Talk:Missoula, Montana/Archive 3

Looking Pretty Good

Okay, first of all I have to say I am no good at editing. Every time I try I mess up so I will leave that to you smart people.

Second, I have to say this page is looking a lot better, now will it stay that way?

Third, what is this?

Unlike most towns in Montana; Missoula never truly had any time of population spike, until the 1990's. Since 1990 the U.S Cencus has seen a small population spike in Missoula. In 1990 the population of Missoula was 42,918, or the same as a fairly average american city. the 2009 population estimate is sitting at 68,876. So since 1990 Missoula has seen a growth of more than 25,000 people; which is a pretty large increase in 20 years. The percantage increase since 1990 is 53.6%

It is not very well written and its puffery

42,000 an average american city, really? I'm thinking more like an average city neighborhood.

Anyway all in all the page looks great, well done! I just had to bitch about something. Mizmontana (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your contributions. There is really no guarantee that the page will stay the way it is. Being a wiki, anyone can edit it and the page is subject to change at any time. That can go for the better or for the worse, and it is impossible to predict what will happen to it for the years to come. It all depends on whose watching the page and whose editing it.

As for the oddly-written paragraph, I agree that it is poorly written. I thought about re-writing it and sourcing it, but I realized that the population of Missoula is already nicely covered in the section "Metropolitan Statistical Area". Because of this, I've gone ahead and removed the entire section.

As for the population of an average American city being 42,000, I don't find that to be anything odd - in fact, I would initially imagine that the average would be a little bit lower than 42,000. A city does not have to be large in population to be considered a city. According to our own article on cities, there are cities with populations of only five. The city I live in has around 20,000 people. It's a typical, stereotypical suburban city you'd find anywhere else, so that is why I think that the average is sensible, simply because there are so many smaller-sized cities in the US to counter all the whoppingly-large ones. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Site Structure and Outline

As the page seems to finally be beginning to have some structure, I suggest that we continue along that theme which I've tried to base entirely on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline which gives pretty clear directions of what Wikipedia's expectations are. Two other articles that I think would be good to look at are Ann Arbor, Michigan and Grand Forks, North Dakota since these are two of the featured articles most appropriate to emulate. Both are smaller sized university towns with Grand Forks comparable with Missoula and Ann Arbor much more grandiose.

Comments and Suggestions

General

• Those dedicated to work on a page about Missoula are probably passionate about our city, but let's try to remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a travel guide. It should be full of facts, not opinions. Look at it this way, if someone could disagree with you on it, it is an opinion. If you feel it is fact and not opinion, be sure to to link to a source that backs up that assertion.
• Could we tone it down with the bolding of everything?
• We all want Wikipedia to be more convenient and easier to use, but that is kind of the point of the City's project. When things all follow the same basic format with modifications for unique circumstances, it's easier to utilize because everyone already has an idea of where to look.

History

WikiProject Cities/US Guideline History

This section provides a narrative of the settlement's history. Topics that can be covered include, but are not limited to: the origin of the name; etymology if appropriate original inhabitants original settlements occupying powers/transitions of power population spikes recessions reasons for settlement/growth dominant activities events that shaped the community Most libraries will have books on local history. Be wary of loose interpretations, especially when using internet or promotional sources. Note: History sections can easily become very long with more detail than appropriate for a general overview. While there is no strict rule on how long a section may be, as a general rule of thumb, more than 10 paragraphs or the use of subsection headings might indicate that it should be accompanied by a History of _ main article (using the main template). Only describe the minimum of what is required to understand where the community has come from and let the History of _ article give the details. Second-level headings are to be avoided since they tend to encourage excessive detail and length and can disrupt cohesion.

• I spent awhile making this section, but other pages limit this to a single section while those with enough to divide into sections have their own page. I'll get to this when I have time and for now should be lowest priority.
• I personally think that specific history (such as downtown, politics, etc.) should have their own page with a link to them, but only after someone is willing to fill out that page.

