Talk:Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness

message: Would it not make sense to reorganize the first five parts of the existing text as follows:
:Intro
:Geography
:Natural History
::Geology
::Forest ecology/flora
::Fauna
:Human History
:Recreation
Reasons:
Geography would flow into geology, and human history would flow into recreation.  While someone looking for recreational activities would have to look further down the article to get there, I don't see that as a bad thing.  Kablammo 18:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the Intro should state when it was designated a wilderness and why. Geology would probably be limited to the explaining how the lakes were created...which I think was due to glacial action, but not sure. I see no problem with the reorganization as you suggest.--MONGO 19:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also see no problem with this reorganization scheme, although the Intro could be made a little more rigorous as MONGO suggested. -- BlueCanoe 23:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: MONGO, are you suggesting removing the bedrock geology information?  After re-reading the section I think the first and last sentences can be made into a first paragraph dealing with the glacial formation of the lakes, and the bedrock info (sentences 2, 3) can be a second paragraph.  But I think the general age and bedrock composition information should remain in the article.  Geologically speaking, the Canadian Shield is a big deal, as are rocks of Precambrian age, and the BWCAW is one of the few places in the USA where those rocks are clearly exposed.  -- BlueCanoe 00:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not...keep everything, just shoot for a Featured Article...make it all inclusive and perhaps by creating an outline now, everyone who has worked hard on this page can create an FA, which would be the first wilderness article to achieve that standing. Add sections on who mangaes the region, how the manage it, etc. Examine a few Protected areas FA's to help figure out priorities here.--MONGO 07:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the intro should be two to three short paragraphs, the tree and animal species could be expanded, and more footnotes and references should be found if possible.--MONGO 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Word.  I revised and cited the Geology section, and it looks like revisions by others are also happening.  I agree with MONGO's suggestion of edits with a vision towards greatness for this article. -- BlueCanoe 04:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: I have repeatedly removed links to BoundaryWatersCanoeArea.com (www.boundarywaterscanoearea.com or www.bwca.cc), as this is a commercial website with a large amount of advertising.  Other similar Boundary Waters-oriented commercial websites which, in my opinion, should not be linked to from Wikipedia, include CanoeCountry.com (aka www.bwcaw.com) and BWCA.com, which, although it contains less advertising, requires visitors to register to access content.  For the Wikipedia guidelines on external links, see WP:EL.  -- BlueCanoe 15:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I propose that the abbreviation BWCA be changed to BWCAW throughout the article. I see the latter much more than the former. Google yields 133k hits for bwca canoe vs. 186k for bwcaw canoe. Thoughts? --R27182818 20:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the article remains internally consistent, I don't see a problem with either BWCA or BWCAW.  I feel BWCA flows a little better absent those extra three syllables in "w", but BWCAW is more legally precise as it includes the "wilderness" designation.  I think your Google hits are an argument for the two abbreviations' interchangability and co-existence, actually. -- BlueCanoe 21:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. Barring further opinions or objections, I'll change it to BWCAW throughout in a few days. --R27182818 18:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No objections, so I went ahead and did it. -- R27182818 01:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BWCA or BWCAW? 

message: We need a map for this page. Anyone know of a good free use one? -Ravedave 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides this ugly one I found way back :Image:Northern_Minnesota_Parks_map.gif -Ravedave 16:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Off the top of my head, I believe it was to prevent float-plane access.  Before the BWCAW was legally protected as a wilderness (1964), the float-plane/lodge/guide package was a popular option, resulting in float-planes buzzing around and landing on otherwise remote, peaceful lakes.  --BlueCanoe (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: There's another photo added by this edit. I'm not sure what value it adds to the (already photo-heavy) article, but I hesitate to simply remove it without review. So... review requested. ;) --R27182818 (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was my last photo edit: , not the one above.  The article is not photo heavy.  The BWCA is very photogenic.  Other articles would kill to have such photos.  Moreover, Ely's Joe Seliga was an important part of the BWCA. Motorrad-67 (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the photos are not the best-- the dark one of the group on the river could go.  The wood and canvas canoe is a nice image of the craft but the caption focuses too much on its maker than the subject of the article. I have no objection to this photo, but shorten the caption and leave out the identity of the maker.  Kablammo (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Seliga.jpg 

message: ♦ In the above discussion, Kablammo suggested cleaning out the External links section. Here's a copy of the section with my proposed action on each link. Comments?
# Keep, but link text - Boundary Waters History 
# Keep - Superior National Forest: BWCAW
# Keep - The BWCAWiki, a wiki compendium of BWCAW knowledge
# Delete?, seems redundant - Wilderness.net: BWCAW
# Keep - Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness (political advocacy)
# Delete?, probably better as a citation in the Recreation section - Conservationists with Common Sense (political advocacy)
# Delete, dead link - [http://www.boundarywatersjournal.com/ the Boundary Waters Journal (magazine)
#:This one isn't dead; I plan to re-add. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links cleaning 

message: I went through the two links added in the last few days.   I think that they are borderline. One is to get site visitors connected with businesses, the other is a message board.  While I think that BWCA-related businesses IS informative about the BWCA, on first impression that site was not particularly informative even with respect to businesses, it is more oriented just making connections of potential customers to businesses. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent external link additions

message: :Looks like good material.   The "older outfitters" looks borderline-commercial but I'm thinking OK. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to list individual outfitters; that just invites the kind of commercial link spam that articles like this often suffer.  Also, this information needs a reference, especially the statistically dubious claim that "1/2" the visitors use an outfitter.  -- BlueCanoe (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I was thinking that ancient outfitters are significant historical topics.   But that could put the article on a slippery slope as you describe.   I'll take those out. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Took them out.  Commercial is a big part of the history of the area; maybe someday we could find a "safe" way to encyclopedicly put some of that in.   North8000 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's additions