Talk:Minnesota/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What needs to be done to make this article featured? ReverendG 04:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Alot :) It need to meet the criteria at

Wikipedia:What is a featured article? and I would think it needs to be as good or better than the other state pages. I think getting every section to the size of a subpage and then splitting them off and having a summary would be a good next step. It should probably end up with 50+ refeences, anything that is controvercial at all needs a reference. -Ravedave

04:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, once we think the article is ready, we should have the article

peer reviewed before we send the article off for the Featured Article review process. That way, if there are any particular problems that need to be addressed, we can fix them before the FA process. I'm not sure we really need to split everything off into a subpage, though -- if the article is just a number of links to lists, then it won't make FA. On the other hand, there's certainly room to do subarticles that treat sections in more depth. I'm planning to make the History section a good general overview of the state's history, and then after that expand History of Minnesota to include more details and to be more in-depth about things. --Elkman - (Elkspeak)

06:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

definitly agree on the peer review. I just mean that if we can make each section large enough to be split off then we will have enough info for a good section in the MN article. Example: The history section is quite large, and pretty well written and that section has a subpage. -Ravedave 14:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What is needed? First, correct errors. (The proposed North Star commuter line is not light rail; the Iron Range does not include Duluth; and is it really true that rail-borne traffic has declined?) Second, provide more authority (and a search for such citations will reduce the incidence of errors). Third, fill gaps. (A section on Culture which discusses hot dish but fails to mention the Guthrie, Minnesota Orchestra, SPCA, etc. is clearly lacking.) Fourth, provide some analysis, not just lists. Can't a few these lists be relegated to another page? Being new to this game, I'll do some additions (and edits) as time allows but I'm reluctant to delete the work of others. But given the length of the article shouldn't we look to relocate some of the more trivial or highly detailed information (for example, lists of highways)? The history section is good, but is already long even though it ends in 1862.

Kablammo

03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In progress-- Revise Transportation section; sections for water and air transportation to be added, then redundant info on transportation to be removed from rest of article.

Kablammo

17:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work! Don't forget air transit. :) -Ravedave 22:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This section has been revised to put the laundry list of companies into general categories. It however remains a temptation for everyone to add their own favorite company, and several of the better pages for other states do not have such a list. I propose to delete the list of companies (maybe put them in a separate page) but keep a few paragraphs summarizing the states's transition from raw material production to processing and manufacturing, and the more recent growth of service and high-tech industries. That should also shorten the section.

• That sounds realistic. I think the list of companies should at least include everything that's in the Fortune 500 (although Cargill is privately held, so I don't think that's on the list.) Basically, I think the standard should be, "What companies do you think of when you think of Minnesota?" Denny's Fifth Avenue Bakery in Bloomington wouldn't make the list, for example. Looking over the list as-is, it looks like a good representation. Maybe Boston Scientific and St. Jude Medical would also make the list as far as biomedical companies go, but Boston Scientific isn't headquartered in the Twin Cities. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I will restrict mention of named companies to Fortune 500 and private companies of equivalent size headquarted in Minnesota, and delete specific mention of companies which only have branches, plants, etc. in the state. That however would exclude companies established here but now headquarted elsewhere, such as BNSF, Cray, Wells Fargo.

Suggested changes:

-Add an "Arts" section to "culture"; edit and shorten existing text and retitle it as "Popular Culture"

-Make "Education" section a subsection of a broader section dealing with Health, Education, and Social Welfare, or words to that effect, and add the missing subsections. Health should touch on U of M research and Mayo. Social Welfare should deal with social services and perhaps also philanthropy. Relevant statistics could be included or cited in these subsections.

-Somewhere add a section on media?

Are these appropriate? And are there people who can do them?

I think that they are all good ideas. Lets knock those off and then send it to PR for some more ideas. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 04:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to finish the history section (i.e. mention briefly the urbanization in the early 20th century and mention the evolution of the healthcare and computer industries in the 1950s/1960s), and flesh out a few other things. Also, I want to edit it to make it more succinct. I should be able to finish that up by midweek next week. (I pretty much have to; I'll be away from July 27 through August 4 or so.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I started writing a media section, but I think it would just turn into a big list...Also everything would be Minneapolis/Metro centric. Any ideas on how we could get around that?-Ravedave 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't cover it all, so all you can really do is an overview. Cetainly WCCO and the Hubbard empire should be mentioned. Many of the outstate papers are now owned by a few large companies, and of course Clear Channel is dominant in radio. And Minnesota Public Radio cannot be ignored (and has a separate article already). But that's about the extent of my knowledge-- glad you are taking this on.

Kablammo

18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Make "Education" section a subsection"... How about "Social issues" with Education, Health, Crime, and Social Welfare under it? -Ravedave 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree; make it a subsection. I wouldn't use the word "Issues" however. "The Social Milieu"? "The Social Environment"? "Health, Education, and Social Welfare"? Or your list? Matters not to me . . . On other topics-- I'm going to wait for Elkman to do his edit on history before I do another pass at the Economy and Transportation sections. His excellent history touches on some of the things now mentioned there, so I may be able to remove some items (and refrain from adding others) depending on his final edit.

Kablammo

21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How about Socio-economic conditions? stats about personal income and demographics should probably go in the section as well... -Ravedave 23:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm basically finished with the history section at this point. It might be a little more wordy than the rest of the article -- if that's the case, feel free to edit it down. If I've mentioned something in the history section that's repeated elsewhere, especially in regard to economy and transportation, go ahead and remove it from one or the other if necessary. I'm planning to work on History of Minnesota itself after we're done with the main article (and after I get back from vacation), since that article needs work. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to expand the crime section there are some interesting topics to cover. Try googling "Minnesota gangster", "red lake shooting", "meth in minnesota", "police history minnesota", "jesse james minnesota", "Minnesota Department of Public Safety", "glensheen duluth murder", and finally "gangs minnesota". -Ravedave 06:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To be done:

Terain

Needs to be sourced and edited for better flow.

Flora and Fauna

Add description of types of fauna

Protected Lands

merge info on outdoor activities (now in Popular Culture) here?

History

add summarization of MN hist (4-6 paragraphs)

Economy

less 'facty' intro to ease the reader in.

Industry and commerce—rewrite; limit to Fortune 500

Culture

Fine arts and architecture

Add mention of significant authors (Ole Rolvaag, Sinclair Lewis, F. Scott Fitzgerald, etc.); add "letters" to title

Add a few significant buildings

Entertainment

summarize and cut significantly

Popular Culture

move discussion on outdoor activities to Protected Lands?

copyedit and condense

Socio-Economic

Crime and safety

delete refs to metro area

add discussion and statewide stats on crime rate, incarceration rate, trends

Transportation

correct

add sentence on traffic congestion

road funding

Politics

rewrite, reduce

limit discussion of recent elections

Media

add public radio (partially done)

Note WCCO

Agree? Disagree? No pride of authorship-- edit mercilessly (including text above).

Added terrain. Also these are the other state articles that are of Good Article status: Illinois, Kentucky and Michigan. Illinois seems to be the best of them. -Ravedave 02:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

According to

Might I propose that the "Socio-economic" section be renamed to something like "Social services"? Firstly, socio-economic isn't even a noun, it's an adjective. Secondly, the section really has nothing to do with economics.--Daveswagon 04:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Muhahaha my evil plan to have someone else give the section a good name has worked! Have at it :) -Ravedave 04:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer an additional opinion on the matter, if possible.--Daveswagon 13:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous editor recently added Minnesota to the list of Great Plains states because of the information in this article's flora and fauna section. While I realize that southern and western areas of Minnesota have an ecology that is very similar to that of the Great Plains, I've yet to come across anything that places any part of Minnesota in the Great Plains proper. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 20:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Encarta lists it as a Great Planes state.[1]--Daveswagon 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Should the word

Kablammo

23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Western Minnesota had

USGS site long enough and you'll find plenty of references to western Minnesota being a part of the Great Plains

. Or just Google "Northern Great Plains" with "Minnesota" and see how many hits you get.

This discussion only proves the point that the state is a transition zone. And by their nature transition zones will have features of the zones on either side (in this case, tall and midgrass prairie giving way to the features of the Great Plains).

