This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
If it's during a month while I'm still around, I'd be happy to participate. We could always start putting together a list of metro-area sights needing pictures; there will be many, especially if we include the high schools in the area. matt91486 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
Agreed to merge. I don't even think that was its original name when I went there as a child. It's always just been "the waterpark" part of VF. .:DavuMaya:.07:08, 20 June 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)
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)
Don't feel bad, I parked in those lots everyday for the past four years, it was hell on earth, just asphalt of death and an aggravating walk to class during the winter and the summer. The real "before" photo is what Memorial Stadium looked like :) .:davumaya:.16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I had the misfortune of parking their once when I had to visit the Daily. It would be neat to have a photo of Memorial Stadium that would compare better against the photo of the McNamara Alumni Center. The open end of the original Brickhouse faced the old gym. --Bobak (talk) 20:04, 7 July 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)
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)
That is indeed a fabulous picture. I couldn't have taken a better one. Too bad Shafer Richardson sold the Ford building (that red brick thing) otherwise I could have asked them to let me take fotos from the upper floors to get better pix. .:DavuMaya:.07:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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! FelisLeoTalk!19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Charlemagne Tower
Good morning! I recently completed a total overhaul of the Charlemagne Tower article here on Wikipedia. The article in it's original form was assessed as Start-Class by WikiProject Minnesota, and I was hoping that someone would be willing to review the article for possible reassessment, and to point out ways that it could be improved. I read the project page and could not find the procedure for submitting an article for reassessment. If I am going about this incorrectly, I do apologize, and if you would be so kind as to point out the proper method I will certainly go with that. Thanks in advance for your time. Bowie60 (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing up Charlemagne Tower. I think our practice has been that anyone (including the author(s)) can decide if an article is a Stub, Start, or B-class without discussion, and just label it accordingly. GA and FA require meeting specific criteria which include a broader audience. Apparently A-class is defunct, since articles typically skip from GA to FA. My recommendations: to work toward GA status, add in-line citations for each paragraph, basically covering all of the facts in the article, fix capitalization in section headers, remove abbreviations, use the "convert" template to display metric measurements, and de-link individual years. If the photograph was published prior to 1923, we don't need the "fair use" language. It would be better to provide details about where it was published. Again, nice work.--Appraiser (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
High school conferences - collaboration request
There was recently an extensive AfD discussion regarding a general mass deletion of high school sports conferences in Ohio. The discussion reached no consensus, but there seems to be some movement towards deletion of high school conference articles that are not expanded beyond an initial list of participating schools, but permitting referenced articles and articles with conference histories and the like. The collaboration that formed after that is here. Obviously, this is Ohio related so not directly significant for WP:Minnesota, but I just thought it would be good to let people know that collaboration on some of the existing Minnesota high school conferences might be a worthwhile investment before the debate extends beyond Ohio so we can avoid some AfDs here. I did some work on the Tri-Metro Conference yesterday, and I've been looking at making some edits with sources to other ones as well. And if people are interested in working on any other conferences, especially metro area ones, I'd be willing and interested to collaborate on any current projects in the next few days. matt91486 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Your chosen emphasis may be of interest to some. Various members here concentrate on such diverse topics as weather, history, pro sports players, roads, biographies, municipalities, schools, politicians, court cases, military, airports, rivers, parks, restaurants, photography, etc. etc... One person's passion is another's boredom. Please don't take the lack of response personally - it's most likely that folks are busy with their primary interests.--Appraiser (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hate to be a thorn, I'm not wild about High school conferences and honestly, beyond the List pages, I don't see how encyclopedic they are especially when students come and go, every year there are "star" athletes and schools close and open frequently. Similarly how significant is any one year over the previous? I am even in doubt of notability altogether. Perhaps the topical page such as "Minnesota HS Conferences" or "HS Conferences in the Midwest" might be notable but each individual conference have its own WP page? Eek. .:DavuMaya:.07:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think the media coverage they receive assures that they meet Wikipedia notability; and with conferences, differences between graduating classes really doesn't matter - they are overriding organizations. I'm going to try to put a notable athletes section for conferences, but those will only be for athletes who went on to play professionally, not the yearly stars of any one school. matt91486 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Help with main page
Would anyone like to nominate this for the main page? If you see an opportunity at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, here is a start for 20 July. A sentence or two should probably be cut.
