Jump to content

Talk:List of people from Montana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback

[edit]

This list seems amazingly complete and asserts notability and location within Montana. All lists seem to get challenged on the basis that they are lists, but if anything was to be challenged I assume it would be the appropriateness of the "Adult entertainment" section (I feel it is appropriate), and I would expect debates about notability within all other sections (this is also appropriate, when civil). Hyacinth 01:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I can see your point as to the Adult section, but I agree that it has a place. As to notability, I am not prepared to defend each listee as to their worthiness -- particularly in the "Athletics" section. My intention was rather to cast as wide a net as possible and let the community sort out those that don't belong. Deejayk 04:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

[edit]

A great list! One question, though, is the amount of tenure required to qualify for inclusion -- for example, should prominent people who maintain second or vacation homes in the state be included? Lots of folks -- Ted Turner, Michael Keaton, Tom Brokaw, Huey Lewis, Glenn Close, and many others -- would qualify under that criterion. Pitamakan 15:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not really sure where to drawn the line for people like Ted Turner. My initial reaction is to exclude them if they're not natives and not full-time residents and their notariety isn't linked to the state. I don't really want to expand the list to include everyone who has a vacation home in the state, however, it's difficult to really determine where the line should be drawn. There are probably a few on the list who have slimmer qualifications than Ted Turner, for example. Would a new catagory be appropriate for these "carpetbaggers"?
In addition, the list includes several people who were born in Montana, but left during their early childhood (e.g. Dana Carvey & Adam Morrison). It would be easy to make an argument that some or all of the folks you mention have made a bigger impact on the state than these "natives". However, I can defend the inclusion of these "natives" by the fact that they appear on several other lists of notable Montanans (outside Wikipedia) and so I feel their absense on this list would be notable. Deejayk 04:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People who vacation in Montana are not from Montana and thus don't belong on the list. Hyacinth 19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is not necessarily a list of Montana natives. The rub is that several of the people listed by Pitamakan above are folks who I wouldn't necessarily consider as "vacationing" in Montana -- they may spend over half their time in the state. I've spent some time looking around Wikipedia at similar pages, and haven't found much concensus as to who should be included in this type of list. Some of the things I have found:
  • Individuals on this list are either native-born Arkansans or emigrants who have chosen Arkansas as their permanent home.
  • Listed below are celebrities that have called Hawai'i home during some significant part of their lives.
  • This is a list of people whose career was all or part in Illinois; people are not included if they left the state before beginning a career.
  • The following is a list of prominent people who were born in the U.S. state of Maine, live in Maine, or for whom Maine is a significant part of their identity
  • This is a list of notable persons who were born or spent important time in the state of Minnesota. Important or widely-recognized persons are listed in bold. Persons not born in Minnesota are marked with §.
My favorite of these approaches is the last (from Minnesota). Discuss... Deejayk 20:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinked names

[edit]

Looking at this list again after a few months, I have to say I'm much less pleased with it now. It seems to primarily be an enumeration of obscure professional athletes, a great many of whom will likely never have their own Wikipedia articles, and some who have only a relatively minor connection to Montana. To bring a little balance to the list, I'd suggest one of two possibilities: either limit the list to people who already have Wikipedia articles (there's precedent for that elsewhere), or move the pro athletes into a list of their own. I'm not sure there'd be much support for this, but I thought I'd throw it out. Pitamakan 18:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

[edit]

There is a lot of redundancy in this article. There are two "Other" sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas(CA) (talk • contribs) 02:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montanans needing more research

[edit]

While working on this trying to get it to FL status, I came across these issues:

PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prioritize Dolak. Montanabw(talk) 17:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear on inclusion criteria

[edit]

When I started to look at this list I came to the realization that the inclusion criteria was a bit vague and hard to apply. I have the following questions: 1) What does notable outside of Montana mean? Does it mean that a person has coverage by a reliable source published outside Montana? Does it mean that the person is notable for something done outside Montana? What if the person has been noted outside Montana for something done inside Montana. 2) born/raised or have lived for a significant period of time in Montana. Combine these three criteria with the above and you can see the confusion. Born is easy, raised is (I guess) living in Montana for some period of time until they were 21?, significant is much to vague to speculate (some % of their total life span). A 24 year old who lived 8 years in Montana spent 33% of their life in Montana. An 80 year old person who lived in Montana 8 year only spent 10% of their life in Montana. Signficiant is much too vague to act as valid inclusion criteria. 3) Does the person have to have a WP article to be included in the list? (i.e. no redlinks). If not, there are probably 100s of persons that could be added to the list.

