This 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.
Someone made this edit saying that Minneapolis had one of the lowest high school graduation rates in Minnesota, citing this page from the Minnesota Department of Education. When I checked the report (the 2005-2006 Dropout/Graduation Rates-Special Populations report), it reveals that Minneapolis has a low graduation rate of 66.08%. I sorted the data and found that there are several school districts with lower graduation rates. Intermediate School District #287, Red Lake, and Cass Lake-Bena appear to be the only public school districts that have lower graduation rates. I'm not exactly sure if some of the other school districts listed are actually charter schools or some special vocational school districts.
Regardless, I think an explanation of the school graduation rate should be listed within Minneapolis Public Schools, since they're the responsible school district, and the data should be better qualified as to exactly which districts are selected within that sampling. (By the way, within the same edit, the editor asked for citations within the lead about Minneapolis having twenty lakes and wetlands and having a park within 1/2 mile of every house, even though those facts are mentioned later in the article.) --Elkman(Elkspeak) 06:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Maintenance
I made a few edits just now just to clean up some stray things. A nice addition in the Religion section and a mention of World Figuring Skating competition in 1998 are good but have been added verbatim to cuts and the To Do list for lack of citations. Tags asking for citations in the lead have been removed. Newsy section about the I35W bridge has been cut and the Transportation section "main" tag links to that article instead. Newsy section on Olympics bid is interesting but for the most part sounded "also ran" so I moved it there as well. -Susanlesch (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Many of the captions have promotional trivia. I am not taking them out yet, but want others to comment while I continue to think about it. TableMannersU·T·C 00:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Although I don't see anything in the captions of a promotional nature, I am more than happy to move the text of captions to the article if necessary. For my comprehension skills it is easier to read in context of the image but perhaps others read in other ways (entirely possible). -Susanlesch (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Draft Minneapolis Plan
In case anyone else who might be interested missed this, and thanks to MinnPost for mentioning it, Minneapolis has a new draft city plan. They say comments can be in person at a January meeting or sent to their Web site. The chapter I saw so far looks like it could be useful as a source of facts (aside from planning). -Susanlesch (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Parks distance from home
Hello. A statement in the lead that a park is within 0.5 miles of every home was flagged for 'fact'. I had hoped to look this up today but am not able to help. The biography of Wirth cited in the "Parks and recreation" section doesn't quite cover it so I removed the sentences for now. -Susanlesch (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Population
Why does the U.S. Census American Fact Finder say the population of Minneapolis is 372,833 here and 369,051 here? -Susanlesch (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Note the 369,051 estimate gives an error of +/-9,889. I bet Mpls sent a challenge to the Census estimate considering the margin of error and pushed the pop estimate up--since many funding agencies look at Census estimates. In that case it takes into account building permits and new homeownership which the Census Bureau might not have the latest results. The Community Surveys are also done throughout the year for everywhere and doesn't necessarily reflect the entire year's progress. Thus the given 2006 estimate reflects the most recent data whereas the Community Survey is a snapshot of the year 2006 whenever it took place. .:DavuMaya:. 20:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
where is the racial profile for minneapolis? Before there was census data clearly stating that mpls isn't a bunch of whities like the rest of the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.120.52.67 (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"A bunch of whities" is nonsense. A large number of people of African descent live in Minneapolis, most of them descendants of people who were already in America in the 19th century, but also a substantial number of recent immigrants from Somalia and Ethiopia. Michael Hardy (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The demographics section is kind of dumb. My main concern is the quote "Home ownership among black and Hispanic residents is half that of white, and one-third of the Asian population lives below the poverty line." is not completely informative since the Asian population is no longer homogeneous due to recent immigration. It would likely be as correct to say another one-third of the Asian population lives above the $100,000 income bracket. NPR article back in '02 And home ownership is not always analogous with poverty. With demos things can be spun either way especially since we have no clear majority. I'd rather not tinker and let you do it Susan. .:DavuMaya:. 20:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, Davumaya. Would you be interested in starting in on Demographics of Minneapolis, Minnesota to see how things pan out? My to do list outweighs my discretionary editing (the fun kind) and I couldn't subcontract until next year if then. Brookings and the U.S. Census may have some new data after the 2010 census which might be a good time to rewrite. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh blasted! You've strong-armed me into it :) Sure, demos are sort of my day job anyway. .:DavuMaya:. 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Minneapolis Public Library/Hennipin County Library merger status
The Minneapolis Public Library merger mentioned as pending happened and was finalized earlier this year; the library web site has info. The main page should probably be updated to reflect this. I'm not sure, however, how to keep the other info (circulation size data) up to date with the changes, or how best to update the paragraph.