I know the RNC is a few months away but it would be great to start really churning the page into at least Good Article. What we really need right now is content and text, I'll assure you won't be evilly reverted if you don't source things right away but part of my personal crutch is I don't spend very much time in SP and hardly know any history. Btw the average page count is going up close to 1,000/day and spiked a few times last two months. [3].:DavuMaya:.16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. I don't know that much about Saint Paul (being from Minneapolis), but I'll take a look at the article tonight. Calebrw (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Lot of work done. Still work to be done. Please take some time to review the page and post your comments. Thanks. Calebrw (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable)21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Per request on my talkpage by Finalnight, I went ahead and added the C-class parameter to the Project main template. If nothing is ever classed a "C" class, it will never appear anywhere, but it's in there now as an option if the project decides to rate anything C. Please feel free to remove it from the template if there was a consensus somewhere that WPMN isn't going to class anything as a C class (today is the first I've heard of it for any project). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | what's in a name?14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we certainly have articles that fit the "C" category; it will probably take a while before anyone re-accesses though.--Appraiser (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What we are doing on WP:Schools is just assessing C as we go and then if needed later we reassess Start- and B-class articles. Calebrw (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed a significant cosmetic change to Our Lady of Lourdes
BeforeAfter
So I just got a new camera, the widest-angle lens available for a point-and-snap (mostly for sporting events and panoramic photos), and I decided to test it on some building this past holiday weekend. I'd taken the current snap of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church, but I wanted to see if I could get achieve a photo without the red car in front as well as closer due to the wider lens. I felt there was something amiss with my new photo, that it looked plain for some reason, then I compared the two --it looks like they removed the statue of Mary that was sitting in front of the front windows. Anyone hear anything about this? Sort of curious, especially considering its a historic building. Sorry for posting this here --I just figured it would get more attention than on the talk page of the church. --Bobak (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Current project/summer slodown
Looks like we've hit a slowdown but nonetheless whats up with the current project? Btw I've nominated Cedar Creek... with a DYK.:davumaya:.20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 5201 articles are assigned to this project, of which 420, or 8.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I am looking for a map and wondering if anyone knew it existed already. Commons has so far given me nada. So we have y'know the State map with county highlighted and county map with city highlighted and Minneapolis neighborhood outline, however for some articles I always wanted to do a Twin Cities map and put a locator dot where say a neighborhood or place is in order for people to identify where that place is relative to the entire metro area. So far I've been using Susan's msp map off Census but it's not great. Is there a SVG version out there of one with highways at least? Otherwise, how would I go about creating such. .:davumaya:.12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I can whip something up in Quantum GIS. I have layers for city/township boundaries in the seven-county metro area, trunk highways, lakes and rivers, and some others. If you're interested, I can post a couple examples and we can take a look at them. --Elkman(Elkspeak)13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Awesome! Please do. I have created a PNG version of what I am looking for. I just have no SVG capability is why I'm asking for it. You can adjust the map how you think ti would be best represented, the main points being Infobox usability for most of the metro area. tadah, I used Wikiproject Maps default colors but it doesn't matter as long as its readable.
Yea that would be a fun diagram for various pages. I was also thinking of a zoomed Minneapolis and separate Saint Paul map with some better detail that would replace the neighborhood maps Eoin did. .:davumaya:.18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, some thing like would be nice. The outer rings. I'm going to add your map to MPLS-STPAUL.
A map I did in QGIS
Here's a map of the seven-county that I did in Quantum GIS, which includes county boundaries, city/township boundaries, trunk highways, major lakes (larger than 100 acres), and rivers. I don't know if it's looking a bit too cluttered -- if it is, I can see about making some of the lines narrower or making them somewhat transparent. I'm thinking that the highways are a little too prominent on here. What do you all think? --Elkman(Elkspeak)05:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This version has less color saturation on the highways and the lakes
Actually, I decided I'd work on the highways and lakes and make them a little less colorful, so I did a new version, here. How does this second one work out? --Elkman(Elkspeak)05:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Good work! I'd be inclined to make the highways even less prominent (maybe delete all except Interstates) and make county boundaries heavier.