Geography

WikiProject Cities/US Guideline Geography

This section provides a description of the physical geography. Topics that can be covered include, but are not limited to: the settlement's context in the region topography, natural features, landscape cityscape and skyline wildlife and vegetation neighborhoods infrastructure The purpose is to describe the settlement as a geographic entity and space. Describe how the settlement exists in the larger region (for example, port on a river, harbor on a sea, agricultural community in the prairies, village in the mountains, suburb of city). The settlement as a geographic space is illustrated best with a map but can be explained by detailing the layout of the transportation infrastructure, neighborhoods, types of residential areas in relation to commercial or industrial spaces, etc. If a coordinate (latitude and longitude) is included in the infobox, remove any existing article coordinate from this section. There should be only one coordinate relating to the article present. (Other coordinates for points related to the topic are acceptable, such as historic locations of a moved settlement, relocated features, etc.) In the past, standard practice was to include several coordinate instances: one in the infobox, one in Geography (often repeated in several notations), and once in the external links section using a Geolink or Mapit template. Such replication is confusing, uselessly redundant, and creates maintenance complexity. A coordinate formatted by {{coord}} or {{Infobox settlement}} links to all known map resources, so previous practice is unnecessary. Climate This section provides general climatic conditions that have been recorded in the community. The purpose is to describe what weather should be expected and why. Topics include average, high, and low temperatures, precipitation (rain, snow, or both), wind, etc. Numbers can sometimes be best displayed and understood using a table.

• Most pages seem to skip Flora and Fauna, but being that we live in Montana and the Guidelines suggest it (in addition to it being really easy to look up), if chose to include it. Opinions?
• Since little of note happens in Montana, our news does seem to spend an unbelievable amount of time on weather. Is it really necessary for our Wiki pages to do the same? Is the Winter of 1996 really deserving of its own section? I wasn't living in Missoula at the time, but is this really the type of winter that people will be telling their grandchildren about?
• Neighborhoods
  

I would like to make a separate page for this as well, but I'm not familiar enough with the neighborhoods of Missoula and don't know where to get more detailed information. Any suggestions?

• Downtown
  

Downtown already has its own page (albeit a pathetic one), but we should probably add there and keep this to a basic description of Downtown's history and significance.

• • Moreover, AJ Gibson was great and deserves his own page, but giving him so much credit for Downtown is hyperbole and he didn't design the Wilma, Ole Bakke did.
• Who's for having Buildings in Missoula having their own page so that they stop making this page look silly? I can understand the Courthouse, University Hall, and the Wilma, but when you start listing the Hilton Garden Inn and South Patte St. Parking Garage, you're just taking up space. Besides, how pathetic does that make Missoula look if we list a parking garage as something of significance.

Demographics

WikiProject Cities/US Guideline Demographics

This section provides a demographic profile of the community, and usually relies on census data. Do NOT include population projections past present time per WP:CRYSTAL. The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data. If census estimates or other reliable sources of demographic data are included, the additional data should supplement – not replace – the most recent available data from the decennial census. Do NOT be overly precise in generating numbers or percentages. Follow WP:MOSNUM#Decimal points and WP:NOT#STATS when presenting percentages with decimal places. E.g., for United States cities, the Bureau of the Census presents data with x.x percentage breakdowns. It does not calculate out to x.xx% and editors should not perform their own calculations. Suggested topics: Historical population levels Demographic shifts Average ages Ethnicities Religion Household size Comparison with the larger region or state/province/county is useful. Large quantities of numbers are best shown in graph or table form. It is important here to strike a balance between listing raw data and describing what it means. For some cities one demographic aspect, such as religion or ethnicities, can be important enough to dedicate an entire paragraph to explaining its meaning and implications for the city. To add balance to articles that can seem overly positive, a discussion of crime and homelessness can be added here. The automated demographic information (i.e. "As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were") should be removed as more location-specific information is added in dynamic prose.

Economy

WikiProject Cities/US Guideline Economy

Presumably 95% of the people in the city work for a living, what do they do? What industries/sectors can support so many people? Who are the biggest employers? How did the economy take form and change over time? It is important to maintain a professional and neutral discussion here: avoid spam. Though often unintentional promotional language and formatting slips in. Be conscious of words and phrases here and use footnotes appropriately (not as an excuse for an external link). If a particular company has been crucial to the economy then discuss it but avoid listing company names for no other reason than just mentioning them.

• Does the first section on Economy really need to be Unemployment? Shouldn't employment have priority?
• Should Wal-Mart be included as a major employer or should it just be consolidated into retail?
• Why is there a Local attractions section here?

