Talk:List of cities in Minnesota

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Indexes

This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.IndexesWikipedia:WikiProject IndexesTemplate:WikiProject IndexesIndexes

Minnesota High‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Untitled

Some of the recent additions to this article appear to be unincorporated or townships. I don't think they meet the definition of "city". What do others think? (I think Winthrow would probably be Withrow - also not a city.)--Appraiser 14:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EPMNlogo.jpg

Image:EPMNlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Edina seal.gif

Image:Edina seal.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Cityflag2.gif

The image Image:Cityflag2.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.

That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eden prairie Population

Why is the listed population of Eden Prairie listed here (76,906) so different from the population listed on the Eden Prairie page (62,407)? The second number is supposedly from 2010, and I find it hard to believe that Eden Prairie lost 15k people in 2 years. Binarybits (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"(population 5,000+)" but includes cities 4,000+

Colors? Daggers?

What is the meaning of the green and blue colors and the daggers/double dagger? It doesn't seem to be explained.

Update: found the key (right column, under a series of images) but I don't think it's effectively displayed, speaking as a pretty savvy web user who didn't find it until my fourth visit to the page.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of cities in Minnesota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo thumbnails and descriptions

In a flurry I corrected some of the images and their captions on the page that had been vandalized. In hindsight, it probably would have been better to find out how to revert it. I apologize in advance for my hasty editing and will attempt to do more due diligence before working. Matriarchetype (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change column… 1 year or 10 years?

I think the change between the 2010 and 2020 censuses would be much more interesting. It feels like the 2020 numbers just came out! Give us a few years to digest them before switching to between-census estimates. DavidRF (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, we should not be using estimates at all, they are not encyclopedic when actual counts are available. The 2010 and 2020 census count will show a change not influenced by year-to-year variations. In fact the way it is now is grossly misleading. Minneapolist grew 12.4% over the past 10 years! But it shows it as negative growth because of an estimate from a year after the census? Mattximus (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]