Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 3

message: Not to be a negative Nancy or anything, but the last two-thirds of this reads really badly.  It's choppy and sounds like a list.  Elfangor801 08:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi, Elfangor801. Yes, no question the article would benefit from the work of writers. Can you say please what you mean by "last two-thirds"? Let's say, for example, you mean starting with #14 International, #15 Famous Minneapolitans, #16 Minneapolis in popular culture, #17 Attractions, #18 References, #19 Futher reading and #20 External links. Yes they are lists and yes #14 to #17 could be moved out to "List of...." child articles if the whole article is rewritten to include what leaving them out will omit. Or, for example if you mean above # 14 International, we do need writers' skills as someone else pointed out resulting in a new item in the to do list. Thanks. -Susanlesch 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Four lists moved (#14 to #17). Does that help? -Susanlesch 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Thanks for taking the time to comment. Adding  which may attract some writers, and added the article to Requests for copy editing. Also I will restore the lists I moved because now I see Elfangor801 meant the prose itself. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you want, I can make some changes.  I'm actually a copy editor on my school paper...which may not be a huge deal in reality, but I know how to write pretty well. It'd be great for the Minneapolis article to be a FA. Elfangor801 03:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wonderful. I am a technical editor not a writer. If you have time that would be great. -Susanlesch 03:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think I will then.  If people think I'm writing badly, please tell me to stop so the article doesn't stink for an extended period of time.  Elfangor801 03:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Is there a tutorial on making links to the reference section somewhere?  That looks fantastically complicated.  Elfangor801 04:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Got it, thanks. Elfangor801 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, 'cite web' is the template I used too in this article, about 100+ of them. A person in the village pump just told me that all those templates may be part of the reason this article is loading slowly, so I am moving to even simpler refs, and hoping that is all right with everyone. It is probably unusual to have so many refs to begin with. Removing the extra markup might also give more room for content. -Susanlesch 00:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Some kind of structure to the citation data might be useful in the future so I restored the 'cite whatever' templates even though they cost about 6.6K for 130-some cites. Just posting those numbers here in case the article goes up over 90k again (last week the page was sometimes over 20 seconds to load on my machine, and now it is sometimes about half that). -Susanlesch 22:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing

message: I had put in elevations according to Google Earth (686 and 925).  The USGS has 687 and 980 here .  The lows are close enough to be due to rounding, or even river level (since the elevation of the lowest point is at the river's edge) as the Mississippi leaves the city.  I wonder if USGS is measuring from the top of the tower.
So, as a curiosity check, the Washington National Cathedral article says that the top of the tower is 676' above sea level and 301' above ground level, yielding an elevation of 375'.  It is well known that the cathedral is built on the highest point in D.C.  Google Earth shows an elevation of 377' at the front doors of the cathedral.  Again, close enough to be adequate.  But the USGS says that the highest point in D.C. is 410'. WTF?  My conclusion is that Google Earth is probably right and USGS must be using some non-standard method for elevations.  I'll change this article back and cite Google Earth if no one has a counter-argument or a more reliable source.--Appraiser 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't know about DC, but in Minneapolis it turns out that the "well known" location of the highest elevation is simply wrong.  Even some official Minneapolis web sites cite Prospect Park as the highest point, but it isn't.  There's an official sign at Deming Heights Park proclaiming it the highest elevation in the city, and Google Earth corroborates it.  I'll take GPS readings if it would be useful.  In the meantime, a good internet search shows a definite split in opinions on the topic.
--Justinulysses 05:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Using Google Earth I get 965' just across Fillmore St. from Deming Park.  But I also checked Waite Park, and got 974' near 34th and Ulysses.  What's the highest elevation you found, and where is it?--Appraiser 13:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oh, that's interesting.  I get the same results you do.  It's clear that Prospect Park isn't even close to being the highest point.  What does the USGS have to say?Justinulysses 18:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For those of us with no Google Earth, is 980 right for Prospect Park? Because that is higher than 965 or 974 I will change that back at least for now. P.S. And reverted again based on 925 above. Sorry I was confused and believed the article for a second. -Susanlesch 06:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * Google Earth gives me a max of 925' near Prospect Park, a max of 965' near Deming Heights Park, and a max of 974' near Waite Park School.  None of the Google Earth high points lies exactly where I know those local highs to be, they tend to skew south or east by perhaps 100 feet or so.  I would love to see official topographical maps that show official measurements.  I've also been meaning to borrow a GPS and see what I can measure for myself.--Justinulysses 07:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: elevations

message: Normally intros do not have citations in them as they should be a summary of the article (which will have the citations) -Ravedave 17:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Nearly all of the U.S. city featured articles have one or more citations in the lead. This may be because the authors are calling out a fact that is either more specific or more general than one cited in the body of the article. -Susanlesch 18:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: **You can do the lead however you like I was just pointing out what I have noticed. If the lead is supposed to be a summary, why would it have specific info? -Ravedave 19:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro  

message: I believe the term Murderapolis is significant enough that it deserves mention in the article. The murder rate during that time was terrible and should not be whitewashed. -Ravedave 19:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Seems to me the article is anything but whitewash- it clearly states the murder rate, the steps taken by the police, the resurgence in 2006, and links to the word "murder". I would suggest actually that crime is out of proportion to the amount of information in the whole Government section already, and would add that Crime is discussed in even more detail in Law and government of Minneapolis, Minnesota. If you want to add more detail why not mention the 2007 rate instead of a nickname from 11 years ago? -Susanlesch 19:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Further, the slogan apparently came from a Minneapolis individual or t-shirt and is not a creation of the New York Times -- Dirk Johnson simply repeated it and it has been picked up by people who like their news that way (disclaimer: I don't). The Minnesota Medical Association, KARE 11 TV, City Pages, and the Minnesota Daily all appear to have incorrectly sourced the slogan. The NYT source is clear in Law and government of Minneapolis, Minnesota, also cf. Google search for "murderapolis "new york times" which will give you a thousand hits mostly wrong, and Johnson, Dirk, "Nice City's Nasty Distinction: Murders Soar in Minneapolis", The New York Times, 30 June 1996. -Susanlesch 19:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Corrections done in the crime paragraph. Murderapolis moved to "Minneapolis in popular culture." Does this help? -Susanlesch 09:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Muderapolis