I think the inclusion criteria need to be firmed up solidly before this list would ever be eligible for FA status. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. To answer some questions-yes for an FL it's best to have an article on WP, so no article=not on list. As for "outside Montana" that seems to have turned out to mean if they have an article on wiki, they're notable "outside Montana". The RS used doesn't have to come from outside MT. FYI, I didn't write the incluseion line, it was there when I started on this. I'm thinking of removing the line totally as if they have an article they're notable for wiki purposes. I've been using 1 year in MT or a significant event in MT for my inclusion purposes. If the list gets too big it's okay to break it down (A-L and M-Z for example, or by topic). Thoughts? PumpkinSky talk 16:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would rewrite the inclusion lead as follows: This is a list of notable Montanans who were born or raised in Montana, or who reside in or were Montana residents for at least XX years, or individuals who participated in a notable event in Montana history.
On the talk page, we can make it abundantly clear that only individuals with WP articles (notable) get included in the list. Also, we can insure that all entries include a Montana place of birth or residence.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you start with "this is a list..." the first ding at FLC will be to take it out because that it's a list is know by the title. "...who are notable" will get dinged too because they are defacto notable by being in the list and have a wiki article. We can otherwise work the lead though. If you see my tables you see they include the Montana connection. Yep, we should Ensure having an article is a requirement.PumpkinSky talk 17:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the statement in the article and put a big tag at the top of the talk page. Thoughts?PumpkinSky talk 20:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cut this from the article, deciding it's better just on the talk page. I haven't seen anything like this in the article on another FL. PumpkinSky talk 12:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My take is definitely no redlinks. If they can't meet WP:NOTABILITY, which is a threshold so low you can barely trip over it, then no sense adding people here that someone can't be bothered to create an article. At List of horse breeds, which is not FL but I've maintained it for years, we have a policy of "write the article THEN add the link." Next, are there ANY state or national (maybe other countries?) "lists of famous people" that are FL that we can use/plagiarize as a guide? That's always my favorite approach (grin). Third, I don't think a set number of years for inclusion will be very workable, but we DO need some standard -- Remington no way deserves to be on this list, IMHO (he visited maybe once as a tourist??), but someone could have, in theory, done their most remarkable work during a short residency. Illogically, I would support David Lynch being on the list, even though I think he left as an infant. Finally, people only notable in Montana have existing WP articles, such as a whole pile of state legislators. We could wind up with thousands of people on this list just with SP articles already, you know... These are just my thoughts. No moral declarations contained within. Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the lead

[edit]

Right now the article doesn't have a lead that complies with WP:FL? Specifically: 2.Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.

Although the lead I wrote above may not be the best, it does comply with both the FL criteria and WP:Lead (although List of may not be appropriate). I randomly looked at a few featured lists: List of birds of California for example has a clear lead that leaves no doubt about inclusion criteria.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, feel free to take a stab at it. Is there a FL that you like that is of people (from whatever college or whatever) that is a good example? PumpkinSky talk 16:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems adequate for now. I'd finish off the list and criterion and tweak the lead last. Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

We should decide whether will want a bulleted list format or table format. Using both is confusing and will cause it to fail FA. I much favor the bulleted list as it is easier to edit. The Athletes section is a good standard to follow. All entries should have the same format. All entries should have the same (birth-death) format and each entry should be clear on the period of residence in Montana. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has both because I'm in the middle of this. I started making them tables because all the recent FLs are tables, at least that I saw. Tables make format and appearance much more consistent too. I really think we should stick with tables. PumpkinSky talk 17:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IF we have to for FL, I guess we have to, but personally I hate the charts, they are hard to add new stuff to due to the formatting, but that's just me and because I'm lazy. The only time they make sense is when you have photos attached to most entries (like List of United States federal courthouses in Montana). I like the sections with simple lists and ref tags after each would work fine with me. (I do think all links have to have refs for FL, don't they??). Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

[edit]

A couple of new sections need to be added--Pioneers (individuals involved in developing the state pre 1900), Environmentalists, Naturalists, etc. (goes beyond Scientists) are a couple that come to mind. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. But if we put a photo(s) with the table, the photos can't extend below the list, that's a no-no at FLC.PumpkinSky talk 17:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More on sections - After working through many of the new names to be added to the list, I think you should add (or modify) sections as follows:
  • Pioneers (pre 1900)
  • Native Americans
  • Politicians (with sub-sections for Senators, Congressmen, Governors) - separate out military into its own section. Because there are already Lists of Senators, Congressmen and Governors of Montana, they can be linked in this section and none of the individuals need be listed.
  • Military
  • Business people - need to added as many subsections as necessary here such as Architects, Mining, Forestry, High Technology, etc.
  • Environmental advocates
  • Academics - separate from Writers or Authors - includes more than professors
  • Authors - is better than writers
  • Recreationalists - Here you can add all the sports individuals that are not Athletes