Curious - in your image summary, it says, "own work". Didn't you start with a government version? And should the U.S. government be attributed too?--Appraiser (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have acknowledged the source of the data used in those maps. Most of that data comes from the Minnesota DNR Data Deli and the MetroGIS DataFinder. The conditions allow for reuse, but I really should have credited them. I'll put in those credits the next time I upload a new version of the map. (I'm tweaking some highways and county boundaries at the moment.) --Elkman(Elkspeak)02:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's another version with even less color saturation on the highways and with the county lines more prominent
I did a little more work on the map, so here's a new version. I made the highways less prominent and removed a few highways within the 494/694 beltline where they provide more visual clutter than actual information. I also made the county boundaries more prominent. How's this one? --Elkman(Elkspeak)03:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I like this third map, it's close! My purpose is for an Infobox map so I have posted this on the Saint Paul, Minnesota page to show what my goal is. Can we size it slightly more horizontal maybe 200 x 150 ratio or whatever would fit nicely into that space. Default width is 180px. I also think the city boundary lines should be brought out a smidge similar to the second map. Also try to alter colors little bit to match teh saturation of the existing maps used in all city articles. Hahaha thats only like a huge list of items for you to do. tusen takk! .:davumaya:.09:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with posting on the Saint Paul article. Now, seeing as how it works well, I think we should move forward with all metro articles. Just my thoughts though. Calebrw (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
That's nice. Thanks Elkman! Are the dashed lines zip codes? In the suburbs, they look like city boundaries. If so, perhaps we could make a version for each suburban city with appropriate shading.--Appraiser (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The dashed lines are city boundaries. Actually, I wanted them to be dotted lines, not dashed lines. QGIS did something strange (or just plain wrong) when I did the export to SVG. --Elkman(Elkspeak)14:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If anyone knows the specifics, including the date when this happened and links to any press coverage, could they add that? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thats the dumbest idea for an article ever since the Craigslist killing. My lord, waste of the project's time. We haven't even gotten to MN sports or companies yet. .:davumaya:.09:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have information about, or photos of, the Stagecoach Museum (Opera House, Sand Burr Gulch, Doc Holliday's Saloon) that used to be in Shakopee, I'd like to see an article started before the place is completely forgotten. However, I have little to go on but vague personal memories. Internet searches have yielded very little. If you can help, please contact me on my Talk page. Thank you. Hurrmic (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Bob Dylan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Minnesota
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Where is the page that they debate this? And does this mean we have a chance to still get on 0.7 or are the improvements for the next CD? davumaya16:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Beautiful. Thanks a ton for doing the googling that I shoulda probly done before posting here. Cheers all, I'll go fix my errors...Keeperǀ7621:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised it took us this long to have an article on him, I'm going to take a stab at a significant expansion based on a few solid articles I found. --Bobak (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Richard Stallman's lecture on Tuesday, October 21 at 175 Wiley Hall at the University of Minnesota is free and open to the public. Thanks to a member of this project who mentioned it at the meetup, I called the University who said anyone can attend. Although I expect he'll speak more about software and patents, Mr. Stallman originated the idea of a free encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is at this time the only one recommended by the Free Software Foundation. I plan to attend, with a friend if he can make it, and hope to see others there. Details and directions. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Adding a picture and sorry it's blurry. The audience was nearly full, predominantly white males of all ages and there were quite a few women there. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a new bot-generated listing of Featured Articles which have various cleanup templates attached. Music of Minnesota and Minneapolis, Minnesota are listed. Once any needed corrections are made and the template is removed the list entry can be deleted, and the bot will no longer pick it up when the list is refreshed again. Kablammo (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
30 articles in Category:Minnesota articles missing geocoordinate data do not have geographic coordinates. Coords are useful for making the article appear on Google Maps & many other mapping services; and they allow our users to click through to see the article subject location on a map. There's a short guide to on how to add geocodes to articles ... it really is very easy to do. I hope you'll take some time to ensure that Minnesota is as well represented as it can be on wikipedia by fixing up the listed articles. thanks --Tagishsimon(talk)00:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Promoted. Rudget. 16:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
