Talk:Minnesota/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Stuff to add[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FA nom[edit]

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? Kablammo 13:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

I've added one non-metro picture. I think we should strive for pictures which serve multiple purposes, hence the addition of architects' names to the captions. It would be nice to have a few more scenic pictures.

My thoughts on further changes:

-A good photo of Duluth's Aerial Lift bridge would be nice. It is an iconic structure, bringing together both road and water transport. Add it to transportation section at the top, with the Hiawatha train below it (maybe offset to the opposite side). Unfortunately the existing pics of the lift bridge are not ideal.
-I'm personally not enamored of the picture of the quarter.
-We've lost the one winter picture (train in a drift, which was a little outdated). Is there another one which might suit? A sled-dog team, perhaps?
-Farming (rolling-fields type) in geography section or logging picture in history?
-Lake Superior picture? Maybe something like[1] which I suspect is taken from Palisades Head.

On pictures, opinions may vary. Weigh in with your views. Kablammo 15:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the state you from Kablammo? Appraiser and I are both suburbanites, so we probably have an ingrained cities bias. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 16:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the bank picture. Have you looked in Category:Images of Minnesota? Every time I see a picture where the summary says it's in Minnesota, I add it to the category. It's getting to be a nice collection. The quarter is repeated in the econimy article - it could be replaced here. The train pic is in the climate article; there's also a snowy urban picture there that could be snagged. How about:

Appraiser 16:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I live or have lived in NE, S, central, and Metro. I added some pics and edited some captions for format. If there are better ones, have at it. I really like the mill picture above-- add to history? Kablammo 18:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German POWs[edit]

I am not sure where this could fit.

6,000 Prisoners Of War Came to Minnesota in 1944-45 "Escapes and escape attempts were almost unheard of among the 6,000 prisoners of war sent to Minnesota. ", "In all, the prisoners of war — called PWs and not POWs during World War II — worked at 21 branch camps located throughout the state.", "Generally, Simmons said, the prisoners got along well with the local people, and the men often went to work each day with no guards present.", "Other prisoners would spend their free time fishing, and it was discussed for a time whether they needed to buy fishing licenses. "Only in Minnesota could you have a debate about whether prisoners of war should have to buy fishing licenses."

It has been my impression that many German POWs decided to stay in the U.S., or returned to the U.S. after repatriation. I can't find a reference to that. Also, I had thought that this added signidicantly to the German population, but in review I am not sure that a few thousand german POW's would put much of a dent in the previous German immigrant population.


Atom 15:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could add it to Demographics of Minnesota, I am not sure it would fit in this article. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 16:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I put it here. It is historically interesting, but we don't need at add any more weight to the article at this point. Maybe a future sub-article, or after FA. Atom 18:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Here is the link: Proposed sports revision Atom 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

? There isn't anything there? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is now, at WIP Sports section. This is my proposal for a rewrite (I deleted the picture in the draft but it would stay in the main article). Still need to add the other major league teams. The draft may not give as much detail as Appraiser suggests, but more than Atom may like. Therefore I thought it a reasonable compromise! Again, no pride of authorship. Kablammo 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?? Never! Cut pro sports entirely... Just kidding. It looks pretty good. I will take a longer look later. I think I would make it [[common loon|loon]] Atom 21:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can learn to like this. I suggest "Major League Baseball's Minnesota Twins, Minnesota Twins of the American League," for consistency. Also - no women's pro sports to add? My girlfriends might be miffed if I sign off on this without mentioning them. Appraiser 21:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. (Maybe you can enlist her/them to do it-- or would that lead to revert wars between you?) Kablammo 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've met his girlfriend. I can't begin to tell you how complex that might make things. Atom 22:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there more? Atom 23:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the first two. I don't think we need to add all pro and semi-pro teams; in some sports there is no sharp distinction.

Once RaveDave weighs in I will shovel the draft text into the main article, either by:

(a) putting it where existing sports section is; or
(b) putting it in Culture section, and retitle that section "Culture and Recreation" or something to that effect.

I had originally thought to do (a); and the Loon mention at the end would bridge nicely to the next Symbols section(loon/mosquito ref since deleted; I suggest we add it to fauna section with other critters). If we did (b) as Atom-man suggests, I probably would invert the order of the next two sections, putting Health first and Education second, to make a transition between recreation and health. Either works for me. Kablammo 23:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a "sports and recreation" section; pull recreation out of the "culture" section. So (a) is my preference. Appraiser 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like option (a) better because recreation is currently within the culture section, and I think both recreaction and sports belong under culture, rather than as seperated. Atom 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atom, given your comment and edit history I think you meant option (b).

I have now posted both options at WIP Sports section. You will note slighty different reworks of the recreation section in both, and in the second (option b) a reordering and edit of the following section for a transition. Kablammo 03:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I like option A better. Culture and recreation really don't go together. I think the recreation part was thrown into the pop culture section because it had nowhere else to go. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now integrated Option A into the article. See how it looks and reads.Kablammo 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional photos[edit]

I'd like to see photos in Media (on the right) and in the health section (on the right). Atom 18:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the U of M bldg. picture and the Xcel rink picture? I'm OK with moving those to the right. Appraiser 18:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was checking out the article for whitespace, spacing, photographs, etc., and it is pretty darned good. The only (minor) thing I thought would be additional photos, as the health section has none (Education has the U of M bldg), and Media has none (the next section has the Xcel energy center.) Atom 18:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get any newspapers, but I might buy one and take a photo of the front page for that section. I wish we could use MPRs logo cause it looks cool, but we should avoid fair-use when possible. What do you guys think about the girls photo for the state fair? I was thinking the bandstand photo might be better. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 19:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could put in the MPR logo, and there are several good pictures on Mayo Clinic, although that section doesn't have enough text to fit another thumbnail nicely, I think. I like the girl - but I'm biased - I took the picture. I also liked the fact that it sort of does double-duty - state fair and music. Appraiser 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get rid of the welcome sign pic? I am not sure it really adds to the article. Thoughts? The one thing I think this article is really missing is one *great* picture, one that could be used when the article is on the front page. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 20:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the welcome to Minnesota sign. I watch for it every time I come back a client in Wisconsin. Let's leave it until we have something better.

Mayo looks good. It would be better to have a building, but, Mato is so large and spread out through so many buildings. I threw KSTP in, since it is the first station in MN. Feel free to replace it if you find something better. But, better would be MPR. I should drive by and take a photo of their studios. Atom 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once we all think it is done, let's archive the talk page to leave it clean for the FA. Atom 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The welcome sign is OK. If it stays there, will that necessarily be the main page photo? If so, let's change it or move it. I like these 6 for mainpage/FA suck-you-in photos. (Two are mine. The other 3 are not.)
Update:I see the Stegosaurus main page picture is a couple of pages into the article. Maybe they could use the Lake Superior bluffs picture we have. Appraiser 21:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(As far as I'm concerned, archive the talk page anytime now.) Appraiser 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a main featured article photo, the Minnesota state parks have some really striking, iconic images. Perhaps one of Lake Itasca, in our oldest park? Or Fort Snelling, one of the oldest buildings? Jonathunder 20:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Lake Itasca pic, except it's dark, gloomy, and overcast. A shot from the same spot on a nice day would be good. I wouldn't be as happy representing the state with a military icon, especially since the purpose of it's existence was to subdue the Native Americans - IMO a shameful aspect of our history. Appraiser 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any Featured pics of Minnesota either. It usually takes several months to get onto the front page so we have lots of time to think about it and get out there and take photos. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 22:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the original purpose of Fort Snelling was to subdue the Native Americans -- it was mainly built in the early 1820s to mediate conflicts between fur traders, the Ojibwe, and the Dakota Indians, and to protect United States territorial interests at the time. It wasn't until 1851 that the Treaty of Mendota and Treaty of Traverse des Sioux were signed. The failure of the U.S. government to live up to its promises (and the ripoff of the "trader's papers" in the first place) precipitated hard feelings leading to the Sioux Uprising. Between the treaties and the U.S. response to the Sioux Uprising, that's the period I look upon as being shameful. But I'm going off on a tangent. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on an article for Pike Island, and the Indian Interment camp. (still in research phase) Maybe later we can link to it. Atom 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? Like with the portals, we can rotate that picture form time to time. We can use these, plus the "Welcome to Minnesota", and add a few and rotate to the next in the queue every few weeks to a month. I like the Third Ave bridge for the FA review. Atom 21:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a picture one time of Cedar lake in the foreground, and Minneapolis skyline in the background, in the Fall season. That would make a good picture. I'm not sure if I can find it though. Atom 21:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balance of images[edit]