Kablammo

12:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to have a copy of the official state photo on this site; you can see it here: [2]. Since it is the official state photo, I'd think there'd be a fair-use copyright, but I don't know. —The preceding

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per
  WP:CONTEXT
  .
• Per
  context
  for the article. - cant find any
• Per
  WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.^[1]
• Per
  WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.^[2]
• Per
  WP:MOSNUM
  , when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb. cant find any
• Per
  WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006
  , but do not link January 2006. cant find any
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at
  WP:GTL
  .
• Please alphabetize the
  interlanguage links.^[3]
  AWB has already sorted them
• Per
  WP:SS.^[4]
  its a long article
• This article may need to undergo
  summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States
  , such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few occurrences of
  WP:AWT
  . Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper
    citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[5]
    fixed
• Watch for
  redundancy exercises
  .)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 30 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
• As done in
  WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS
  , but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of
  User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. ^[6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 03:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to Ravedave, Elkman, Kablammo, and others for recent edits. I think the article is shaping up nicely. Appraiser 01:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you too. Heres hoping we can make FA before my daughter is born and I no longer have any time :) - Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This got long so I Archived, see: Climate of Minnesota - Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 21:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if someone can explain how this (template?) function works. It seems to function as a simple link, but I am wondering what the advantage is to use {{mnclink|Rochester}} versus just using

• It's a simple template that links to the article "City, Minnesota" but just prints the city name for the link. For example, {{mnclink|Credit River Township, Minnesota}} links to the article
  Credit River Township, Minnesota but prints the link text as "Credit River Township". You can build a similar one by viewing the source of the {{tl|mnclink}} template and copying it to a new {{tl|msclink}} template. --Elkman - (Elkspeak)
  06:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the template a load on the server? would subst'ing it make sense? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 21:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is whats goin through my head right now. 1. I re-wrote the Protected lands section. Someone should probably look it over. 2) I created Economy of Minnesota in preperation for adding content there and removing from this article. 3) Colorado has lots of sub articles, interesting to look at. 4) When shoudl we go for FA? I think I want another week to work on the article.

Thoughts? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Basilica picture ought to be replaced with one in the public domain, since it would be easy to do so. Next time I'm over there in daylight hours I'll take one, but I'm not sure when that will be. On my screen the cited references section has text from column one overwriting text in column two. Although, it would lengthen the article, I think the section should be switched to one column. I made a couple minor changes to Protected Lands. Otherwise that looks good. Appraiser 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

cool thanks. Which browser/OS? We should try and get the developers to fix the problem with layout. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 21:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I'm using XP Home with Firefox 2.0 and a 1280 X 768 screen resolution.

Problem went away (shrug) Appraiser 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1. There's a missing ^{[citation needed]} in the Flora and Fauna section.

No longer. I linked to the DNR index page, with a map of biomes. It characterizes the southwestern biome as "Prairie Grassland"; which avoids the Great Plains issue discussed earlier. I did not change the text however; if anyone wishes to, feel free. Incidentally, another source for the information would be the Heinselman book (cited in the next foonote) which contains a map characterizing the area as principally "upland prairie".

Kablammo

03:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1. There are 48 instances on duplicated Wikilinks. Normally, I think the guidelines say to delete all but the first. I'll do that if you think it's a good idea. Appraiser 22:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrm thats the browser I have, and it looks fine. Screenshot? I added the fact template there because biomes don't seem to be well defined and vary from source to source. Also the source I did find with the great plains showed it ending in the middle of N/S Dakota so I just sort of gave up and fact'd it. I think I may run to the library tonight though. I made a shot at duplicated wikilinks a while back. I think that this article is lengthy enough to suport some duplication. I think hitting the ones that are linked like 5 times is a good place to start. "Superior" was really bad when I cleaned up, it was linked like 8 times. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the article would also benefit from a separate article on Demographics of Minnesota, moving the tables there, and editing the present text. The age pyramid table is too small (but it does fit well here), and the demographics table is too confusing for a general article. I can do the editing here-- would anyone like to start another page on demographics?

I created Demographics of Minnesota. Have at the minnesota page. I will get around to straighting up the subpage after MN gets to FA. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Should terrain be renamed to Geography? The

I'm cool with that. Appraiser 19:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also what about changing

Geological history of Minnesota to Geology of Minnesota? Usually when something is titled Geology it includes how everything was formed. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby}

) 04:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. (I see quite a few articles link to

Geological history of Minnesota and should be changed.) Sorry for my error yesterday. Appraiser

13:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No biggie. I'll use

WP:AWB tonight to fix the articles linking to the history. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby}

) 15:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed all the links. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 00:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Should major festivals be added under culture? I am thinking

How about the Mill City Music Fest? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 00:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think

St. Paul or Minneapolis. I don't know about Mill city music fest, but the 10,000 lakes music festival [3]

in Detroit Lakes is big.

