Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Minnesota

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:MINN

Archives
Archive 1 (July 8, 2006 through November 28, 2006) Archive 2 (December 3, 2006 through March 2, 2007) Archive 3 (February 28, 2007 through May 30, 2007) Archive 4 (May 29, 2007 through December 24, 2007)

[edit] Category merge

I've proposed merging Category:Minnesota films to Category:Films set in Minnesota because the latter category appears to fit the naming standards of other films set by state. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 8 in case anyone wants to chime in. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Museums in Minnesota navigation bar

Please take a look at {{Museums in Minnesota}} navigation bar, and enhance as necessary. If it seems to complicated, but you have a suggestion, leave a message {{Museums in Minnesota}} (talk) and I or somebody else will try to improve it. TableManners^U·T·C 15:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.

The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Looking at both the template and the List of museums in Minnesota, I'm wondering what constitutes a museum. Many of the List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota are museums, defined as "permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education, enjoyment, the tangible and intangible evidence of people and their environment." Anyway, I suggest added a link to the List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota in the template, and then deleting any specific entries that are on that list (to avoid duplication and potential massive growth of the template).--Appraiser (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have to get to that later. Good point. TableManners^U·T·C 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Many of them are, but a lot of them aren't. For example, you can still buy gas at R.W. Lindholm Service Station. Fasbender Clinic doesn't treat diseases any more, but you can get your finances checked out at the Edward Jones office there. And, if you walked into the John G. and Minnie Gluek House and Carriage House and asked for a tour, I think the residents there would politely ask you to leave. I'm also wondering if we should include every museum in Minnesota in the template. Minneapolis Institute of Arts and Science Museum of Minnesota are big, well-known museums, while the John Dwan Office Building (the 3M Museum in Two Harbors) is a small building with a few rooms of exhibits. I'd suggest putting the larger museums in the template, but keeping all the museums in the category and the list. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I just copied this to template talk:Museums in Minnesota, please continue the discussion there. TableManners^U·T·C 03:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Minnesota state parks at featured list candidates

FYI - Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota state parks. However, please don't support simply because it's an MN article. -Ravedave (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Tourism in Minnesota

Structure of Categories in Category:Tourism in Minnesota

I've been contemplating the structure of categories under Category:Tourism in Minnesota and put together a graphic that shows it. There's some duplication and some weirdness, resulting from 100s of editors adding without a grasp of the overall scheme (myself included). My first thoughts are to eliminate the boxes shown with red text since they are duplicates, and to move "buildings and structures" to somewhere other than "Landmarks"–perhaps "Visitor Attractions." Since any changes here affect a lot of articles, I thought it would be a good idea to discuss any changes with the community.--Appraiser (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you investigated how other states handle it? -Ravedave (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think all the states are a hodgepodge. Perhaps if we come up with a good plan, we can suggest it for other states too.--Appraiser (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I was pointed to this discussion, probably since I do a lot of work with categories. So I'm not normally involved in this project. One comment, it might be easier to see the layout as a list. The picture on my screen at full size is hard to read. As to the real question. I suspect that most of this has developed over time with no overall structure. I have often been frustrated in trying to find a specific category since they are not in the same place. I believe that a cleanup here could be used as a guide for all state projects. Now on to a few specifics. All structure need to roll up into building and structures. However that should be a state level one. They should not roll up under landmarks. One could argue that right under Tourism in Minnesota you should have Visitor attractions since all of these are tourism related. However what are attractions? I think that you need to get the building and structures out of tourism and move some of the subcats there under visitor attractions. Things like courthouses and hospitals are generally not visitor attractions but are buildings. If you get that category out of the way and add visitor attractions to the subcats that need it you will make the tree much more manageable and get a better idea on what changes to make. You probably need to do some cleaning up and changes before a clear picture emerges. Don't assume that the correct solution can be found on the first pass. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Protected areas of Minnesota, it includes some areas that aren't really protected areas. Only certain areas really qualify as protected, such as those that are part of a national park, state park, national monument, wildlife refuge, and so on. Category:Lakes of Minnesota and Category:Rivers of Minnesota aren't all protected. St. Croix River (Wisconsin-Minnesota) is designated a National Wild and Scenic River, for example, but I don't think the Rum River has any such designation. We need to do some research to determine what should and should not be included in the protected areas category. As far as buildings and structures go, I agree with Vegaswikian that buildings like courthouses and hospitals aren't necessarily visitor attractions. The Mayo Clinic might be a visitor attraction of sorts, if you're looking for world-class medical care, but Hennepin County Medical Center caters to a more local clientele. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I added Rivers and Lakes to Category:Protected areas of Minnesota, just because environmental laws restrict what adjacent property-owners can do, and I believe riparian rights in Minnesota prevent private interests from owning the actual edge and body of a lake or river.--Appraiser (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Really nice graph. Sorry to think aloud. Would there be a parallel tree for some other structure(s)? Tourism is an objective all right, but for example this project has in the past used physical assets. Why is tourism the top here? There must be a good reason I don't yet understand. -Susanlesch (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other category trees that need help too. This just happens to be where I noticed a crazy web of cats and sub-cats and I wanted to get a plan and consensus before making the changes that seem logical to me.--Appraiser (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I when I add a state category, I usually copy the contents from another state category to get the right parents. This assumes that the one I used is correct and represents the common view. That is not always be the case. Many editor just pick some parents, sometimes even a parent, grandparent and great grand parent. So weirdness multiplies. If this one gets cleaned up, it would be nice if someone who uses AWB could then clean up all of the other state categories so that we have a consistant presentation. If this works, I guess some thought should be given to a project to commonize all of the common state categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A problem with looking at Categories this way is that they are not simple trees, neither in Wikipedia nor reality. When viewed as physical objects, "Buildings and structures" which are notable often are considered "Landmarks" (they just have to exist and be noticed). However, being in a tourism group "Visitor Attractions" might require that the structure be visible to the public (a landmark building might be closed to the public and out of sight in a forest) and perhaps also that the structure be open to the public (depending upon how interactive tourists expect an attraction to be). "Buildings and structures" should be left as "Landmarks" but if you want to add other tourism categories then add them. It's a web, not a tree. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A little viewing trick. Go to Category:Economy of Minnesota and click on the plus sign in font of 'Tourism in Minnesota'. Then click on the plus sign in front of all of the subcategories. You get a simple list with all of the subcategories listed. Duplicates are not highlighted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Request