• Link related to UM and Missoula economy http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-montana/651060-1.html
• Link related to Missoula business park http://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-development-park-weathers-tough-economy-percent-full/article_6c5d8046-16f8-11e1-ad72-001cc4c03286.html
• Bureau of Business and Economic Research at UM
• Dept. of Commerce offices in Missoula]
• Montana World Trade Center

Culture

WikiProject Cities/US Guideline Culture

This section should include a description of the cultural aspects of the city, such as points of interest, museums, libraries, mentions of the city in the popular entertainment, etc. Try to minimize the use of peacock terms in this section. It is arguably the most tempting section for OR and unsourced material. Do not do it! Local festivals, food, accents, etc ... are easy to find sources for. You might consider dividing this up into several subsections, like so: Annual cultural events Yearly events that occur in the city (state fair, art show, festivals, etc) Museums and other points of interest Talk about some of the major points of interest.

• I think this section could be better summarized and then expanded into a more detailed section. Until then, what are some of the major or notable events. Things like First Friday that have been going on for awhile come to mind.
• Shall we have a beer section? Missoula has three microbreweries (including the biggest and the oldest) and Tamarack and Flathead Lake Brewing both just came to town.

Points of Interest

• Shouldn't we just keep this under culture?

Sports

WikiProject Cities/US Guideline Sports
Are there any major league or other professional sports teams in the city? What about other sports that people might participate in (skiing, swimming, golf, tennis).

• perhaps we could add an introduction placing sports in Missoula's context. As in popularity, importance etc. The Griz's affect on the local economy comes to mind. Also, Featured Articles don't simply list organizations but summarize sports in a single section while sending people off to appropriate links for further information.

Parks and Recreation

WikiProject Cities/US Guideline Parks and Recreation
Are there any major parks in the city? What do people do for fun? Since this article is somewhat related to sports, it would be advisable to place it immediately after the sports section. In smaller cities and towns with no major league professional sports, it might actually work better to combine this section with sports, using a suggested section title of 'Sports and recreation'

• Should we talk generally about parks and recreation within Missoula and give Caras Park it's own page? Or just talk more generally about Caras Park and others? Should UM be noted in this section?

Government

WikiProject Cities/US Guideline Government

This section should include a description of the local city government, such as the mayor's office, city council or legislature, city manager (if applicable), and how these entities interact. For larger cities, you might include information on the local government politics as well. Secondly, a brief paragraph about finance: spending for a recent year, proposed spending, or both, with footnotes to the full reports. The method of taxation: sales tax/real estate/personal property. The total number of government employees could be listed.

Organizations and non-profits

• I think we need an introductory paragraph about how non-profits etc. are important to Missoula, and are there ways to categorize them better? Any generalizations we could make?

Education

WikiProject Cities/US Guideline Education

Provide information on notable public and private schools in the city, as well as any colleges and universities that might be present. You might also include some information on the school board, as well as how many students and teachers are in the system. Are there any top-rated schools in the city? What about top-rated teachers (teacher of the year)? Be sure to include references for top-rated schools/teachers. Do NOT list all the schools in a city unless this is a very short list.

• Perhaps a description of the Education as a whole is in order as opposed to simple directory-style listing. (we could list them in a side infotable of some kind). Is Missoula's education known for anything in particular?

Media

WikiProject Cities/US Guideline Media

What is the major daily newspaper in town? Are there any alternative weekly publications? Television and radio stations? You might also talk about the city's media market and audience demographics here. If any major motion pictures, television shows, or syndicated radio broadcasts were filmed/recorded or originated in the city, this would probably be a good place to put that information. It is very easy to make this article a list of radio and TV stations, movies, TV shows, etc. This should be avoided, instead constructing the information as prose

• Is anyone familiar with the history of Media in Missoula? What was the first radio station? Newspaper ownership? Political slant? Corruption and notable events?

Infrastructure

WikiProject Cities/US Guideline Infrastructure

Transportation Include: Major highways, street layout (if notable) Mass transit (if applicable) Intercity transit including Amtrak, buses, major airports Other: are bicycling or walking significant transportation modes? Make sure if a future transit system is planned to include all present infrastructure first, placing future proposals and construction afterward. Utilities Include information on major electric and water utilities serving the city. Health care Include information on hospitals and clinics in the city. Some general information about the overall health of the population might be useful as well.

• Why does this include a traffic report?
• I think we some basic information on arterial roads, highways, bike trails, and the bus system. Maybe even the pipedream proposals for rail that come up every couple years. Though, the history of rail and street cars could probably be given some space.
• Anyone else think that the medical facilities should be summarized and refer people to the main articles of each?