I was also thinking about expanding tribal government and reservations. They're barely mentioned, and I don't think it should just be a white man's history of the state. (I'm thinking about doing this after submitting for FA.) Appraiser 05:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Iowa may have us beat per capita. I started filling in attendances at State fair this summer, it needs to be finished yet. Do you think you can work something on the Minnesota State Fair into the culture section in the next day or two? I would like to nominate for FA on 11/27/07. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since are working twards FA nom, here are the section and If I think they are ready to be nominated for FA. Remember FA nom doesn't mean the article is perfect, just that it is featured quality. I plan on continuing on the article even after it is FA. marking which section you think are ready below will help figure out where we need to focus. Don't add lists of things to be done, that is bound to get too big :). -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• R = Ravedave thinks its ready for FA
• A = Appraiser thinks it's ready for FA (see notes below)
• K = Kablammo believes these sections are finished-- unmarked sections still could use a little work
• AA - Atomaton: Looks good.

 References not fixed for correct format yet.

All the "Retrieved" dates are of this format: November 26, 2006 and all of the "accessed" are of this format: 2006-11-26. I propose that we change the "accessed" ones to match the former. Appraiser 17:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Correct reference style is 2006-11-26 in both accessed and retrieved. which formats according to preferences. My comment about references is that thare are still numerous incorrect references of the style <ref>[http://theURL.com This is the URL]]</ref> rather than the correct style <ref>{{cite web | title = This is the URL | date = 2006-11-26 | url = http://theURL.com | accessdate = 2006-11-26 }}</ref> (See

One of each example from the actual Minnesota article: ^{[7] [8]}

I finished updating all of the references. I will go back and double check, as well as look for redundandy that could be combined. Atom 23:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose changing all of them to be the same. Appraiser 20:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Add your name here

• Intro - R, A, AA
• 1 Origin of the name - R, A, K, AA
• 2 Geography R, A, K, AA
• 3 History - R, A, AA
• 4 Cities and towns - R, A, K, AA
• 5 Demographics - R, A, AA
• 6 Economy R, A, K, AA
• 7 Culture - R, A, K, AA
• 8 Socio-economic - R, A, AA
• 9 Transportation - R, A, K, AA
• 10 Law and government - R, A, K, AA
• 11 Politics - R, A, AA
• 12 Media - R, A, K, AA
• 13 Sports - R, A, K, AA
• 14 State symbols - R, A, K, AA
• 15 See also - R, A, K, AA
• 16 References - R, A, K, AA
• 17 External links - R, A, K, AA

A - notes: Economy and Culture each have one ^{[citation needed]}. Under culture I think a significant amount of the music section should be moved to Music in Minnesota. It currently monopolizes a disproportionate amount of page space. I'll work on that next if someone else doesn't get to it first. Appraiser 03:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A - Update: I'm quite happy with the article as is and would be in favor of requesting a peer review soon, with these caveats: Is

Kablammo still planning to add something about authors? I'd really like to replace the 1^st Ave. picture with an interior of Orchestra Hall (Minneapolis), but I don't know of an image that is public domain. Does anyone know of one? Other than Culture I think the sections are complete, concise, and ready for review. Appraiser

07:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of your suggestions. Would the architecture paragraph be more suited to Minneapolis though? In politics, I was thinking about deleting the 3 sentences beginning, "Minnesota and the District...", but I'm reluctant to delete someone else's contributions. Perhaps we should start an article Minnesota Politics into which we could move some of it. Appraiser 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree archetecture is a city thing not a state thing. I would love it if you would paragraph-ize the demog section kablammo, I was going to ask you to do that infact. Kablammo, what do you mean by letters? I am totally in the dark as to what you are talking about. I also agree on creating

Politics_by_country), you want to handle that Appraiser/Kablammo? (I modeled it after Politics of Oklahoma which I thought was well-done. Appraiser 07:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)) I plan on running the auto peer review again and hitting anything that suggests tonight. Just general cleanup & prose work over the whole article. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby}

) 19:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For architecture, I have been adding name of significant architects to some of the buildings-- we may be able to leave it at that. If they fit, a picture of the interior of the new Guthrie and the Sullivan bank in Owatonna would round that part out. Letters = famous authors. I'll take a crack at that. (Two sentences may be enough.) I'll rework the religion section.

