Talk:Michigan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
---|
Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject United States standards might help.
Contents |
[edit] A call for help, Michigan regional articles (including the two peninsula articles) (a modest proposal)
Dear Michigan Wikipedians:
I note that there is a lot of talent being spent on the Michigan article.
I note that there are eight regional articles for portions of the Lower Peninsula.
Without unduly tooting my own horn, as I came in later and rejuvenated an article that had some good elements in it already, the best article about the Lower Peninsula is the one on
- Northern Michigan. I respectfully suggest that it is the standard against which the others could be judged and modeled. Parenthetically, I'm sure it could improved, too; but I think it's a lot farther along than the other articles.
We also have separate articles on Upper Peninsula (which is fairly comprehensive and better thought out) and Lower Peninsula that is less comprehensive and thought out.
The list just keeps on getting bigger. We're up to eight subregions just in the Lower peninsula.
We have a bunch of other articles that aren't up to speed at all. You (individually and collectively) have the knowledge and expertise to correct them and beef them up. They need your help.
- West Michigan including Michiana
- Flint/Tri-Cities including Tri-Cities (Michigan) and The Thumb
- Southeast Michigan
- Mid-Michigan
- Southern Michigan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7&6=thirteen (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
We also have another regional article, namely Metro Detroit that is being developed on its own.
That's my special request for your attention.
Additionally, the Michigan article ought to be modified to at least note the existence of these other articles (and reference them in the text when appropriate). 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Stan 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Stan 01:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Stan
[edit] Why was the facts and trivia removed?
Why was the facts part removed? It was a good addition to the article and actually gave it life....161.150.2.64 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would whoever restored the facts section at least remove the portions that are verbatim duplicates elsewhere in the article? Thanks.Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I restored the section on state facts. Wikipedia tends to frown on trivia sections (see WP:TRIVIA), but a fair amount of work went into this list. If you want it removed, then make a proposal on this talk page.------Asher196 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really care one way or another whether a trivia setion exists, but the portions of the trivia section that are duplicated verbatim on other portions of the article should be removed, either from the trivia section or the rest of the article.Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I simply restored the section. If there is redundant information, then by all means remove it.Asher196 (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done using this diff. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I simply restored the section. If there is redundant information, then by all means remove it.Asher196 (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really care one way or another whether a trivia setion exists, but the portions of the trivia section that are duplicated verbatim on other portions of the article should be removed, either from the trivia section or the rest of the article.Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I restored the section on state facts. Wikipedia tends to frown on trivia sections (see WP:TRIVIA), but a fair amount of work went into this list. If you want it removed, then make a proposal on this talk page.------Asher196 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Michigan and the Thumb
I would submit that you do the readers no service by isolating the Michigan article from the regions. As you will see if you go to the discussion page of Michigan, there are lots of regular contributors to the Michigan article who were largely unaware of the regional articles. While there are those who spend a great deal of time and effort on the Michigan article, there are those who have spent lots of time on such articles as Northern Michigan, Central Michigan, West Michigan, Southeast Michgian and the Thumb. Not to mention Michiana. Blithely getting rid of the internal links is unfair both to our readers and to our contributors. I hope you will see my rationale. Best wishes. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Stan
- You should probably place that on the talk page of the user who removed the article, not necessarily here. -- dcclark (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I did before I posted it here. However, it is an important issue, which should be at least thought about by the people who are editing the Michigan article. I've written here before, inviting those of you who are contributing here to spread out, and share some of the work. We need you. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Stan
[edit] Etymology
2 Questions:
1) Both this article and the article on Lake Superior claim that the Ojibwe name mean nearly the same thing, even though the Ojibwe words are Gichigami (big water) and Mishigami (large water). Are both these definitions right? The words, although similar, don't look close enough to have the same meaning (although they're closer than "big" and "large). --MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
2) The article on the Mexican state of Michoacan (with its strikingly similar name) claims it means "place of the fishermen." Does anybody know more about a possible connection between the names Michigan and Michoacan? --MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "1800s" vs "17th century"
I understand the point of the recent edit to the captions and take as given its technical correctness, but "century" designations for dates always seemed a bit self-consciously formal to me (kind of like Roman numerals) and never quite as obvious as the straight-up years. I'm inclined to change it back; thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers)#Longer_periods supports spelling out the century: Because expressions like the 1700s are ambiguous (referring to a century or a decade), they are best avoided. older ≠ wiser 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. I'm still not real nuts about the change (or the policy!) but it's always easier to swallow things when a considered decision has already been taken on it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- John, I think you could make a case for your point using Wikipedia:Ignore all rules----Asher196 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hah, no doubt! I think I'll save the argument for something that really rankles me though. In this case I'm willing to accept that it is just my enfeebled brain that finds it such a chore to make the one-digit adjustment from "X century" to "X-100" span of years. JohnInDC (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(Which, it figures, is a calculation I managed to do the wrong way in the caption to my comment.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sister States?
Just browsing the page of my home state, I noticed someone seems a little geographically challenged, because whoever edited it seems to believe Michigan shares a border with China and Japan. I can't edit pages because I'm at a high school and we're blocked from doing so, but if anyone feels like changing it that'd be cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.162.254 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure that refers to those (silly?) little arrangements where some state or city in one place in the world arranges to become the "sister" of another state or city in a much different part of the world - promoting international relations, gives you something to put on the Welcome signs on the highway, that kind of thing. Essentially meaningless, but essentially harmless too; in any case, presumably accurate here (though come to think of it I have no idea what the source of the claim is). JohnInDC (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Oh, alright then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.162.254 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)