Notable People

WikiProject Cities/US Guideline Notable People

Provide information, preferably in prose form, of any famous or notable individuals that were born in, or have lived for a significant amount of time, in the city. A bulleted list is usually acceptable in the early stages of an article's development, but such lists are frequently vandalized, and the higher level review processes (WP:GA and WP:FA), prefer that this section be written out as prose. If there are a lot of notable individuals (e.g. greater than 25), such as for larger cities and major metropolitan areas, it is common to link to a separate List of people from _ article, which you can link to under the 'see also' section (below).

Other Topics

WikiProject Cities/US Guideline Other Topics

Additional subject headings might be added depending on the city. For example, the Louisville, Kentucky article has a section dealing with the city's nomenclature and pronunciation, since its name is often mispronounced. It is also common for many early articles to contain trivia sections, such as generic listings of information, usually near the end of the article. This is ok in the early stages, as it enables many users to quickly add information to the article without worrying about where to place it. But keep in mind that trivia sections are discouraged in articles, and should be removed (but do not delete the information; rather, transfer it to more relevant sections) prior to nominating the article for good article or featured article status.

Sister Cities

We only have three sister cities, surely we can say something about how they became our sister cities. Though, can anyone explain how we have a library, foundation, and center named after Mike Mansfield in addition to portraits and statues, but no sister city in Japan? Dsetay (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Panorama?

Does anyone who has ever edited this article or even been in Missoula, have a panorama picture of Missoula? If you do please respond to this.

User:Missoulian 11:03, December 23 2010 (UTC)

Bay City Montana

It would seem by the new low-resolution image at the top of the page that we are now a bay town. Isn’t that nice, I have kind of been missing living near the water. It is also labeled as a panorama. Even thou it’s hard to tell what it is an image of because of the low resolution, I can say with a great deal of certainty that it is not a panorama

I liked the last image it was a beautiful picture of Missoula.

Mizmontana (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dont worry to much, the picture changes so often, there is bound to be another beautiful pic of Missoula.

User:Missoulian 18:03, December 26 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.204.101 (talk)

You are right the picture seems to change almost every day, it's kind of silly. I do like the in box picture right now and I think it has been up for two days that may be a record. lol Mizmontana (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article

I think this article has improved greatly in the past month or so, enough to where I think it should be considered as a Featured Article. Does anyone second this? User:Missoulian 19:47, January 3 2010 (UTC)

no, it's not even close. Dsetay (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Even though I appreciate your input User:Dsetay, I want to get get your input on this. What is the difference between the Spokane, Washington article, which is under consideration of becoming a featured article, and the Missoula, Montana article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.202.11 (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The Spokane article is way, way, way more filled out. It has separate, filled out sections for history, neighborhoods (not just a debatable list), economy, sports, etc. Even their summaries are more complete than most of our sections. Simply compare Missoula and Spokane on the Media, Parks, and Education sections for the most glaring differences. It's not even worthy of being upgraded to a 'B' class, as is. I'd like to make adjustments to the aforementioned criticisms when I get a chance, but I'm a little busy right now and it's harder since I haven't lived in Missoula for 2.5 years.Dsetay (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Having taken a city article through the FA process twice, I'm hardly an expert, but I can tell you this article is still a ways from even being close. First, at least try to get it to GA status, then the fine-tuning can start for FA status. GA will address many of the basic writing issues, organizational issues, and formatting issues still present. In just looking over the article (I only did so because my sister just got accepted into grad school at the University of Montana) here are some suggestions:

• Pare down the subheadings. Third-level (or lower) Subheadings should be used sparingly, but should definitely be avoided if they only have a sentence in them, such as in the Culture section. The vast majority of these smaller sections could be merged together or eliminated.
• The University of Montana is mentioned in multiple subheadings: in history, in education, and in culture. Having it mentioned as part of these sections makes sense, but not as a separate subheading in each instance. The mention in culture provides no additional info not already present elsewhere. Watch out for any duplication throughout the article.
• Trim the history section down and consider moving most of the finer details to a History of Missoula, Montana article. The history section needs to summarize the development of the city to give the reader a general, yet thorough, idea of how the city developed and why.
• More sources. The Southgate Mall section has no sources and probably could be eliminated anyway. The tourism section is also unsourced and could easily be done without since pretty much every city has a visitors bureau of some kind. Along with that, make sure sources are properly formatted using the appopriate citation template. The vast majority of citations so far are bare links.
• Make the many lists into prose. WAAAAAY too many bulleted lists.
• Eliminate the history and sponsorship sections for the hospitals. That info is not needed at all and does little to help the reader understand the main subject better. All we need to know is that the city has these hospitals, this is what they do, and have won these awards/recognitions (if applicable).
• Eliminate the gallery at the end. Galleries should be used only in very specific instances and city articles are not one of them. The article is long enough (even once it's trimmed) to incorporate photos into the appropriate section. See WP:IG.
• The University of Montana template shouldn't be on this article since Missoula is not part of the university; it's the other way around. The Radio Stations in the Missoula market also shouldn't be on this page.