A comment over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Minnesota suggest the article has too many pictures. This is always a hard one to tackle because some people like tons of pics and others not so many. What do you guys think? We should probably list out all pics in a gallery and then weed out the ones that really don't help convey anything in the article.-19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The summertime image of the U of M is at too small a scale to do much. The big picture of Lake Sag may seem moody to some, but I think there could be a better one ( and I'm working on the rights for a canoeing picture now). The Mayo pic is just of a sign-- a very nice sign, but still a sign. As for transportation, I think they are both good pictures. Maybe we could stack them both on the right margin. Kablammo 19:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference is quite a few pictures, alternating left and right, pretty much like it is. I know the layout changes depending on one's screen resolution, so, you'all might try changing yours' to see how it looks to different viewers. As for size, my inclination is to make the thumbs small - too small to really see detail. Then the readers can choose to click to enlarge, depending on their interest and connection speed. I don't like the graininess of the BWCA canoe picture, and as I said before, I'd rather see the inside of orchestra hall then the outside of 1st Avenue. Just my $.04. Appraiser 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the pictures, in general, should give context to the article and show what's unique about Minnesota. With that in mind, I'm not crazy about the first picture in the Geography section (from the National Atlas), though I can see the point of having an overview map. I'm not sure how the summertime picture (the Washington Avenue Bridge) really illustrates summer, either. As far as the "Cities and Towns" section goes, the National Farmer's Bank of Owatonna picture is nice (and I'm always partial to National Historic Landmarks), but would a picture of the Minneapolis or St. Paul skyline be more illustrative of a Minnesota city? Also, in the "Economy" section, maybe a picture of the Washburn "A" Mill would do better to illustrate the foundations of Minnesota's economy. The girl playing the fiddle at the Minnesota State Fair could be at any state fair -- it doesn't point out anything unique about Minnesota. I'm not 100% committed to the idea of making all these changes, but I'll throw the ideas out there for discussion. In general, I like the layout of the pictures and the number of pictures in the article. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my comments above, I agree on First Avenue. I like the Sullivan bank because it also has an architectural element, and we have no text devoted to buildings. Are there any summer afternoon pictures looking over Lake Calhoun to the Minneapolis skyline? That would illustrate both summer and a skyline.Kablammo 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the contrast between the old mill and the skyscraper in Economy. I also like the bank picture, but I agree, one of the city skylines would represent cities better; and a skyline picture across Lake Calhoun would be perfect (any season). Appraiser 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image template has recently had the size part deprecated, because thumb sizes can be set in preferences now. So I think all pics should be at default size. More people go to 1st ave, and its influence is wider. The BW picture could probably go, the size and grainyness hurt it.. I don't think the girl adds much to the article (sorry appraiser). I personally find the farmer bank ugly and I don't understand the hubub about it. A twincities skyline pic would be great and I might be able to get one if the weather clears up a bit. For the sake of keeping the article somewhat stable for review I say we just remove the BWCA pic as it is the only one that "stacks" when the window is sized small. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What screen resolution are you using? I plan to reset my screen to various sizes to preview the article for each potential viewer. Appraiser 16:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried all of the options, and looks great all the way up too 200px, 300px is not bad. The solution is to resize the images that bleed, not to remove them. The farmers bank is visually interestimg to me, and seems architecturally interesting too. Pretty much all of the images are great, and give insight into MN. Atom 17:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the image of the girl playing the violin at the fair back. First because I like it, as it gives a flavor of our culture. Secondly, from a layout pespective, that section cries out for an image.

I am going to re-size the image so that it is appropriately sized for "thumb". I already did that for KSTP image. Once we have a better image for popular culture, or for Minnesota State Fair, we could replace the image of the girl at that time.

Atom 16:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The girl image still bleeds at 200px user preferences and above. Do you think I should resize to smaller? Atom 16:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think it looks fine at 200px, but still some bleed on several images at 300px. But, even then it looks pretty good, not that noticeable. I believe the default is 180px, and it looks great there. Atom 17:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about what the re-sizing is doing. I'm my "Preferences" I have thumbs set to 180px, which I believe is the width on the main article page. The height is proportional according to the original. I believe re-sizing the original does nothing to change the appearance unless the viewer wants to see the full-sized image and clicks on it. For that reason, I think the originals should be left at full size and resolution. The appearance of the pictures in relation to the text does change though, depending on the user's screen resolution. For example, mine is currently set to 1400 X 1050 and the girl's picture extends down into the health section. That's why I had slid it up earlier. Perhaps on a smaller screen it looks funny to be that high. I'd like each person reading this to tell me his/her screen resolution and "preferred" thumbnail size, so I can change mine to see what you're seeing. Thanks. Appraiser 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working at 1280x960. Rather than resizing the original, though, it's easier to prevent picture bleed into the next section by using the HTML element <br clear="right"/> or <br clear="both"/> at the end of the section. That forces a break between any pictures in the previous section and the next section. I added a couple of those tags, and I'm no longer seeing bleeding pictures. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my take on it. You can set the image to be displayed as absolute, or as relative in size. If you say [[image:BabetheBlueOx|200px|right]] it puts the image at that set size, and no matter what the user has in their preferences, that's the size it is, absolute. If you say [[image:BabetheBlueOx|thumb|right]] then it is relative sized and takes the size that the user sets in their preferences|files|thumbnail size. The default (I think) is 180px, but can be set by a user to 120px|150px|180px|200px|250px|300px. The standard for articles (although only loosely followed) is that images should be "thumb" so that the user can control it according to their needs. The default is pretty important though, because 90% of users(or more), especially anonymous users, do not know how, or do not change the defaults.

The problem, of course, is that different images are saved by a variety of people at a variety of sizes, and two given images displayed at "thumb" can be completely different in size. A photo downloaded by one photographer of Mickey Mouse can be one size, and the photo of Minnie Mouse downloaded by a different photographer could be half that size, both displayed at "thumb". How can the editor make them both fit in the article? Either set the px size individually so that they look the same size, which means the user preferences don't work, or resize one of the images so that it matches, display them at thumb, and then they are the same (or similar enough) while allowing user prefs.

Because an image may be used in a number of articles, it is important to find an appropriate size that will "thumb" well in all of the articles, and is not re-sized for a specific article.

If anyone has a better understanding, please let me know. Atom 18:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the size of the original photograph is. The thumbnail size is either specified in the article, or if unspecified, it is the size set by the User's preferences. The thumb size is unrelated to the original size (possible exception: perhaps a thumb cannot be larger than the original). Check out my experiment here (below the sports discussion): Talk:Minnesota/Sandbox. All thumbs are the same width, whether specified to be the same, or using your default setting, even though there is a wide variety of sizes of originals. Appraiser 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the best reference I have found: [[2]]