Elehack (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be great if you can write that, feel free. I wrote to their webmaster (the mail bounced) and hope Hennepin County restores the History of Minneapolis real soon. —SusanLesch (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Re-recording
Re-recording text. Please make your changes now. .:DavuMaya:. 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
coordinate mix-up
I noticed the template placing the coordinates at the top-right corner caused Magnus' GeoHack to send you to France due to an error of some sort. I am not familiar with the mapit template so I've hesitated to make the change. Here is what was causing it: {{Mapit-US-cityscale|44.977|−93.266}} --Bobak (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Glad you noticed, Bobak, and thanks to MH for fixing it. Looks fine now. —SusanLesch (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Temperature snafu?
The chart for the climate includes 'record lows' of -36 Celsius for both February and March. However, the Fahrenheit version has -40F for February and -32F for March. Which numbers are correct? I note that the information was 'retrieved 27 October'. I presume maybe a new record occurred this year and the Fahrenheit version was changed but not the celsius version? Could someone with local knowledge of Minneapolis' weather please appropriately update these numbers?? Tonzo (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Tonzo. You might have as much knowledge about it as anybody here, if you'd like to try to fix it. Seems like an error and I don't know when it was introduced. —SusanLesch (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Maintainers
Greetings. This article may need some dedicated support in the future. I think I counted two maintenance issues raised already and due to lack of support from WikiProject Minnesota for main page inclusion on the city's sesquicentennial in July I've decided to let this one go (there is a lot of support at large and I would guess it will be there but couldn't say for sure). Thanks to every editor (I hope most of you have a barnstar!) who has helped keep this featured for a whole year. Nice work. Most likely, for a city this size, somebody exists with wiki skills who may have heard of it and might wish to maintain and/or change it. I wish you good luck. —SusanLesch (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I nominate Susan for Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence
To Susan for her fabulous watch and commitment to Minnesota articles especially Minneapolis. .:davumaya:. 23:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Way back, we had a discussion about what would make a good skyline photo. I blathered on about two ideal locations that I'd seen, but I hadn't photographed. Well, with the right combo of wind and sun last Saturday, I realized this was my time to put my money where my mouth is with my new camera. I hope this super-sweep of downtown mitigates the lack of river with other content. I've made the caption pretty detailed since it includes a lot of buildings and neighborhoods. I hope I wasn't presumptuous in swapping it. --Bobak (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hm..... it's a haute photo for sure. I'd almost like it as an in-text panorama. I'm wondering could you take more pano photos but try to capture land surrounding the skyscrapers. This SF one captures an iconic image with the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods..:davumaya:. 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I took this one of the St. Anthony Falls. I've tried a few others but I haven't stitched them yet. One I took on the same day as St. Anthony Falls from the Guthrie's Endless Bridge didn't quite work as well because the sun had set too much. I will try to retake it another time. SF and most of my ethnic homeland of California has mountains and other elevations that make awesome photos like that one you posted much easier. In the midwest you often have to work with a building or know someone with a helicopter... :-p --Bobak (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Darnit I use to have access to the Pillsbury Mill but its under construction now. The perfect shot I say is the Falls, skyline, and a little bit of East Downtown/Elliot Park from the northeast. Riverview Towers might give this angle. An alternative is if you can get onto one of those public housing high rises in Phillips and take a shot across the south Mpls neighborhoods, highway, and skyline. .:davumaya:. 00:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my suggestion a year or so ago was to schedule a condo viewing at one of the condo towers across the river, bring a camera for the stated reason of taking photos of the condo room for your own memory, then also be sure to take a photo of the spectacular view you asked to also see... The only problem with across the river (St. Anthony area) is that the sun will often be against you. --Bobak (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Lol well the next tallest building across the river will be Phoenix on the River which is under construction. You'll need a decoy to distract the sales person, maybe take someone along as your "wife." :) .:davumaya:. 04:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, Bobak. Your timing and aspect ratio however are poor for main page nomination for 20 July. I'd suggest the long-standing skyline by gomattolson for another week. Thanks for the barnstar and for taking the time to support that nomination, davumaya. —SusanLesch (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. The FAC director has chosen the city flag which I love. Peace. —SusanLesch (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Odd, isn't the city flag a fair use image? ~ Eóin (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Eóin, you're right (I forgot). It's the only non-free image in the article. Pretty funny. —SusanLesch (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
A more Main Page friendly crop of the panoramic photo
I can easily make a crop of the wide-photo to match whatever the preferred ratio is. I'll try and match a new version to the gomattolson's ratio. --Bobak (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC) --
Here we go, the same photo as above, but cut to a ration that fits what they might want on the main page. Now that I think about it (as it was already uploading), I can see good reasons for going with gomattolson's photo on the main page --it would show two different views of the downtown without cluttering up the main article. His angle is totally different than mine and shows the more old-world buildings of the North Loop (Warehouse District). Meh, now we have the option at least. --Bobak (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(running out of :::s) I like this crop, has a little bit of everything. Theres a little church, little park, little plaza, orch hall, skyscrapers, old, retro and new buildings (Ivy!!!!!) Rawk, I keep dis. .:davumaya:. 19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The new skyline is great for later but IMHO not at 100px on the main page. Squint and see what you see (I see gray). OK with me to swap it back. Happy 150th by the way. :-) SusanLesch (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I understood what this meant for the actual mainpage blurb, but I didn't realize you were also talking about the infobox. --Bobak (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Two Things:
Two things I think should be addressed before tomorrow's big FA showing:
1. The library merger. It is currently stated that the libraries (Hennepin County and Minneapolis) are considering merging. This is, in fact, not true. They have now merged.
2. SOmething about the relatively newly implemented citywide Wi-Fi feature should be added, possibly in utilities, or economy where Wi-Fi is mentioned, but not pertaining to the citywide wifi.
I can help, if need be. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 03:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
um... anyone notice all the pictures were replaced with nazi emblamns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.255.143.104 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
someone took care of that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.82.2 (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you guys mean St. Paul
or possibly wayzata?? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
With all the gushiness, it looks as though it was written by the local Chamber of Commerce. It should be tagged for cleanup. How did it get to be a featured article.? 68.203.169.68 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There was a discussion located here. The outcome of the discussion was to promote it. Hope that helps. And no, this was written by users in the spare time, not the local Chamber of Commerce. bsrboy (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I would say the same about Houston, Texas anonymous IP :) Please feel free to peruse our Talk archives to learn more. .:davumaya:. 20:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
POV
"The community's diverse population has a long tradition of charitable support through progressive public social programs and through private and corporate philanthropy" sounds like something from a far-Left marketing campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
To quote the person in the question you missed immediately above, "There was a discussion located here. The outcome of the discussion was to promote [the article]." The article is sourced. If you can provide counter sources from legitimate sources (ones that probably don't use terms like "far-left marketing campaign", whatever that means...), then provide them. --Bobak (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Source doesn't matter. One can find a source saying anything. The problem is that there is a POV source to promote a POV sentence in the article. POV doesn't work by finding something that says "oh, yes, I am an independent source on an independent site, and I stumbled across this on Wikipedia, and I think it's POV." Also, removing a POV tag is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is sourced to some of the most credible sources available, was promoted to FA, so what you "think" should be right is irrelevant without citation. In fact the area you found a problem with was to the IHT. Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water. --Bobak (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
A single newspaper article does not corroborate having a statement about Minneapolis's uniquely "long traditions" of progressive programs and philanthropy. A similar article and a similar sentence could have been written about many other cities, with little variation. Other sentences like "Minneapolis has cultural organizations that draw creative people and audiences to the city for theater, visual art, writing and music", while not unique or even unusual for a city, at least do not pretend any peculiar greatness. Also, calling a place "America's most literate city" based on a single study with a particular methodology that narrowly defines how a place could be called "most literate" is not befitting an encyclopedia of knowledge and is misleading at best.
I understand the difficulties of writing a comprehensive summary that highlights the important aspects of a city, but do not reach for middling and individual sources to substantiate claims of uniqueness or greatness. Also, while we should not artificially look for negative things about the city, it strikes me as highly unlikely that there is little or nothing bad about the place as this article implies. —Centrx→talk • 17:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
These are points to make, assuredly. But I would ask new editors with fresh eyes to take a grain of salt. Lengthy discussions lead to FA status one year ago. Since then many editors have poured into it critically. To raise this points and especially "this shouldn't be FA to begin with" is not fair nor really being critical but simply voicing your own POV. Many FA cities articles boldly state such assertions which might sound POV but are writing style choices that the Cities project has allowed. Below I have high-lighted the style choices which editors here have voiced as "POV":
San Francisco After the war, the confluence of returning servicemen, massive immigration, liberalizing attitudes, and other factors gave rise to the Summer of Love and the gay rights movement, cementing San Francisco as a liberal bastion in the U.S.
Houston, Texas Houston's economy has a broad industrial base in the energy, manufacturing, aeronautics, transportation, and health care sectors; only New York City is home to more Fortune 500 headquarters... and the area is a leading center for building oilfield equipment... The Port of Houston ranks first in the United States in international waterborne tonnage handled and second in total cargo tonnage handled...
Ann Arbor, Michigan Ann Arbor is best known as the location of the main campus of the University of Michigan, which moved from Detroit in 1837. The city's economy is currently dominated by education, high tech, and biotechnology.[5] Average home prices and property taxes are well above the state and national medians. The city is also known for its political liberalism...
Providence, Rhode Island Situated at the mouth of the Providence River, on Narragansett Bay, the city's small footprint is crisscrossed by seemingly erratic streets and a rapidly changing demographic using them... After being one of the first cities in the country to industrialize, Providence became noted for its jewelry and silverware industry.
Boston Massachusetts The largest city in New England, Boston is considered the economic and cultural center of the entire region... After American independence was attained Boston became a major shipping port and manufacturing center, and its rich history now attracts 16.3 million visitors annually.[8][7] The city was the site of several firsts... With many colleges and universities within the city and surrounding area, Boston is a center of higher education[11] and a center for medicine... Boston has been experiencing gentrification and has one of the highest costs of living in the United States, though remains high on world livability rankings.[12]
Now one could argue, oh these are all POV statements! All FA cities articles must be removed immediately! The point of the matter is, Consensus has dictated that Cities articles can be allowed to capture the city in a somewhat sensational manner. Otherwise all Cities articles would simply be the same, just urban areas with a downtown. And we know they are not. This is thus a style choice that allows these articles to have a life and vibrancy that otherwise would restrict Wikipedia to only writing about molecules and scientific theories. But certainly FA articles could always use a critical eye, I am just trying to explain how we arrived where we are. If I ask you to go through all the talk pages in the past year since the FA status, I am doubtful you will do such. .:davumaya:. 20:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, as an encyclopedic article, I'll have to cite notability is not temporary. Meaning, we (many editors) have selectively chosen these phrases to depict how the City has been shaped through time. For example the progressive philanthropy phrase. Now that applies since the beginning of the History of Minneapolis in establishing all our public amenities, infrastructure. Much of the region was shaped by philanthropy of James J. Hill, Charles Alfred Pillsbury, Thomas Lowry etc. The phrase about Minneapolis has cultural organizations that draw creative people and audiences refers to the Guthrie, theatre per capita. But also speaks of the vaudeville past and Arts in Minneapolis, Minnesota. So if you actually reach beyond the lead to understand the article content and explore the wikilinks off of that, you might get an idea of why these statements have lasted so long before you came along. .:davumaya:. 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Well said (and researched) Davumaya. Besides being sourced and being comparable to the hype offered about other cities, the progressive politics happens to be true. The city's congressman, Keith Ellison, (who did a photo-op of taking the oath of office on Thomas Jefferson's Koran) scores 98.6 "progressive" on [an evaluation of congressional votes], and city elections now implement instant runoff voting. The city is pretty liberal/progressive...really.--Appraiser (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe the technical term is "not ass backwards". --Bobak (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I was contacted about this discussion, probably because I once objected to this very same sentence, but not on the grounds of a POV violation. I once had problems with the lead of this article, but it appears to have changed a bit since I looked at it closely about a year ago. I think the sensationalism is not as bad — certainly not more than any other FA city (thanks for the research, Davumaya). I would probably remove the phrase "abundantly rich" for redundancy purposes and chiming down sensationalism. Saying the city has "twenty lakes and wetlands..." is sufficient to get the point across, but removing the word "rich" to say "the city is abundant in water" wouldn't be bad. That's the only nit-picking I'm up for right now :) Good job getting the article on the main page for this important date in Minneapolis history. Okiefromoklaquestions? 23:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Only the line from Houston, Texas has POV in bragging the vapid statistic that "only New York City is home to more Fortune 500 headquarters". The many simple neutral words highlighted like "entire" and "seemingly" are utterly irrelevant. There is nothing POV about saying the Port of Houston has the highest international waterborne tonnage handled; that is a strictly quantifiable fact which correctly implies that the Port of Houston is a big, perhaps the biggest, port in the world, nothing like the vague "most literate" based particularly on the number of bookstores and newspaper circulation, which changes year by year. There is nothing inaccurate or non-neutral in saying Boston is an especially historical city that attracts a specific large number of tourists. In any event, if you truly believe these excerpts are somehow examples of POV, the existence of other imperfect articles is not an excuse for the present imperfect article; all articles should be improved, and a clear, pervasive fault in this article is explained here. —Centrx→talk • 17:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I recall talk here about limiting the claims "top" city in this or that. The city websites and booster sites are a better place for that (they do it often). I also think that some terrible things like white supremacy and disagreeable things like an all-time high of 108 degrees are in here. The tone can be dampened or augmented in many ways: we just have to choose what if any rankings are of interest. Centrx, I saw your edit about most literate. If they help, other sources are available, e.g., Reuters or UPI, USA Today (or Seattle Times in Seattle, Washington which formerly was called the most literate city). It is also possible to say Minneapolis is tied for 10th most library resources according to Library Journal but that's just one component of the score. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That study was frequently quoted in the media but I think it's fair to have qualms about citing it in the article. The way newspaper circulation was calculated made it so 154% of Minneapolitans read the Sunday Star Tribune. Also it's kind of hard to believe Minneapolis is the most literate city when only 44% of Minneapolis Public Schools' students graduate. That being said I do think it'd important to emphasize education in the lead. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: horrendous drop out rate, the article says 44% graduated if people want to believe that. It was edited two or three days ago based on reading the source's first paragraph I guess. I don't believe it and in April added a 53% (52.8%) graduation rate based on MPS data farther down on the same source. Yes, the Star Tribune's Sunday circulation is greater than the city's population. Rankings highlight whatever one chooses to highlight as said above. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Any number of newspaper articles citing the same bad study does not verify the claimed status as "the most literate city". You need to seriously revise your standards of sourcing if you think those articles carry any weight whatsoever. —Centrx→talk • 03:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been resolved yet but I am at a loss as to how to address your concerns Centrx. You are not using sources to corroborate the faults you are pointing out but rather using your own judgment. Which is fair, but not very convincing to sway Consensus. As well after we highlighted sources to you, you subsequently retort that all those sources should be nullified. As this discussion seems to be a mute exercise, I cannot offer much else to assist you. .:davumaya:. 10:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
cite web
Hi. Evidently someone is doing work on Template:cite web in the date field. I'll send them a note on that talk page. In the meantime I see no way to fix all the red links that have appeared for anything beyond a simple year in digits. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed at the template page, thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Etymology
I apologize if this topic has already been discussed, but I couldn't find it in the archives. The current etymology gives mni as one of the etyma, however I think it might actually be mini. According to a Dakota dictionary I found, there are two variants of this word. Mini appears to be Santee, while mni is Yankton (see Sioux language). Mini makes more sense as the etymon for two reasons: First, the i after m is still present in the derived terms Minneapolis and Minnehaha (although this could certainly be just an accomodation, as English can't do m and n together). Also, the original inhabitants or the area (according to the article at least) were the Mdewakanton, a Santee tribe. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find an authoritative source which verifies my suspicion. Just wondering if anyone knows for sure one way or the other, or what peoples' thoughts would be on making the change. Atelaes (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Charles Hoag suggested the name of the city in 1852. The "Minne" part of the name comes from Minnehaha Falls. The Minnesota Place Names index gives more details about the naming of the falls, though it doesn't specifically say whether the Dakota in the area were Mdewakanton, Yankton, or any other branch. I doubt that the pioneer settlers at the time knew the specific group names of the Dakota tribes in the area. The explorers and pioneer settlers were probably more interested in gaining more land than in carefully preserving history. The sources listed in reference #10 don't say anything about the specific Dakota dialect that was used. I might have to look through a couple of my history books later on. All things considered, I don't have any objection to the change you're proposing, but it's probably going to be difficult to find a definitive source on this. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 15:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed (with everything). If you can find some better info, I'd love to see it. However, I suppose, in lieu of a definitive answer, I'll leave it as is. Since it's the same word either way, just a different dialectical form, if it is wrong, it's only very slightly wrong. Atelaes (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The University of Minnesota has an extensive Dakota language program and an online dictionary here [1] which gives the official romanization of "waters" as "mni" and an audio pronunciation. The language program also takes after the Mdewakanaton Dakota in this area and has a beginning language program called "Mnisota Dakota Iapi Owayama"[2] (what we call now "Minnesota Dakota").
IMO Though there are dialectal differences in certain words, definitively whether spelled "minne" or "mni" it would be pronounced the same as "mNEE" with no glottal stop between M and N. There shouldn't be much difference geographically since the Yankton are Nakota (southeastern South Dakota). Both they and Dakota would have shared in the etymology of the Minnesota River as it flows and connected the two.[3] - Aside my linguistic friend has always asserted not to take Anglicizations too seriously if no formal romanized alphabet was established at the time of recording. .:davumaya:. 19:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ie: Ojibwa became Chippewa (also spelled Ojibwe, Ojibway, Chippeway). Yet today the official term is Anishinaabe. Waukesha, Wisconsin from Waagoshag or Wau-tsha. And even Wisconsin itself is though to derive from Miskwasiniing later recorded as Ouisconsin and revised. Yet the modern official romanization is Wiishkoonsing. .:davumaya:. 20:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Excellent points. I concede to mni. Atelaes (talk) 08:06, 26 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) 02:42, 28 July 2008 (UT
Minneapolis Meetups
Town Hall Brewery
maps.google.com
1430 Washington Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55454
(612) 339-8696
October 11, 2008
Saturday at 12:00 noon (midday)
Meetup RSVP
Muddy Waters
maps.google.com
2401 Lyndale Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55405
(612) 872-2232
October 10, 2008
Friday at 10:00 PM (at night)
Alternate meetup RSVP
Hope you can make it. Feel free to pass along these invitations. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Requested move
There is currently a proposal on the table to amend the Wikipedia naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook's suggested names. This would effectively move a number of US city articles currently on the list, so Minneapolis, Minnesota would be moved to Minneapolis. To comment on this discussion, please go here. [--Serge (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. No need for a change. The naming convention works best when applied consistently across articles. ·:· Will Beback·:· 22:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds funny
"The city is abundantly rich in water ..."