There are many other things that will need work, but the biggest start is just combining sections and eliminating cruft. Basically, when choosing what info to keep and get rid of, think what info is needed to help readers understand the subject best? The main subject is the city of Missoula and the danger in any city article is going off on tangents and minor details that do little to help the reader understand the subject better at all (like I said in the note on the hospitals section). --JonRidinger (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. You have many of the same criticisms I have, particularly about the bullet lists. Believe it or not, it was once much, much worse. Fortunately, your suggestions come mostly on sections I haven't had the time or motivation to rewrite yet. I'm guilty for the history section, but I'll try to fix the other issues first.Dsetay (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. Just so you know, I have also been guilty of writing fairly extensive history sections for city articles, especially cities I am familiar with. I consider myself an amateur historian and know a lot of the finer, mostly trivial, details of those things I study the most, so it's tough to decide what's really impoartant and what isn't. The key is really getting it down to the most important developmental events and knowing which details are necessary and which aren't. My best advice would be to write a new, shorter history in your sandbox, then move the current history to the History of Missoula, Montana article to be created, then transfer the shorter history into this article. The guidelines at WP:USCITY basically have it at more than 5 subsections and/or 10 paragraphs being a good sign to think about making a separate article if I remember right. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Neighborhoods and the Wilma Building

I grew up in and lived in Missoula 30 years all these so called neighborhoods are not in common usage or in the vernacular of the local populace, and what evidence is there that the Wilma (built in 1921) was the first steel framed building in Montana? The Metals Bank Building in Butte has it beat by over ten years and there is at least another steel frame building in Butte at Broadway and Main that even beats the Metals Building. Please don't make up facts that are fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazran (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sory about writing false info on the Wilma. On http://thewilma.com/history.php it says it was the FIRST steel framed building in MISSOULA. I 100% thought it said Montana, so I am sorry, and by the time you read this: it will be changed. :) User:Missoulian (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaPackerboy (talk • contribs)

Trade Area?

Hi, This is User:Missoulian and I have a question for wikipedians (like myself)? I posted some info on Missoula from this website: http://www.mindypalmer.com/default.asp?pageid=profile. It says that the trade area of Missoula was 373,961 people, as of 2007. After, someone posted it as being 180,000 from this PDF file: http://www.missouladowntown.com/wp-content/uploads/Missoula-Employment-Analysis-FINAL_Review-Draft12-10-08.pdf . The exact sentence is in Page 2; Paragraph 4; sentence 1. I am not sure which one is correct? If any-one could help myself, and help this Wikipedia page; It would be greatly appreciated.User:Missoulian 1:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on your inquiry on my talk page, I looked at both files, and I'm leaning more towards your estimate, Missoulian. The pdf file estimating approximately 180,000 residents has sources for some of its data, but not for this statistic specifically. Since I down that the drafters of that report went around and counted heads, it is likely they got that number from somewhere, or calculated it themselves, but we really have no way of knowing.

The site you referred to does indicate where it gets its statistics. I did some digging on the web, and found this link from MAEDC (which was the source of the stats for your link). This was the most current information I could find.

Both the links you provided are to secondary sources which would normally be perfectly appropriate. Still, as statistics can get misused when they get further from the original source, I think the MAEDC link proves best in this situation. Unlike the two initial links you gave, the MAEDC link is fairly clear about how the calculation came about (total population of the listed counties).

Bottom line, I've updated the article to something closer to your number based on the info from the MAEDC link. Added a comment on the page next to the stats so hopefully future editors will take a look here before changing. If anyone wants my input, I'm happy to revisit this, but please drop a note on my talk page to grab my attention. Hope this was helpful!--Gnowor^T_C 23:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I am glad to see that you thought my input was correct. Once again Thanks. User:Missoulian —Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC).

Realistic trade area

The Missoula trade area population has recently been added to the Missoula page and it states That the trade area is 360,000. Two sources are cited one is from the Missoula greater Downtown master plan and places the trade area at 180,000. The other source is from the Missoula area economic development corporation it puts the trade area at 100,009 for the Primary trade area 193,358. For the secondary trade area which includes Granite, lake, Mineral, Powell, Ravalli and Sanders counties. This source also shows a third trade area of 363,120 That trade area includes Deer lodge, Flathead, Lincoln and Lewis and Clark counties.

It looks like both sources basically agree on the 190,000. Which I think is the real trade area. To include Kalispell and Helena in the Missoula trade area is just asinine.

Both cities have as much shopping as Missoula. Helena even has a Macys, which Missoula doesn’t have anymore. Having lived in Helena I know, if anyone leaves town to go shopping they go to Great Falls, which is only 90 miles away on I-15 and has more shopping than Missoula. But really they just stay put now days because they have every box store we do.

Missoula is not a wholesale distribution point for these communities either. Butte is more of a distribution center than Missoula, that is why FedEx is building huge new distribution center in Butte. I think there may have been a time, a long time ago, when Kalispell did rely more on Missoula but that is just not the case now.

So if the trade area needs to be listed and I’m not sure it does, it should be the more realistic 190,000. Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Realistic trade area response 1

Most insane response EVER! Seriously! It all has to do with population, not big box stores!? every city/town in America over 20,000 population has big box stores! You know Missoula is the hub for Western Montana and you are just coming up with a lame excuse to say other-wise. The only reason Missoula is the hub is becuase its city has well over 60,000 people! When the UM is in session over 75,000!

Great Falls comes close, but they are the hub for central Montana, and they got hit by the recesion hardcore. Helena not even half of Missoula, and Butte and Kalispell? NOT EVEN CLOSE! I am not trying to be rude, I am just saying that you need to get your facts right. User:Missoulian 4:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW the Kalispell Micropolitan Statistical Area is 90,000 the Missoula Metropolitan Statistical Area is 109,000 that is not a huge difference. Helena's Micropolitan Statistical Area is 74,000 and yes you did sound rude. The bold is meant to be humorous. --Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And just so you know, the college students or many of them at least are counted in the census. 66,000 includes the students, take them away and it would be something more like 53,000. http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/resid_rules.html#Students

--Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You really don’t understand what trade areas are do you, that is rhetorical so please don’t respond. I will try to explain it when I have a little more time. The 360,000 figure you are talking about is the tertiary trade area. Tertiary trade areas really do have to do with the reliance on goods and services, trade and distribution. It is a little trickier in western Montana because there is not one dominant city that is the trade and disruption center for a large area. The population is somewhat more evenly distributed over several communities all of similar size each having their own stores, hospitals and such which as you say most communities of a few thousand do anymore. In this way western Montana is more like the Midwest than what the rest of the west is like. So far as distribution of goods from wholesalers, this happens through cargo carriers and their distribution centers. Some would argue that Spokane is the tier one wholesale distribution center for western Montana. By the rationale you are using Helena could put Missoula, Great Falls, Butte and Bozeman in their tertiary trade area. They are no more reliant on Missoula than Missoula is them. Do you think Missoula and much of western Montana are part of the Spokane tertiary trade area? That ones not rhetorical.

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I also must point out that your population figures are creative and erroneous. And that Great Falls was not hurt near as hard by the recession as Missoula. It was hit hard by military reductions and a weak dollar that keeps the Canadian shoppers at home. However they are sure to be seeing an upswing with all the new oil up around Cut Bank.

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just talking to someone that works for one of the larger Malls in Montana and she agrees that the 190,000 amount for Missoula's secondary trade area is most likely closer to the real figure for the total trade area. However I guess I was wrong about the weak dollar keeping the Canadian shoppers at home. It turns out the weak dollar is good for business the Canadian shoppers have been coming in droves.

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Also I thought of another area much like western Montana and that is southeastern Idaho. Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Twin Falls none of them can really claim the others are part of their trade area.

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

trade area rephrased

I still think it should just not have the trade area listed or have the 190,000 figure but until I have time to do more research I think this would look much better.

As of 2006 one survey showed Missoula as having a primary trade area of 100,086 a secondary trade area of 93,272 and a tertiary trade area of 169,762 for a total trade area of 363,120

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Even though I THINK Missoula is the Major trade area for Western Montana I do think this issue has been resolved.