Kablammo

22:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there is a category all ready for the politics article: Category:Politics_of_Minnesota. Also I added a list of "famous minnesotans" on Talk:List_of_people_from_Minnesota from a book. Maybe we should try and get them into their respective sections. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding letters, were you proposing to cover notable literature about Minnesota (Main Street, Little House, Lake Wobegon, etc.) or Minnesota writers in general, or both? Either way, I'd be willing to help. Jonathunder 23:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All of the above, but just a sampling. Representative MN writers write about pioneer experience (Little House, Giants in the Earth); small-town life brutally satirized by Lewis in Main Street and more gently and affectionately poked fun at by Garrison Keillor; and big-city society by F. Scott Fitzgerald. I think they are the major ones. No mention of poetry but I'm not sure any MN poets have same stature as above names. If you'd like to take a crack at it, go ahead.

Kablammo

15:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section now. Someone more familiar with F. Scott Fitzgerald may want to check the sentence on him. His novels and most of his works were set elsewhere but the settings of at least two of his short stories were recognizably in or near St. Paul.

Kablammo

02:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions and suggestions:

• Edit Race and Ancestry to go with list or text, but not both
• Edit taxation section to reduce detail on metro sales taxes, and add sentence on school funding and referenda
• A commenter on the FA nomination thinks Symbols should be in a template rather than a list.
• I would be happy to take a crack at a conclusion-- most of these articles simple dwindle away in trivia.

Any comments?

There was a recent change to religion stats. The census bureau does not keep stats of religious affiliation and many of the sources which exist are based on self-reporting by the denominations, and vary widely. We had this discussion some time ago[4] and decided to go with the stats from the 2001 (not the 1990) scientific survey by CUNY.[5], Exhibit 15. Therefore I plan on changing it back to that prior version. Any comments?

Which source are you using? I looked at the two in the article (currently 36 and 37) and couldn't find numbers that matched the 2001 stats. Whichever source we use, we should be consistent for all the numbers in this section, and probably eliminate one of the citations, to be clear where the numbers came from. Appraiser 15:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh - I see it now - we were using exhibit 15? Appraiser 15:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ex 15 is the one that was used. We probably should make that clear in the cite to the American Religion Identification Survey, eliminate the other cite, which is just a "survey of surveys" and has only the 1990 data. We could revert to the prior version, or change the current language to the 2001 survey.

I re-did it using Exhibit 15. Double-check my numbers and see if you agree. Appraiser 16:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am working through the references slowly, moving them into the proper format (See

Atom 15:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me, but you're right, it should be consistent throughout the article. I see that there are several choices for the wikilink to Minor League Baseball:

Minor league baseball. Which is most appropriate? Appraiser

15:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The November 25, 2006 type is automatically formatted by media wiki and that is why it is used. See preferences to try it out. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 16:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's cool. Good to know. Atom 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota is not the healthiest state in 2006 according to every google hit it's third, or third, with Vermont in first.--Loodog 16:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The intro makes no claim has been made that it is. However one resource cited in the text does rank Minnesota first:[6] The rankings depend on what is being measured. The intro and text are accurate.

Kablammo

16:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that my baby is going to come early (< 2 weeks), so is it OK if I go forward with FA nomination today? I have created the subpage but not posted to the FAC page yet. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Minnesota -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 22:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Should the article be peer-reviewed before submitting for FA, or would that just introduce a lot of turmoil and delay the process by months? Appraiser 05:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It already was peer reviewed recently, I'm not sure another PR would provide much, see template at the top. I went ahead and submitted this article. Fingers crossed! -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 06:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the sports summarized for U of M sports, and the movement of the hockey stuff into the middle of that section. However, I like the list format much better. I felt that it read like a run-on sentence and the seperation into the four sports read much cleaner. I'm not sure why you'd think that bullets are bad, but the section cries out for it. Anyway, thats my opinion. Atom 17:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy with leaving sports as minimal as possible, but if we are going to have some level of detail, leaving out the professional sports detail and putting more collegiate sports detail would be better. Who cares about pro athletes that aren't even from Minnesota? Most college athletes in Minnesota schools are from Minnesota Atom 18:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists are almost always seen as a bad thing at

WP:FAC from what I have seen. I think it works fine as a paragraph, if you disagree please make the paragraph flow better rather than make it a list. Far more people watch and follow professional sports rather than college sports. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby}

) 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as sports, who cares if more people follow professional sports? What does that have to do with Minnesota? Minnesotans participate in Collegiate sports, professional athletes from other places, owned by people from other places coached by people from other places make money from Minnesotans to pay themselves salaries that far exceed the average Minnesotan. The article is about Minnesota, and the only reason sports should be there at all is that some Minnesotans participate in sports. Those are the sports that should be indicated. Atom 16:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we could lose the references to the Lakers and North Stars/Stars as those are dated. (They can be mentioned in the specialized article.) I think pro sports have a place if only because people patronize them and view the presence of pro sports teams, rightly or wrongly, as a measure of whether a city or state are (literally and figuratively) "big league".

Kablammo

18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree that pro sports are important. It doesn't matter whether the players are Minnesotans or not. Most Gophers aren't Minnesotans either - they are recruited from high schools nationwide. But both the pro and college teams represent the state to the sports community. There's no reason to give them short shrift. Big League sports say "this is a major city" or "a major Univeristy" (or state in our case).
2. We could lose the Lakers and the North Stars though.
3. I DID like the bullet format that Atom tried, although I don't have any idea what the FAC would think about it. I'll defer to others on the subject.

Appraiser 19:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't suggesting that we remove all references to pro sports or anything. My point is that pro sports is unimportant. The things that we are writing in the article have to do with the substance and quality of MN, and not superficiality. Pro sports are superficial, and have nothing to do with the quality of our state. I agree that there are people who view a pro team as a sign of success. I'm more interested in facts, not fiction or appearance. We have plenty of real things to be proud of in Minnesota, pro sports leaches from our success, it doesn't add to it. If this is intended to be a PR piece and impress people with how grand we are, I think you others are right that some people will think that pro sports are notable. As such, mentioning that we have pro sports ought to be part of the article, it's just that I'd rather see real accomplishment by real Minnesotans take priority over a billon dollar business that takes from us and doesn't give anything more than glamour. Atom 20:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As for lists, our article already has some lists (where appropriate) and I have read numerous FA's that have lists. It is part of the Wikpedia MOS, so I am not sure what the aversion is, other than personal preference. The MOS says "Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs." but does support using them when appropriate. Do we have a reference for where FA are not supposed to have lists? Atom 20:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The article now says, "The University of Minnesota (U of M) Minneapolis competes entirely in

I suggest mentioning major pro sports teams and their leagues as at present, but eliminating the history items (when and how formed or when moved here). With the space thereby freed, mention the other pro teams (women's teams are not mentioned now; that won't last long) and the two marathons; possibly mention the Blaine center as well.

Also, retitle the section "Sports and Recreation", and move the "Outdoor Recreation" part here. Add here the reference, now in health, to the % of residents engaging in regular physical activity. While the "Outdoor Recreation" section fits well where it is now, by moving it we may reduce to some extent undue emphasis on professional sports, and place participatory sports and recreation in the same section with pro sports.

I will be happy to make these changes if you folks agree with either or both.

Kablammo

12:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you suggested except paring down the pro sports section. I think the 4 major league pro sports teams deserve the ~10 sentences they now have. Adding the participatory and women's sports will add balance. I suggest making the additions, re-titling, and moves into the section. Also, add sub-sections (===) to break it up. Then we can see if the overall size is appropriate for sports and recreation. Appraiser 13:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the layout, and I can see moving the sports into the culture:outdoor recreation section to make it a Recreation and Sports, or similar. (I wouldn;t move the outdoor recreation out of the culture secrion). As far as pro sports prominence, I am happy to deal with whatever others feel comfortable with, but if it were my article, I would mention the names of the pro sports teams (including women's) but any detail of any kind if another article (Sports in Minnesota, or similar). Some reference to winter sports, including cross country skiing and ice skating might be nice. Atom 15:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I checked and I see sources that say groundhogs and gophers are the same, and others that say they are different. I suspect that they are different. We need to get a picture of a Gopher, rather than a groundhog. Atom 17:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say something to that effect; then I found this [7]. Our picture looks sort of like these drawings. Maybe it IS a gopher. Appraiser 18:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the only one I've found so far.

This is defnintly a groundhog/woodcchuck Groundhog, the term "gopher" cover a wide variety of animals. You could probably call squirrels gophers, but since squirrel is more specific most people use that. Same applies here. I am pretty sure this is what the state was named after: Thirteen-lined_ground_squirrel -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)