This statement violates the sounds-funny rule. Wouldn't it make more sense to say the city has or contains X-number of lakes? (Comment from a native Minneapolitan.) Sca (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
You're quoting the lead, which is a high level summary and not specifics. Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a characterization which is later expanded in the article. Because water exists in multiple forms (lake, river, creek, aquifer, etc) this statement best summarizes that. davumaya 22:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Sca. It's an odd construction. We wouldn't say that San Francisco is "rich in hills", or that Chicago is "rich in wind". It'd be better to say what we mean, which is that Minneapolis has many waterways, lakes, and wetlands. ·:· Will Beback·:· 22:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
If you can word it better, please do. But the lead is not the place to enumerate, IMO. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The sentence currently reads:
The city is abundantly rich in water with twenty lakes and wetlands, the Mississippi riverfront, creeks and waterfalls, many connected by parkways in the Chain of Lakes and the Grand Rounds Scenic Byway.
That sounds like enumeration to me. How about,
The Chain of Lakes and the Grand Rounds Scenic Byway connect many of the city's waterfalls, waterways, lakes, and wetlands
That's shorter and avoids the "rich in water" formula. ·:· Will Beback·:· 23:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It's "rich in water" that's the problem, all right. Nor would one say Mpls. has "a wealth of water" or even "a wealth of lakes." You could say northeastern Minn. is "rich in iron ore" or that Minnesota is "rich in natural resources," but that syntax just doesn't work with "water" or "lakes."
How about something like "Mpls. is studded with XX lakes."
PS: I used to deliver the Mpls. Star near Lake Harriet. Sca (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect notation in table
I changed the hyphens in front of Fahrenheit temperature to proper minus signs. I was unable to do that for Celsius. Apparently they're getting converted, and whoever wrote the software doesn't know the difference between hyphens and proper minus signs. How can this get fixed? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Lakes
Where do we get "20 lakes and wetlands"? I can think of five sizeable lakes — six if you count Diamond Lake, which as I recall is mostly in Richfield — and a couple small ones. Twenty sounds like civic boosterism. Sca (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
LOL i dunno, the whole point is to point out the abundance of water in the urban core compared to other urban cities. davumaya 17:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I seem to remember that when I was a kid (just a few eons back), Mpls. was officially credited with 11 lakes, though I'm not sure how they got even that high. Again I ask, why not say it's "studded" (or some such) with XX lakes, scenic M'haha Creek and Waterfall, & the Mississippi?
BTW, Minneapolis must be one of a very few cities that straddle the Mississippi. Maybe New Orleans is the other? Sca (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there are several other cities in Minnesota that straddle the Mississippi. A part of St. Paul is located south of the Mississippi. (That part is known as the West Side, of course.) St. Cloud, Little Falls, and Brainerd also straddle the Mississippi, though the river isn't as wide the further north you go. Grand Rapids and Bemidji also appear to straddle the Mississippi. There's even a small part of Hastings just north of the Mississippi in Washington County, although most of it is south of the river in Dakota County. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 19:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Correction: Looked at map -- Diamond Lake is in Mpls. Sca (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
