Talk:Minneapolis

City of Minneapolis

@Sbmeirow: Why are you selectively reverting this article? I appreciate that you've worked hard on WP:USCITIES and may have some strong feelings reflected in your edit to remove the official name of this city. Your edit summary says removed, because Wikipedia is not a LEGAL document. Nobody is making such a claim.

This is a featured article, and we only have three models of US cities with standalone names to follow: the featured articles Boston, Washington, D.C. and Cleveland. I am restoring the name of the city. A simple fact shouldn't be controversial. Please make your case that using the city's proper name is somehow a legal maneuver. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Every reference in this article that is a citation to the city has "City of Minneapolis" as the publisher. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a legal document or contract, thus is why we don't use "City of NAME" or "Town of NAME". We are suppose to use the common NAME of a community, it's just that dang simple. In general, this has already been an established way to do it across a vast majority of tens of thousands of community articles. Pointing at the exceptions doesn't validate your argument. There are some exceptions, such as NAME is a generic word that could have multiple meanings, or silly community naming messes in older states (such as smaller Town of NAME is actually located inside of a larger City of SAME NAME crazyness). In general, it is fairly obvious that an article named "NAME" or "NAME, STATE" should infer that any use of NAME alone inside the article refers to the community without having to constantly repeat "City of" or "Town of". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

May I suggest you find consensus for your position at WikiProject Cities? This article is in FAR and I cannot do that for you today. I am not attached to the official construct but it is useful and I disagree that it is solely a legal name. Wikipedia has only a few featured US cities and when this one is done I imagine it will be a template for many more. If you can gather your troops at Boston and Cleveland and come up with something, I'll happily follow. Until consensus is reached, I am a stickler for rules. From the top of Featured articles: "Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles." I'm not pointing to "exceptions", I am pointing to the most exceptional of articles. Also when/if you come back here to remove the official name, please do it carefully and globally and don't leave maintenance of thirty other occurrences for somebody else. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur that this should be discussed at WikiProject Cities for consensus. glman (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Since there are tens of thousands of community articles that does it differently, it seems that you should be the one to argue at Wikipedia:USCITY to do it different than the majority. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sbmeirow: I can't due to FAR in progress. Maybe you can get some help from Magnolia677. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted "city of" from hundreds of US city articles, as this is not the common name. I believe a consensus needs to be found to make an exception to the rule, not the other way around. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

FAR is not an excuse to avoid the issue. If you don't/can't find the time now, then disputed content should be removed until you have free time. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Gentlemen, there are good reasons for keeping it, and I outlined them above. I doubt you have approached the editors of the FAs Boston, Washington, D.C., and Cleveland, so I have to question your wisdom in singling out this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: "Gentlemen"? Magnolia677 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is precious as an introduction to the article. Except for Washington D.C., the reader gets no new information about the city except how to specify it in a citation or in a contract (city, town). Even good articles can be improved as they are examples and not every aspect is a perfect model. Use the first few sentences to introduce what makes that community unique and not an unnecessary, technical detail. Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 23:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point, Adflatuss. May I request again that this discussion be moved to the proper venue?

Sbmeirow, did you miss the part where I asked you to first discuss this at the WikiProject and then make your revert globally? -SusanLesch (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Please continue discussion of this topic at the WikiProject. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

IABot errors

IABot has been fixed. For the record, a backlog caused a number of my edits to disappear. I guess we're OK now. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe IABot disappeared my edits again. Reported again. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Links in #Demographics

Magnolia677, you recently reverted my addition of a link to Indian people, citing MOS:OL. I'm okay with leaving the link out as long as that section is consistent. Can you please review it and remove any other links to articles about people that you think are unhelpful to the reader? For example, Germans and Irish and Jews are linked. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

SusanLesch, sorry to bring the FAR here, but there are quite a few inconsistencies in linking in this section. Some peoples are never linked, and some are linked twice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This wasn't an overlink. Indians are the only unlinked people remaining in the first four paragraphs. I don't expect that Magnolia will ever clean up this can of worms.