This is kind of short notice, but if anyone is going to the Pond Hockey championships this weekend [1], I think some photos from it could fit in a few articles. Gopher backer (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD PD-MNGov

Deletion opinions requested at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008_February_7#Template:PD-MNGov -- SEWilco (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Minnesota

Hi. Portal:Minnesota has been expanded and rearranged over the past couple of days. Ravedave, or anyone else, did you want to nominate this for featured portal? If you or anyone can correct any errors I would be grateful and willing to help support a nomination. Maybe a peer review step would help but it might already satisfy the Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines. -Susanlesch (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oregon's portal was recently deemed to be a Featured Portal (Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Oregon).--Appraiser (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Random content

Portal peer review which is recommended I see suggests random articles to reduce maintenance. So I tried it for the Portal:Minnesota selected article, biography and picture. It works fine though adding three things every month is still needed so I don't quite believe the salepersons yet. Instructions would need to be written. The interesting thing though is with the same randseed you can match them in a set—article 1, bio 1 and image 1 all come up together, if their end values match (I think). It could be considered a feature for relating or for contrasting themes. -Susanlesch (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page views

Thanks to User:TonyTheTiger who mentioned it today. Wikipedia has a Page view tool hosted in Sweden, a gift of User:Henrik. Maybe this would be useful in determining relative importance/priority for Minnesota articles. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool! So we could make some arbitrary limits, say:

under 100 views per day = low priority
100-500 = medium priority
500-1000 = high priority
1000+ = top priority

Such a scheme would certainly take the subjectiveness out of classifying them. I wonder if some bored person would click on his article all day long to raise its level?--Appraiser (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your chart looks sensible so I added it to the project page. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked some of the page views to see if this makes sense. We may or may not want to adjust the scheme, but I definitely might pay more attention to certain high-count articles. These are daily averages for January 2008:

--Appraiser (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see some biographies, and yes I agree something other than tallies matters in many cases. Also a tally for Bob Dylan is about 6304 for December and over 10,000 for February. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm looks like we've been placing our priorities differently from what the public wants to see. I'll be readjusting where my attention goes to based on page views. I know it sounds a bit MTV-ish of me but consider that this is how people are seeing Minnesota and we can't control where they go, might as well ensure they get the whole picture. .:DavuMaya:. 04:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota synagogues stubs

User Grika (talk · contribs) was the editor who originally created all the stub articles about synagogues in Minnesota that have now become the focal point of much debate, and he, as creator of the stubs has neither responded, participated nor defended himself in any discussions AFAIK. Please see User talk:Grika#Requesting your attention. Feel free to add your comments. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cast a vote

Hi. Please cast a vote for Minnesota at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates. I'm done so make any changes you may have (and sorry for so many edits!). Thanks, and sorry for any omissions, go especially to two people, Atomaton and Cricket02, for building the structure, and to Appraiser and others for monthly updates and to Kablammo. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted. Rudget . 16:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recently expanded MN article

A new editor has recently taken Minnesota Department of Natural Resources from the weakling stub I created to a nice B class article. Worth checking out. -Ravedave (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1918 Cloquet Fire

A large edit was made to this article by a new user; it looks like it may have been a school assignment. I did an inital cleanup of it to help it meet Wiki-standards, but it still could use some fact checking and additional wikification. Gopher backer (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paisley Park Studios

Hello.