User:Missoulian 7:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don’t consider it resolved I see it as having reached a temporary compromise. I do not dispute that realistically Missoula is the largest trade center in western Montana. I dispute the numbers. There are areas included that I don’t think are part of the real trade area. I mean a firm being paid to tell this company or that company what they want to hear has put most of the figures you can find together, its all a shell game.

The general formula is pretty much as follows: A Primary Trade Area is usually the geographic area in which between 55 percent and 70 percent of customers and/or spend originate, while a Secondary Trade Area represents a further 15-20 percent.

The Tertiary Trade Area then accounts for 5-15 percent of additional trade.

Using the formula of this survey which is pretty much drawing a big circle around the city, Helena’s trade area would be bigger than Missoula’s trade area. Do you think it is? I don’t.

That is the point I am trying to make: The tertiary should just be eliminated it doesn’t work in this area with the population so evenly dispersed and each community pretty much self-sufficient.

--Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, first of all Trade Area is not Trade are? I am just so confused on how you think Missoula is not the Center of Western Montana? Helena is considered in Central Montana. Why are you even bringing Helena in to the conversation? All I want to know is the REAL trade area of Missoula too, and I would consider Kalispell, Hamilton, maybe even Butte and Bozeman in Missoula's trade area, because A trade area is usually centered around a larger city. In this case I think Missoula would be that larger city. I would like get some other wikipedians involved in this issue, becuase enless we define a trade area of Missoula we (Missoulian/Solglad Tomeetyou) are going to be talking back to each other until Hell freezes over!

User:Missoulian 7:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of everything I wrote a small typo is first thing you choose to comment on. I’m pretty sure you are the only person on the planet that thinks Helena is in central Montana and that Bozeman is in the Missoula trade area. It is as if thou we are witting about two separate things, you really don’t seem to have a grasp of the topic on the table.

--Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Even though I have already written a detailed peer review and offered further suggestions, I'll comment on the lead here as well. I'm not really sure what the problem with the new lead to the point that it needs to be reverted to the previous version. Is the new lead perfect? No, there are additional things that could be tweaked if it were headed for FAC, but it's not. It hasn't even gotten it to GAN yet. Despite that, the new lead is a significant improvement in scope and in language over the previous version; it's very much headed in the right direction. The point of a peer review is to improve the article. There is no such thing as "passing" or "failing" a peer review. It's simply an opportunity for editors to get additional eyes on the article they are working on to offer suggestions and critique what is currently there. Finishing a peer review doesn't guarantee any kind of article advancement in the quality scale either, though that is certainly the hope and purpose behind requesting a peer review. If you have a major problem with the way the lead was rewritten, it's always good to initiate discussion yourself rather than whole-scale reversions. Vague statements in the edit summaries do little to help any concerned editors actually improve the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What we have here is an editor who has previously caused problems in some of these articles (full disclosure: said editor has previously leveled some nasty personal attacks against me for calling said editor on his/her previous tendentious editing). I suggest this person simply be reverted per BRD and encouraged to explain themselves on this talk page. I have no interest in enduring another round of abuse from this editor, but I will support others who wish to exercise appropriate quality control and assist in reverting inappropriate edits. Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you JonRidinger for your very civil discourse. I had a problem with some bolding and completely over reacted with a complete revision. The lead looks good thank you.

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! And thanks for your reply as well. As for the bolding, it is somewhat common in city articles (also common in school articles) to bold previous or alternate names. It's not required or standard across the board, but I have seen it done in instances where a previous name was long-standing or otherwise well-known. It's also good to bold if the previous name is a redirect to the current name (I did that in the Kent, Ohio article redirecting Franklin Mills, Ohio to Kent and bolding Franklin Mills in the article). If the previous name was obscure, then it probably doesn't need to be used. I'm not familiar enough with the history of Missoula to know how long the previous names were used. It's helpful to do that because some histories may use the previous name, so if someone comes looking for the city under the previous name, it's clear this is now the name of the city. Again, it all depends on how long the previous name(s) of Missoula were used. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The earlier names didn't last long, hence I don't think there is a particular need for boldface here. Usually, when I see multiple names bolded, it's in the first sentence: "X, once known as Y and sometimes called Z is... blah, blah, blah... Not a huge deal, really. Just too much BF in the lead looks almost as tacky as WRITING IN ALL CAPS! (LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