message: Hi. Did anyone else notice the file size and how slow this article was to load? We were up over 90k plus templates plus images. In the past couple of days, templates have been removed and some text and templates trimmed. Is it faster now? I just learned that the source has the following information which might help as a reference point or to compare with other articles. Maximum is 2048000 bytes. -Susanlesch 17:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Load time, file size

message: The Demographics section is larger than content of the "Main Article: Demographics of Minneapolis, Minnesota" link.  Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? Gopher backer 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you proposing that Demographics of Minneapolis, Minnesota be deleted? (I'd probably have worded this question the other way around -- "The Demographics article is shorter than the Demographics section of the main article. Does that mean it needs work?"). -Susanlesch 13:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Are there any pictures of a Gopher sports team playing on campus?  It seems like an image showcasing a facility in Minneapolis would be preferred.Gopherbone 07:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to request an image at :Wikipedia:Requested pictures or take a photo yourself? Free images are very difficult to find. I was happy and incredibly lucky to find two of Gopher women in any sport. Both high quality and both basketball at Ohio (#1 and #2 were on Flickr tagged "women Minnesota"). Regarding are there "any," Flickr might have an image of women who are not Gophers doing some other sport (or other images of Gopher women's sports that are tagged something else) or maybe they will have Gophers in the future. Did you see the image of Gopher men's basketball at Williams Arena that was in this article for quite some time? -Susanlesch 13:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a free photo of the Gophers playing at the Dome that I took and is sitting in the Metrodome article.  --Bobak 16:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. You're welcome to try it, speaking only for me. There are a number of factors to consider including the venue, variety of sports, the visibility of persons, their gender, balancing the content of only two sports photos, and probably more. -Susanlesch 17:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports images

message: I know bridges are something Minneapolis is proud of having, but I feel the current photo isn't working.  Can't we focus on the downtown and then add photos of the bridges?  I mean, that's not even the most attractive bridge (Stone Arch and Washington Ave. are much better). --Bobak 16:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a request for someone else to do something? If you look at the edit history and speaking just for me, we had four or five different skylines this week alone. (Those photos have since been uncropped in the commons.) Respectfully, it isn't as easy as people may think. Someone uploaded four to Flickr this week. I will try yet another one in the meantime. -Susanlesch 17:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like a few were missed from the Skyline category, I've found a few more and tagged them.  Looking through previous versions, the one I thought looked a bit better was in this previous version of the article.  I guess it's not high res enough.  The current photo just makes it look like we're a city of bridges or something of that nature and I've never known us for being that.   Early on the article had Stone Arch Bridge as the "skyline" photo and it was replaced for a skyline photo; I replaced it with this (which for full disclosure was mine, but I'm not saying its the best because it's a night photo).  Something like that low res day photo would look much better.  --Bobak 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks for finding more. Yes, licensing issue aside I liked that first one you link to, too. -Susanlesch 19:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's another idea: someone can go over the St. Anthony Main (I could this weekend) and take a photo of the downtown skyline with the Mississippi in the foreground --wouldn't that look a little more Minneapolis? --Bobak 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Those are both really good ideas, if I had to pick one of those two as they are, I'd go with the lake photo.  Looks like the Lake photo is from Calhoun.  With that said, I like the idea behind the mill photo and the composition.  It might even be easy to get the river in as well --it looks like the photo was taken from near or on Stone Arch Bridge (before I checked the date I noticed it was a bit older since the Mill City Museum is under construction in the pic); that photo would've also been taken before the Guthrie was built, just to the left of the silos.  If the weather isn't as ridiculously hot on Saturday as it is now, I might walk over there and see if I can't snap something similar with a higher resolution (I don't have a professional camera, but it should be able to do something similar). --Bobak 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Revisiting this after a while, #1 looks nice in the main article. --Bobak 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Hi, outinthered (what is your username?). Yes, dozens of skylines have been tried. I agree this image is not perfect, though its vantage point might be. Please point to an alternative. We have for example, collections at :Category:Skylines of Minneapolis, Minnesota and one on the commons, Category:Skylines of Minneapolis, Minnesota. What would be your choice? -Susanlesch 16:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *P.S. Every city has a skyline of tall buildings. So what is "stunning" about having tall buildings in Minneapolis? -Susanlesch 16:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm not sure you're following the discussion? We cannot use that one. And I cropped it "close-up" as you may have seen in the commons but the image has a license cloud. Thanks for your input though. -Susanlesch 11:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skyline Image 

message: Also, if anyone can get around to it, I've been thinking the very best photos are available in the condo buildings just across the river from downtown (in St. Anthony/Nordeast).  For example, I found a prime example in this condo listing, maybe I'll pretend to me a millionaire to take a photo from that balcony (you get river, bridges, falls, mills, skyline, and you avoid those damned power lines that mar any photos below a certain height)... I visited the Falls/Pinnacle, but I couldn't get high enough. --Bobak 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Skyline grail?

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support As per request. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 05:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey