duluth is ~3,700 km from the ocean, it seems Mann is incorrect and Duluth is indeed the furthest deep water port in the world from the ocean.

[edit] In Duluth

I live in Duluth and I have been told from many people here that it is the largest freshwater port in the world. I don’t see this in the article, though I don’t know how accurate that is. Zath42 20:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree because the city of Chicago, hosting at least 20 times more inhabitants, is a freshwater port.

I would disagree with that because a port's size isn't based on how many people live near it. The Duluth Port Authority's website claims "Duluth-Superior is by far the largest port on the Great Lakes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.37.18 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


I would like to see Karples Manuscript Museum mentioned at places to visit in Duluth. An incredible collection of documents are stored there.

[edit] External links

This article has way too many external links. They should be reduced or at least organized.--Daveswagon 01:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

They should be reduced even if organized. And where there is already a link in the text or elsewhere in the article it should not be repeated here.Kablammo 22:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template for a U.S. City

For those who plan on editing and expanding this article, please follow the Template for a U.S. City. Thanks!--Daveswagon 09:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been reorganized. Despite the apparent extent of the changes indicated by this comparison[1] there should be no substantive changes. Some judgment calls: Transportation and Power have been moved to a new Economy section (which still needs a general summary of the economy, including industry and retail). One of the religion links have been moved to the new Religion section (which in turn has been put further down on the page, per the template); the link to the Catholic diocese has been deleted as it is linked by the separate article on the diocese (in turn linked to from the Religion section of this article). In my second edit[2] I rewrote some of the tourism stuff in the history section and moved it to a new Tourism subsection of Economy. Kablammo 18:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abigail Cartwright

Abigail (Abby) Cartwright was born in texas i don't know when she was born but she goes to william barrett travis vanguard and academy and she is in ms. williams 5th grade class.

Oh, is that so? Chickenflicker 23:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronouncing Duluth

Could someone write a clarification in the article on the pronunciation of this city? I was recently playing TransAmerica (board game) in Germany and many people asked me how it's pronounced and I'm not sure... Thanks! --Chuck SMITH 10:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Duh-LUTH". Chickenflicker---♣ 13:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


I am not familiar with grammatical pronunciations, but the pronunciation is 'deh-luth', 'duh-luth' or 'dew-luth'

it's the last; dew-luth.

To clarify this more: it's "Duh-LOOTH" with the accent on the second syllable and rhyming with "tooth" or "booth" or "ruth". Benwing (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famous people

Is it standard practice to have a "famous people" who hail from the mentioned city in Wiki articles? The list seems too subjective for Wikipedia. Chickenflicker---♣ 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities#Article_structure_example_for_a_U.S._City and discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#Proposal_to_delete_.22Notable_natives.22. If the criterion is notability it should be no more subjective than the determination of which persons are notable enough to have articles in Wikipedia. Kablammo 04:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I was wondering because New York City, Houston, Chicago, Beijing, Tokyo, and London don't have lists of notable natives on their main pages. Thanks. Chickenflicker---♣ 13:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting that two of New York's boroughs have links to lists of famous people, while Staten Island has a list in its article. The inclusion of such lists seems to be more prelavent for smaller cities and towns-- it would not make much sense to have a list for Manhattan, for example. Less than a year ago the Minnesota article has such a list in its main body. Kablammo 13:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The is an article about Duluth on uncyclopedia, and if that is worth mentioning then it should be added.

[edit] Images of lift bridge

There are several great free use pics available of the bridge here: http://flickr.com/photos/dcagne/page6/ Royalbroil T : C 15:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy Section

The economy section should be expanded to include more than tourism. The iron industry isn't dead yet after all. Also, should "power supply" really be under economy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.22.11.104 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] External Links Cleanup

Have just made an attempt at cleaning up the external links section, as per the request. I removed anything that was already mentioned in the article itself with a Wikilink, and if not, moved the link into the article. I took away anything that was only peripherally related to Duluth as well. I hope this was ok, but that list was just wayyy too large. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Great job on the cleanup. This article is sufficiently well-developed, and the city is suficiently important, for the page to come into compliance with guidelines.Kablammo 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA rereview

In part of WP:UCGA I've looked over this article and have suggested it for a GA Rereview - the article lacks significant references for a GA particularly compared to other city articles that are GA (see Atlanta, Georgia), among other possible problems. --Masem 20:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

At Duluth GA/R. Kablammo 16:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Unanimous consensus was for the article to be delisted from WP:GA. The discussion, now in archive, can be seen here. If the article is brought up to standards, it may be renominated at WP:GAC. Regards, Lara♥Love 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small image sizes

15-Aug-2007: There has been a trend of people revising articles to remove the size parameters from included images, to let image size default to 180px (or to user-preferences size). However, I have previously edited hundreds of articles, including this "Duluth" article, and purposely set image-sizes to display the maximum applicable detail, without crowding the article text. After editing 9,000 articles, I have noticed that setting image-sizes specifically for each image does, in fact, produce readable illustrated text, with little need to click-enlarge each image while reading along in an article. The effect is analogous to setting font-sizes larger for article titles/subheadings or using bold font, rather than "defaulting" all text in articles to the smallest font possible. Although it would be conceivable to set an article to use tiniest fonts everywhere, depending on user preferences to show larger wording, in practice, there is no need to minimize font-size or image size, but rather allow the data/text to be displayed with appropriate sizes. When in doubt, use industry standards: most magazine articles have images with preset-sizes; it is very unusual to read a magazine article with tiny thumbnail images, expecting the reader to "enlarge" (or view with a magnifying glass) each image during reading.

Bottom line: reorganizing articles as all-thumbnail, to shrink larger images to be tiny thumbnails, is a form of original research ("OR"), since published images traditionally have varied sizes throughout articles in mainstream publishing. WP does not create articles based on original research, but rather established sources (see: "WP:NOR"). Always be wary that unusual practices, after-rigged into articles, might make Wikipedia more of a weirdo-pedia or "wacko-pedia" to the mainstream user base. I am resetting image sizes to display appropriate levels of detail throughout the article, in a customary manner from mainstream publishing. -Wikid77 18:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikid77, there are cases when pixels sizes are necessary, say in a wide image template or an unusual tall image. But arbitrary pixel sizes make everyone view at that size. We all have different computer setups. -Susanlesch 18:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Susan is correct. In most cases, thumbnail sizes should not be specified. The ideal layout is different for someone using a 20" screen than for someone using a 3" screen (and people do read WP on handheld devices). The purpose of the default size/preference capability is so that users may specify the size of their thumbnails. When an editor specifies the size, he overrides that feature, probably to make the layout look good on his own computer screen, which may be quite inappropriate for some other user. Wikipedia:Image use policy also guides us on this.--Appraiser 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
16-Aug-2007: The Wikipedia policy clearly states that auto-thumbnailing is inappropriate for maps sized for scale; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images: cases of specific image width include: "When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts; When a small region of an image is considered relevant" (quoted directly from Manual of Style). As for users with 3-inch screens, they account for, perhaps, one in 10,000 users. Don't make all images tiny simply because the 10,000th user prefers that size. That penalizes 9,999 users. Since the policy dictates the specific sizing, I am restoring it. Please don't revert again, but discuss this to fully understand the issue. The Manual requires specific sizing for "detailed maps, diagrams or charts" or "When a small region of an image is considered relevant" (quoted), that is why the sizing has been restored. Auto-thumbnailing in these cases is contrary to Wikipedia policy, so removing the sizes is a violation of WP policy. -Wikid77 00:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that maps and charts should be displayed at a usable resolution. Most images, however, should be left as auto-thumbnails unless there is a compelling need for them to be larger. Why not just set a size for the map and let the other images resize automatically? –Taranah 00:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I care very much for Wikipedia, especially for articles related to Minnesota. Above, I asked that you not resize the pictures until the topic had been discussed. You blatantly ignored the request, restated your opinion, and re-inserted the sizes. This topic was discussed extensively when several of us were working to bring Minnesota to FA status. I carefully considered which graphics might need to be larger than the user's default sizes, and, in the process questioned whether a road map of the entire state was appropriate for an article about Duluth. It clearly is not; and that is the only graphic that could possibly fall under the umbrella of requiring a huge image in an article, if it added anything to the understanding of Duluth. I would hope that you reconsider your desire to size pictures. Although only a few users read WP on handheld devices, there are many sizes and shapes of monitors. You cannot possibly design a page that will look good on all of them. That is why the software allows user-specified sizes. To override that for no apparent reason is arrogant and, if you persist, will prevent Duluth, Minnesota from regaining GA status. Your opinion is in the minority.--Appraiser 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
To User:Taranah: I think it would be preferable if Wikipedia could auto-resize all images, tagged as to purpose, in some logical manner. However, widespread thumbnailing is not the answer, at this stage. After uploading hundreds of images, I noticed that detail & resolution must be planned, in advance, for potential display size. As for photographs, city skylines require a certain amount of specific resizing (However, I have even edit-skewed skyline images for better display in articles). Not having visited Duluth, I expected to see a skyline image showing some tall buildings across the landscape, not a miniature postage-stamp view. Then, I noticed the Arial bridge and the seven-mile sandbar, requiring more explanation for outsiders. Bottom line, being an outsider provides a different perspective, and the need to see "more images" than a native might prefer. Per Einstein, "State your prejudices, in advance" and then, try to understand alternate viewpoints. Outsiders definitely need more than thumbnails. Perhaps a photo-gallery section could be added for "Duluth" (where natives could ignore that section), and most detailed images could be displayed there. Again, it doesn't work to have "one size fits all" (pun intended), so various sizes are needed for different types of images. Perhaps, longterm, WP would have user-defined sizes for different image-types; however, at this stage, auto-thumbnailing is not the answer: it's like using a "sledgehammer to drive a thumbtack" and more than one auto-size is needed, just like more than one type of hammer/mallet/etc. would be needed. -Wikid77 01:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To User:Appraiser: You are overlooking that I have quoted WP policy for the changes. My opinion is not "in the minority" but it is "in the Manual" of Style (just read the manual to understand when specific sizes are needed). Just calm down, and get a level attitude. Wikipedia practices and software are in their infancy, so don't get too upset. Phenomenal advances are possible, if everyone stays calm and works together. I have edited 15,000 articles, so I have discovered many potential improvements. -Wikid77 01:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikid77, may I ask what is your user preferences setting is in your "Thumbnail size" pull down menu? Also may I suggest that if you would like to change Wikipedia's software and the guidelines for editors that spring from the software, that discussion could be better taken up with the developers? The "Files" tab in My preferences (found at the top of every page) belongs to everybody. Everybody includes every subset of everybody. Even very small subsets and even single individuals who may have viewing requirements different from everybody else. -Susanlesch 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This argument is going nowhere. But to: Wikid77, let this be no personal attack but a plain truth: your talk page is filled with users and bots about incorrectly placed images, deleted images, and inability to understand or implement fair-use licenses. I have reviewed several of your "thousands" of Wikipedia changes and am dismayed at the lack of actual WP policy being followed. You also seem to severely lack the understanding of how to implement images altogether and a lack of simple knowledge of file formats, standards and resolution/sizing. Your images are also of the poorest quality. Wikipedia aims to deliver high-quality, relevant and creative value to using imagery, not simply to steal images from Google or other map sources. I would recommend this argument closed and the original agreement in FA-discussions of letting images default their size prevail. Davumaya 22:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • 15-March-2008: I'm glad I waited 6 months to reply about the User:Davumaya (making "no personal attack" - ya right). In concluding that my images from 9,000 edits were "of the poorest quality", Davumaya was, you see, very qualified to judge, after having completed (now get this) a total of only 150 article edits. Wikipedia is also an interesting study in psychological issues: where a person, who averages 25 edits per month, might insist on casting judgment upon someone who has developed 100 times more articles. I wonder to what extent such an extreme lack of civility, even as veiled attacks, causes many Wikipedia editors to quit, in disgust about associating in that manner. Again, I view the most important aspect of Wikipedia as a social test of the ways in which others are treated. Wikipedia is merely a neophyte collection of data, currently focused mainly on words, with no virtual tours of cities, beaches, sailboats or airline flights. There are few catalogs for viewing videos or hearing thousands of sounds from nature. Yet, regardless, "everyone's a critic" without realizing the petty level of the viewpoints. Beware the "enpsychopedia" and simply try to keep it real. -Wikid77 (talk)