I removed two links that seemed tangential to this section (manifest destiny and migrant workers). -SusanLesch (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add a hatnote to handle the incoming redirects mpls. and mlps.

Please add:

"Mpls." and "Mlps." redirect here. For other topics, see MLPS and mpls (disambiguation).

{{redirect-multi|2|Mpls.|Mlps.|other topics|MLPS|and|mpls (disambiguation)}}

-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. For the most part, this is done. I omitted the misspelling of an archaic abbreviation. And I corrected the disambiguation page that appeared over-eager to introduce it. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Minneapolis Audio Request

trying to add my audio. Flame, not lame 💔 (Don't talk to me.) 03:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the file, but this article already has audio for the city's name. :MplsAmEng.ogg is in the footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

WHITE SPACE

There is too much white space above the wide photo. Do what ever is necessary to fix this problem. Move photos, delete photos, ... • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Sbmeirow. What's the difference between the black and white photos in History and those in Minneapolis#Transportation? I'm trying to understand the problem you're seeing. (I'm curious what OS, browser, and Preference settings for Appearance you're using, too.) -SusanLesch (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Open a new browser screen, don't login, click "WIDE" button on right side". The white space problem appears in Chrome / Edge / Firefox. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Steve. I can see it in Firefox and Chrome with Small and Wide set, don't have Edge. This will take some fiddling. As you know, this article just went through a years-long featured article review, including image review. Despite all that scrutiny, nobody mentioned this. This article goes to TFA on New Year's Eve, so we have three weeks to correct the problem.

Some alternatives:

1. gang the images in a div and try to eliminate the border spaces with CSS (might work but not ideal just before TFA)
2. reposition the images in the text (let's test this)
3. crop the supercomputer image (if 1 and 2 fail)
4. start deleting images (least desirable)
5. {{multiple image}} (least accessible, used in the infobox and §Sports)

I see a different problem, though. In your configuration, the infobox gets longer, so the concentration camp moves down a whole section, where it makes zero sense. (Similar to the nonsensical positioning I reverted. Sorry about the revert, Sbmeirow.) So the infobox appears to be causing trouble with any images in the first two sections of §History.

How do I get the Appearance pane back when I'm logged out? (I clicked "Hide".) I'm tempted to ask for a graphics expert in the Village Pump. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Another idea. Looks like every field is optional in {{Infobox settlement}}. Maybe a settlement expert (like yourself?) would help me shorten the infobox? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

About 10 lines to go. Or is there a way to hide the maps? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Wut? please stop trying to muck up the infobox to solve this problem, because that's the wrong approach. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful to see the Appearance pane again. How do I restore it? Also, what's wrong with alternatives 1 through 5? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I took a first stab at moving some photos around to try to fix the layout problem. We don't have much control over the infobox, yeah it gets in the way, but we just have to deal with it, sometime can remove photos or maps to but that should only be done in the worst cases where there are far too many photos or far too many maps in the infobox. You are welcome to try moving photos around or deleting photos or moving photos to other sections. I'm done here for this afternoon. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"As you know, this article just went through a years-long featured article review, including image review. Despite all that scrutiny, nobody mentioned this."

Stop it, quit saying this types of thing in comments, serious stop it. It doesn't matter, and it should never be brought up as an excuse to not fix things. It's possible for isseus to exist for long periods of time, because some people either don't know how to fix issues or don't want to spend time to fix them. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I've applied the appropriate fix to the December 4 version after WP:VPT#Image and maybe infobox help for an upcoming TFA. Some of the changes in the interim look to have been attempting to workaround the issue and some look like legitimate updates, the latter of which I have no opinion on. Izno (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

For the archive, Izno found a stray {{clear}} just before the wide image (you can find it in a search for "clear" here). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)