undo button

Believe it or not, if you don't agree with part of an edit, you needn't undo the entire thing. Just change the part you don't like. If the page was a featured article I could maybe understand the "don't touch" mentality by people who make one edit every three months. On the other hand, this is a B-class article that clearly needs improvement in areas. The economy section sucks. Were the changes perfect? No. All encompassing? No, I have things to do, and I was beginning to work on it in stages. But, if every time I edit this page it gets reverted because someone wants to protect their one sentence, I may as well give up. Just return the page to lists and trivia tidbits like it was here before I began working on it a year ago, if you'd like. Dsetay (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming that his was aimed at me. Actually you are the one that deleted a section and replaced it with information on FCC guides for wireless devices which had nothing to do with the section you deleted, so that puts the burden on you. I saw that you added the information again and had no intention of touching it because this time you didn’t delete other pertain information. Nonetheless I really don’t see how this information belongs in the economy section. It is my understanding additions should not be worked on in a piecemeal manner but rather that you put the information together and then add it. I’m truly not trying to be a pain and am working in good faith and assume you are as well.

Mizmontana (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, then delete the section on the FCC's basic trade area. Do you feel the same about the Bureau of Economic Analysis economic area? It uses the word "economic" twice in the title, I'm guessing it may be relevant. Especially since your own link uses it as a source. Speaking of that, the information in that sentence I deleted was based on a dead link and neither new link provides the same information. An unsourced claim about economic numbers that were debatable in the first place probably shouldn't be in the article. But, I really don't care. Do the economy section yourself. I don't even live in Missoula. If I bother working on the article again I'll finish the rest of the article first, and when the economy section is still undone (which I expect to be the case), maybe I'll have permission to make edits.

Dsetay (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, now, people! How about we all take a deep breath and discuss the content and quality of sources. I did a copyedit of the section to organize it a bit more logically but made no content edits because I would rather see the people with the access to the research work on that. This article can be upgraded, but the way it gets there is to be well-sourced and relevant. Montanabw^(talk) 20:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Economy stuff

Wonder if there are no Missoula-specific stats on occupations if we should have the Montana statewides in there at all? I can see a GA or FA reviewer asking what the connection is(?) Not a huge deal to me either way, but wondering the thoughts of others on this. Montanabw^(talk) 22:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Montanabw, Missoula specific info would be what is needed here. This may have nothing to do with that but I did some looking around and was surprised to find that Missoula’s economy has been in decline since the mid 2000’s, just didn't know that.

Mizmontana (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem seems to be lack of data. Can we find sources where you were "looking around"?? Footnotes solve many an editing dispute. Montanabw^(talk) 05:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Best policy to follow is if you can't find specific info for the city, don't include whatever fact it is you're trying to include (in this case the fastest growing occupations). Including the fastest growing for the state is irrelevant here, especially after the local politics section explains how different Missoula is from Montana :). --JonRidinger (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The source used for the occupations also links to the unemployment rate for Missoula county, which I think is relevant. What think all of you? Montanabw^(talk) 18:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Since there is a separate article on Missoula County, Montana, that is where such data would be relevant. The only way it would be needed here is for instances where the editor wishes to compare/contrast the city's data with the county's (which I would only use if the two data sets were remarkably different). There is no need to dublicate county or state level data here just so it can fill a void. There should be some city-level unemployment data in the US Census. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Can youfind a link? The Montana DLI stats are only by county... though in Missoula county, the city is the dominant player, economically. At least since they closed the mills. Montanabw^(talk) 00:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Most recent census releases can be found at http://factfinder2.census.gov. The problem is that you can't directly link to a data set (at least as far as I understand it). You have to click on "geographies" and then search for Missoula city, Montana. On the left side there will be a menu for the various data set categories available. I wish I could give you more specifics, but the factfinder2 site is not the easiest thing to navigate. --JonRidinger (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I'm more than glad to let SOMEONE else do it! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 02:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully, the Census Bureau has made it possible to bookmark data sets, so not only can we link directly to city-specific sets, but we can include higher level sets (state, county, national) with it for comparison if needed. Here is the bookmark for Economic stats for the US, Montana, and Missoula side-by-side: http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/10_1YR/DP03/0100000US%7C0400000US30%7C1600000US3050200. The other source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics website http://www.bls.gov/data/. It does not have a bookmark option I am aware of yet, but can be used for unemployment rates (more recent than the Census). Follow the link, scroll down to "Unemployment", then click on "One-screen data search". A new window will open and will have search options for states, metro and cities above 25,000, and the actual cities themselves. The most recent unemployment rate for Missoula (October 2011) was 6.8%. The Census has "percent unemployed" at 8.4. --JonRidinger (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)