Default Thumb is 180px. Atom 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appraiser, now that you reverted to the first girl image, it takes up alot more space. I made another test in the sandbox, and the thumbnail is sized depending on the size of the image. Atom 02:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The conclusion I draw is that it is possible to defeat the purposes of a thumbnail by reducing the original size below the size the thumbnail subroutine would create. The purpose of thumbnails is to allow the user to glimpse an image without using too much bandwidth or screen space. In the case of Wikipedia, depending on the connection speed and accessibility issues, the user can set the thumbnail size to his preference. In any case, a user can then click on the thumbnail to view the full-sized image, date, source, licenses, etc. For the Minnesota article, I suggest that we use only pictures that are larger than the default thumbnail size, so that the widths of all thumbnails on the page are uniform. I also believe in leaving the originals at full size, so that the interested reader has the ability to capture all of the resolution and size that is available for an image, if desired. Appraiser 15:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I didn't mean to step on your toes by reducing the size of your image. That is, as I said earlier, the standard way to fix the problem. I agree with you on the points you've made (image should be "thumb" so user can choose. We want our images to be roughly the same size. An image often needs to be resized though in order to get it balanced with other pictures. I did this in this article with the Cathedral, the KSTP picture, and the Girl playing the Violin. Now, after the revert to the original image, the girl is large in proportion than other images, and not in balance with other photos nearbye. When it comes to Wikipedia, I try to find a balance between being fairly BOLD, and respecting others.
When resizing a photo, the primary key is that it is balanced for use as thumb in all articles, not just one article. Also, so that, as you say, a user can click on the thumb and see the original image. But to do this well, the original image needs to be stored in a size that can ideally all fit on one screen using default parameters. Some images I have resized are HUGE, and take more than a megabyte to store, and when displayed naturally, you can only see the upper left corner of the image. (This happens when a photographer uses a digital camera set at highest resolution, and doesn't edit, crop and resize the image before transferring to Wikipedia.) So, when resizing, you want to reduce it so that the whole image displays well on the average 17" monitor that has 1024x768. And also so that it shows well when trapped within a "thumb". One more aspect of the photographic art extended into Wikipedia. Also, many of these images are stored on Wikipedia, but images should be saved, and used from the Commons ([3] site.
I don't mind that you re-sized it, but my point is that there is no reason to so. I just modified a set of flag pictures in the sandbox to specify a thumb at 100px. The originals are still of various large sizes, and the thumbs are now quite small. On my screen, with my default set to 180px, all the photograph thumbs in Minnesota are all the same width. The heights vary in the same proportion as the originals (The IDS is the tallest, and therefore largest). When I change it to 300px, they are all they same size except for the Cathedral and KSTP, which you modified. I think they should all be reverted to original size, so that the thumbnails are the same width, regardless of the user's preference setting. If we wanted some of the pictures to be narrower than others, we could set those thumbs to 100px, but I don't think that would look very good. Ideally Wikipedia would have an option to display a thumb at 1/2 or 2/3 of the user's default (preference), but I don't know of such an option. But in any case, there wouldn't be any advantage to down-sizing the original, and several disadvantages.
  1. A slightly blind person with a fast connection might set his default thumb to 300px, and our overriding that would be taking away his control.
  2. By keeping the full-sized original available, a user could use it as wallpaper, if desired.
  3. Both the Cathedral and KSTP are used in other articles (Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota) and KSTP-TV), so by changing them, you have potentially messed with someone else's formatting. I think they should be reverted as well.
Well, of course I see your perspective. I am advocating the opposite I guess. I don;t care how large the thumbs are as long as the image is represented at the size we want relative to the whitespace, text and other images. The correct way, of course is if the image is transferred to Wikipedia/Commons correctly to start with.

As for the other places that (Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota) and KSTP-TV) are used, of course I checked those before and after so that I would not mess up another article. (the image page shows all places that image is linked.) What I am saying is that hard coding is not the correct method, and relative "thumb" is the accepted standard. If the image doesn't look good, then what are you going to do? You edit the original image so that it is sized as it should have been when it was originally transferred to Wikipedia. I hear you as saying the opposite, that the image as transferred by the (usually) photographer/artist should be respected, and we should try and compensate by living with it being the wrong size, or choosing not to use the image, or by hard coding the px size to make it look the way we would like. At some level, of course, I agree with respecting the artist as much as possible, since it is hir creative work. I have no criticism of those who choose to do it in (what seems to me) a backward approach, it's just I think that doing it the manner that offers the most compatabiity with many articles, as well as flexibility for the editors and users (through preferences) seems to make more sense to me. As it seems that many other editors do it that way to, that's just my choice. A choice for us to make all thumbs the same size seems unecessarily arbitrary and inelegant. 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been looking at the PHP source code at mediawiki.org, and I am seeing if tackling making the next version allow the possibility if specifying relative thumb sizing, as well as an option to allow a 0px sizing -- or a checkbox (to allow people to choose to show no images -- safe for work). It sounds like a neat project but I am not sure if I have time for such. Atom 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different people have different monitors, settings, and needs, and we should write articles that look good with 10-year old equipment, but that do not restrict the capability of a user of next year's advanced model. For example, I recently was in an office with computers with pivoting screens. Because most of their work involved page-width forms, they preferred more height than width. When looking at portrait photography (as opposed to landscape), users of those screens could see much more than I could on an old 15-in. monitor, but I wouldn't want an art piece re-sized for the small screen. The user can always reduce, but can never re-enlarge without losing quality.
I haven't put anything on Commons, because it frustrates me when pictures are hosted there. I can't add [[Category:Images of Minnesota]] to bring them into the gallery of Minnesota Images, which can then be browsed during article creation. Do you know of any solutions to that problem? Appraiser 19:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting issue. I will give some thought as to how to solve that. Atom 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've hit on a limitation of Wikipedia software. If we use thumbnails the way they supposed to be used, all the thumbnail pictures will be the same width. They will be more prominent on the screens of people who have set their thumbnail preference to a relatively high number, and less prominent on the screens people using relatively larger monitors. I think that if a thumbnail seems too large for the desired location, the best solution is to specify a small px size, rather than reduce the size of the original. Currently, if you click to enlarge the thumbnail of KSTP in order to see more detail, you will be disappointed, because the full-sized picture is the same size as the thumbnail (with your preference set to 180px, which is true for most users). This solution defeats the concept of thumbnails. We might just as well reduce all the pictures to article-size and not use thumbnails at all. After considerable thought on this subject, I firmly believe that original graphics should be left alone, and the authors of articles should specify the size of the image or the size of the thumbnail desired for their particular application of the graphic. There currently does not appear to be a technological solution to the problem, that satisfies all screen sizes, screen resolutions, and preferences that maintains the integrity of the photographs we want to use. So, We'll just have to do the best we can with the tools available, and agree to disagree. Appraiser 20:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The girl with violin, while a nice image, could be anywhere at all. Let's replace it with something unique to Minnesota culture: a nice photo from the Minnesota State Fair, perhaps, or something else that is specific to this state. Jonathunder 21:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in part, although the Fair images available are all pretty ugly. Something like this [4] would be good; I'll try to remember to do that next August. In the meantime, we could just remove the picture, if you'd like. Appraiser 15:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I love the image. My opinion is to leave it until a better one comes along. My suggestion would be a good State Fair picture. Atom

Two non-sourced statements[edit]

I removed these two statements because they need citations. Rather than add a [citation needed], I'll put them here for possible future inclusion into the appropriate paragraphs with citations: "The forestry industry is presently threatened by decertification of sustainability of state forests administered by the DNR. Rampant ATV/OHV use in the state's forests have had destructive impacts." I don't want unsourced statements in the article during the FA process. Appraiser 04:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sourcing should not be difficult for the first. The legislature took up the second issue in the last session; I don't know if any legislation ensued. A more neutral word than "rampant" would be appropriate. Kablammo 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
last I have heard MN forests are doing better than ever. I agree they should stay here until sourced. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if tey are non-sourced, and controversial enough to need a citation, then we either need to find a citation fast or pull it until we do. Atom 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

multi-wikilinking[edit]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) says the following:

  1. A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking which follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;
  2. However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article, may well be appropriate (but see the exception about dates, below). Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection. Thus, if an important technical term appears many times in a long article, but is only linked once at the very beginning of the article, it may actually be underlinked. But take care in fixing such problems. If an editor finds themselves "reflexively" linking a term without having a good look around the entire article, it is often time to stop and reconsider.