I don't know if I'm writing in the right place, but I just wanted to say that Paisley Park Studios entry has been redirected to Paisley Park Records. I think Paisley Park Studios entry should exist apart from it, as it's an important venue for music and Minnesotta, and should belong to Category:Buildings and structures in Minnesota, and to Category:Recording studios

--El Pantera (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, but the former Studios article was woefully stub-like. If we were to separate them again, some of the information would have to be culled from the Records article, and some new info would have to be added, IMHO, to justify two articles. --Rehcsif (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota FA

It has been almost a year and a half since Minnesota became a featured article, and 11 months since it appeared on the main page. The article has held up well, but urls need to be checked, and dated information updated. It would be nice to have this done by the state's 150th birthday. Please go to Talk:Minnesota#150th and following section and pitch in if you can. It takes little time to review a section or two, see if anything needs updating, check the on-line references, and renew the accessdates. Thank you. Kablammo (talk)

Are there any plans to have a Minnesota related article be on the Main Page for the state's sesquicentennial? ~ Eóin (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And is there any way to ask in advance anymore? I suggested Minneapolis—its sesquicentennial is at the same time—quite a while ago for that week but the process has changed? The page looks blank. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As expected Minnesota is probably not eligible again so soon. The Minneapolis lead could mention both sesquicentennials though. I didn't want to bother him with this at this time but asked anyway and guess we'll see what Raul654 says if anything. Are there other thoughts? -Susanlesch (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the History of Minnesota article would be very appropriate for May 11 while Minneapolis would be more appropriate for July 20, its sesquicentennial. It looks like requests can be made at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Who can help watch this page and add History of Minnesota for 11 May? Only five articles can be there. Next one up there is 16 April so we can try when that is removed. I will try too. (For lack of responses, evidently long term requests have disappeared again.) Eóin, thank you for thinking this through so well. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a photo that combines history and the present. Are there other ideas here? -Susanlesch (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The history of Minnesota is the story of a U.S. state shaped by its original Native American residents, European exploration and settlement, and the emergence of industries made possible by the state's natural resources. Minnesota achieved prominence through fur trading, logging, and farming, and later, railroads, flour milling and iron mining. While those industries remain important, the state's economy is now driven by banking, computers and health care. Fort Snelling played a pivotal role in Minnesota's history and in the development of the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. The earliest known settlers followed herds of large game to the region during the last Ice Age. They preceded the Anishinaabe, the Sioux, and other Native American inhabitants. Fur traders from France arrived during the 1600s. Europeans, moving west during the 1800s, drove out most of the Native Americans. Fort Snelling, built to protect United States territorial interests, brought early settlers to the area. Early settlers used Saint Anthony Falls for powering sawmills in the area that became Minneapolis, while others settled downriver in the area that became Saint Paul. Minnesota became a part of the United States as the Minnesota Territory in 1849, and became the 32nd U.S. state on May 11, 1858.

Request done. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that photo, but is there a way to capture an angle that gets some of the Mpls downtown skyline as well? I don't get to the riverfront that much anymore so I'm not sure if this is even possible... --Rehcsif (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Minnesota will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 11, 2008.

Friggen awesome. Someone should contact MPR. They have been doing a lot of stuff about minnesota's 150th. -Ravedave (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting: Wikipedia Takes Manhattan

Some Wikipedians in Manhattan had a photography treasure hunt, and uploading party called Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. Sounds interesting. -Ravedave (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to give you guys advice, if you're interested in holding an event like ours.--Pharos (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White Water Country Waterpark

I've been trying to solicit additional opinions on this subject in various places for several weeks, and have had no luck. So I'll try here on the WP Minnesota page:

My feeling is that the White Water Country Waterpark article should be merged into the Valleyfair article. As many of you probably know, the "park" is really just a section of Valleyfair, and unlike most other water parks, you cannot attend it without attending Valleyfair, and there is no additional admission fee for it. I had solicited comments on a merge, and hearing none after a few days, went ahead and merged it. Since the majority of the WWC article was redundant info about Valleyfair itself, the merge simply added one picture and one paragraph to the VF article and retained all content (you can see it in the VF history if you like). Shortly afterward, another user disagreed with the merge, not really stating any reasons why, and reverted it. I have since tried to solicit third-party opinions in several places (including the amusement parks wikiproject) but nobody seems to care enough to comment. It's not a big deal to me -- I just think it's cleaner to merge them. The water park is very small, and there is very little chance of its article getting any bigger/more thorough since there really isn't much to write about it... If others agree to keep the split, that's fine, but so far it seems to be my thoughts against one other user with nobody else giving any opinions... thanks! --Rehcsif (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rehcsif. As a participant in both WikiProject Minnesota and WikiProject Amusement Parks you likely have a good feel for this. I'd say go ahead and redo the merge, it's fine. If I'm reading this right there is another voice of support on the Valleyfair page too. Good luck. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Somehow I missed that 4/16 reply. I'll wait a day or two to see if someone else here has any other thoughts... --Rehcsif (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] University of Minnesota system

Why is University of Minnesota system a top priority or a core article? I'd say it's high, especially considering the U of M is already listed as top. ~ UBeR (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they could be merged? I realize the Twin Cities campus is one of the country's largest but looking at contributions to the Minnesota project over the past couple years, two top priority articles looks overly ambitious and is probably more than will be done. But I'd be happy to be proved wrong. :-) —SusanLesch (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slow-mo experiment reached part 2

I know I haven't been as heavily involved in Minnesota-related articles as last year, but I wanted to share this project I've been trying: I like large construction projects and stadiums, so I was looking forward to taking pictures of the new Twins Ballpark; I hope to take two more: one next May and then one before opening day (or on opening day) 2010. I think the photos, along with the story of its planning and construction, will eventually spin-off into a smaller article on the construction of the Twins Ballpark (when it gets a name). I've taken a good picture of the Gopher Stadium's construction site, but I now wish I had known enough to take a "before" photo, oh well --hindsight is 20/20. --Bobak (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is influential

In recent weeks, I've noticed that Minnesota Public Radio and the Star Tribune have used free photos that have been on Wikipedia. Here's another one today: [2].--Appraiser (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, we should keep track of these. Especially the specific stories. Because I CC-license my photos, I sometimes get people requesting clarification on how to use them. I've actually picked up a few books and magazine (and a CD) that have used my Wikipedia photos --all complimentary. --Bobak (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah they definitely know about wikipedia. I sent them a news item last year about MN being on the front page but they didn't run a story. I did get contacted by one of their blogger some time later though, Sanden Totten, from http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/loophole/ about "wiki and government" and had an interesting interview with him. It didn't end up going anywhere but was pretty interesting. -Ravedave (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

They used one or two of my photos I-35W Mississippi River bridge last August when it collapsed. I don't know if they still have the slideshow up or not, but when they first put it up there, they didn't have my name in the credits. It didn't bug me too much, but they really should have provided the correct attribution. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the discussion. Excellent picture. Kablammo (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit of "insider" information. As the former Photo Editor for a Minneapolis college student-newspaper, I can tell you that we used photos from Wikipedia at least twice during this past year. Correctly sourced of course. This is just part of the "iReporter" trend: major news companies are willing to use the work of non-professionals in their publications/newscasts. Calebrw (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1998 Comfrey - St. Peter tornado outbreak

I'm hoping to get this article to FA quality at some point in the not too distant future. But one area where I could use a little help is in the Aftermath and recovery section. I'm finding it kind of difficult to find a lot of information. Basically what I've done so far is just kind of thrown different facts I've found into this section for now, and then try to fine tune it later after it becomes more complete. If anyone wanted to chip in here I would appreciate that. I'd also like it if anyone want to copyedit it some, or do an unofficial peer review and suggest ways to improve the article. thanks. Gopher backer (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Bejou Township, Minnesota into Bejou Township, Minnesota

Hello,

I ran into 2 articles which I believe to be dubplicates (although there are some small differences)as these are withing the scope of WikiProject Minnesota I decided to leave a message here.

FelisLeo^Talk! 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They aren't the same. Bejou Township is a civil township that coincides with the boundaries of its survey township. Nominally, it's supposed to be 36 square miles, but this one is a little bigger. Bejou, the incorporated city, is a small town within the township. This map from the Minnesota Department of Transportation shows Bejou Township in the northwestern corner of the county, with Bejou occupying three quarter-quarters of Section 23 and one quarter-quarter of Section 26. I think that sort of pattern is common in Minnesota: many survey townships were organized into civil townships, and cities were incorporated within some small portion of the original township. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's why I reported it here as well to have the experts have a look, to me it looked like a duplicate. Cheers! FelisLeo^Talk! 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)