[edit] Most users have original defaults

17-Aug-2007: To User:Susanlesch: I have the original default "Thumbnail size" of 180px. I tend to use original defaults to align with most users, having developed software used in libraries and internet cafes, where few people bother to reset default parameters (displaying Adobe PDF files is a challenge at various libraries/cafes). My main viewing concern has been red/green colorblindness for those bizarre red-dot-on-town maps, wondering if that was such a good idea (or just lazy mapping). I've noticed the Swedish Wikipedia sometimes uses underlining of town names to highlight towns. Anyway, I often use 3 screen sizes (800x600, 1024x768 and high). Please contact the developers if you require special settings to view maps and skylines, for your system configurations. Most people tend to use 800x600 or 1024x768 screen sizes, so those are the screens I target, expecting other users are learning to scroll across or accept the appearance of all those other various websites on the internet. -Wikid77 04:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arts section error

In the arts section, it mentions that the Bay Front Blues festival is held at Chester Park. It has always been held at the park near the bay. I believe the offical name is Bay Front Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.28.2.6 (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duluth article naming conventions

There are many articles that have (Duluth) in parentheses for disambiguation. I moved Park Point (Duluth) to Park Point (Minnesota), before realizing that there are many of these articles. (See). Does anyone think that these should all be changed to (Minnesota) - a more general and widely-known location, to avoid confusion of users. If the majority thinks (Duluth), Park Point (Minnesota) can be changed back. --Dan Leveille (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Westernmost Atlantic deep-water port" claim

I know it's cited, but it seems odd to me that in making this claim the assertion is made that there are no deep-water ports in Texas nor along the vast majority of Mexico's Atlantic coast. I realize that's the Gulf of Mexico, but the Gulf is far more a part of the Atlantic than Lake Superior is... 71.87.23.22 (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)