There have been un-link-ififications and re-link-ifications in the last few weeks. I say we leave multi links in unless they appear within a paragraph and half. The article is pretty long so having the BWCA linked 3 times is not a big deal. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ES FA[edit]

es:Minnesota is an FA! I looks like it is based on the English page from a few months ago. Worth a look. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. One of the nice things about putting images on Commons is you get to see wider use of them. Jonathunder 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It's like an alternate reality. Some of the pictures are better than ours! Atom 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I like the state quarter image, and seems to fit with the Economy section. Jonathunder 15:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know a graphic designer? We should have someone with a good eye do our images. I agree on the state quarter image. Another reason that image is cool is that every other site has their quarter on their page. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 17:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the quarter too - in fact it's in Economy of Minnesota. But I also like the symbolism of the old flour mill juxtaposed to the financial services skyscraper, which I think adds value to the text immediately at hand. Perhaps we could find a different spot for it. Appraiser 19:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Hi Ravedave, Kablammo, et al: I've finished editing the article (which I started at Ravedave's request) and I think it's in great shape. Hope you agree. Please check for any unintended fact changes (and ignore the intended fact changes :) that may have resulted from my edits. –Outriggr § 04:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that there is always chance of rubbing someone the wrong way when edits are made. If you want to question any of my changes, please let me know which, here. –Outriggr § 04:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think vast majority of your re-wording are improvements. When reviewing your edits, I often asked myself why I didn't think to re-phrase the sentences the way you did. Although I'm not an expert on English usage, I thought that the words governor, senator, congressman, judge, etc. should not be capitalized unless they are used as a title. e.g. "After the press conference, Governor Pawlenty ate lunch." And, "the reporter said that Minnesota's lieutenant governor looks like a woman." You capitalized several instances of words like this that I believe shouldn't be capitalized. Am I mistaken? Appraiser 05:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For those capitalizations, I'm really not sure. I looked at other Wikipedia articles and saw that State Auditor, Lieutenant Governor, Governor, etc. tend to be capitalized, whether or not they're naming anyone specific. As official government titles, I would think they'd be capitalized, maybe with "governor" and "senator" as exceptions in common usage. I'll let the American contingent decide which is best. :) –Outriggr § 06:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, read this [5]. The gist of it is that titles should be capitalized only if they refer to a specific person. I'll take a look and see if anything needs to be changed in light of this. Appraiser 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Appraiser: I can go either way on the capitalization issue, but you recently italicized "Precambrian", "Canadian Shield", and some of the regions of Minnesota. I don't think is advisable. –Outriggr § 04:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with a ref[edit]

This ref is causing an error in the list of references (#11)... [1] Gopher backer 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article[edit]

Looking at a small sample of recent Main page articles, most of them seem to have appeared within a month after receiving FA status. A message appeared on the talk page about 5 days in advance, announcing which day the appearance would occur. One I looked at (Battle of Austerlitz) appeared 8 months after being designated FA. I didn't see any particular reason for the delay. Another, History of erotic depictions appeared 8 days after the designation. That one needed several hundred reverts during the day of its feature. I think if we start to see a lot of changes on our day, we should move to freeze it for the day asap. People with legitimate suggestions can come back the next day. Appraiser 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately protecting the featured article is against policy. (See here). The best thing to do is pretty much let other people revert vandalism as usual, and then after it is no longer a featured article, revert it back to just before it was featured, and then do a diff to see what useful edits we can apply. It is a lot less stressful that way.

Take a look at the diffs for the day an article is on the front page. The vandalism is always worth it. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 03:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the waiting period, We have articles queued through December 14th, and then it is open. Getting featured sometime after that shouldn't be a problem. I added us to the request queue ( See here...) And we are 100th in the queue. As far as I can tell Raul doesn't necessarily take them in order. In the request I put the BWCA picture, since it is scenic. But, we can change that if there is a consensus for a better image. Atom 01:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize this request queue existed. I wonder why some of the articles on that list have been there so long. Raul654 definitely doesn't take them in order. Cleveland and Vancouver have both been there for a while. I wouldn't think Minnesota would jump ahead of them. I like the BWCA picture, and also the Lake Calhoun fisherman picture - showing the juxtaposition of urban and scenic spots. What's going to grab the readers' attention the most? Appraiser 02:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Table Showing Minnesota Earthquakes". University of Minnesota, Morris. http://www.mrs.umn.edu/earthquakes/MNeqchart.html. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |date= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minnesota/Archive_5&oldid=1137013789"