-- Mike Cline (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas. I'd like to finish what's on the page already and then see where we're at in terms of how many people are in each section, ok? PumpkinSky talk 15:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with getting the list created and then figuring out categories, unless there is some sort of standard formate endorsed by WP United States or somthing. I sort of hate dozens of subsections on principle, but also some people aren't simply one thing. However, in the above list, I'm having a few "ick" reactions. I am particularly concerned about creating racial/ethnic categories: "Native Americans" is one. Sort of like "famous black/hispanic/gay/Catholic/women" people. For example, James Welch: author or Indian? Chief Joseph was a statesman and a diplomat, Sitting Bull's time in Montana was mostly as a political/spiritual leader and medicine man, while Crazy Horse was a war chief. Sort of an insult to classify these people primarily by their race. I'd say keep five or six broad categories, with a few of the big ones, like artists or sports figures, split into subcats. That said, I do support splitting out the politicians from the military -- but what DO we do with those who were both (say, at the national level, President/General Eisenhower, who was significant as both...)?? Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names to add

[edit]

Compiling a list of additional names to be added in the appropriate section. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names added or not required in the list

[edit]

Lots more to add, but I am tired. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names to add

[edit]

As we work through these, some may already be in the list, so will just ignore them and remove them from this list as they are discovered in the main list.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

temporary section for ipad editing

[edit]

Criteria for Native Americans

[edit]

What should the criteria for Native Americans be on this list? There are at least a dozen articles on Native Americans that were involved in Montana history. Many of them died and are buried in the state. If they fought in a major Montana battle do they get included? What about U.S. Army soldiers that fought in Montana?--Mike Cline (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that depends on how we define "Montana"--only after the territory was formed by white people or anyone who lived/etc at anytime within the modern borders of Montana. I'm open to ideas here of course. If the list gets too big we can break it up by topic like List of Medal of Honor recipients (with sub lists by war), or List of United States Naval Academy alumni; in this USNA list set, every single list is a FL and the whole set is a featured topic. PumpkinSky talk 20:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the relevant dates:
  • Montana Territory: May 28, 1864, until November 8, 1889
  • State of Montana: November 8, 1889 to Present
Most if not all the Native American and U.S. Army involvement with relevant WP articles occured within these two periods --Mike Cline (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then those wouldn't be a problem either way. I'm even okay with including those from prior to that period. I think the criteria for "what warrants a separate list" is 15 or so entries. I was looking at the USNA main list and when there's a sublist they list 5 sample entries on the main list with a link to the sub list. PumpkinSky talk 21:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my assorted comments in other sections. I say classify people by what they did, not by what race they are. I'd suppose a catchall "other famous Native Americans" category might be OK for someone you can't place anywhere in particular, but I can't think of anyone offhand who could not be classified as a political leader, military figure, explorer, artist, etc... I don't like the feel of a segregated section. We can note in each entry if the person was Nez Perce, Sioux, Cheyenne, etc... designation by nation is what the actual people in Montana today seem to universally prefer over being called "Native American." (A term which some hate, by the way, even preferring "Indian" or capital N "Native" ) I'd define "Montana" broadly as "anyone who meets the criteria of inclusion at any point in history within the boundaries of what today is Montana." I mean, if Piltdown Man was here, he'd fit! LOL! Unlike Idaho Territory or Dakota Territory, "Montana" has been "Montana" since its first territorial designation, so no problem of much confusion in that regard. Montanabw(talk) 18:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans warranting inclusion

[edit]
Lacking the time to review the list, note my comments above. To add more, is Denise Juneau to be listed as a politician or an Indian? Ditto Bill Yellowtail? More complex characters would include Jean Turnage -- Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court or part-Indian? Montanabw(talk) 18:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go with Montanabw's post just above this subsection and put them in a section per what they're noted for. After all, we haven't separated any other group out by ethnic group. By tomorrow I should have all 10 listed above entered to the main list. PumpkinSky talk 00:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

125 Montana Newsmakers

[edit]

These people are in the Great Falls Tribune's list of "125 Montana Newsmakers" and don't currently have an article. The number after their name indicates which part of the list they're in. Here is the home page of the list.

PumpkinSky talk 23:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference column

[edit]

We might want to consider eliminating the Reference column from the table and just add the <ref></ref> inline after the comments. I think it will provide a cleaner appearance and will certainly remove a lot of whitespace which the 4th column takes up. Looking at number of FLs, this would be a plus from the FL criteria side. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PSky, you want to weigh in on this? --Mike Cline (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen FLs with the refs in other spots than a separate a column and I think they usually look tacky and the refs are hard to find. I think the separate column makes it nice and neat and easy to find. I think the white space argument is a red herring as pretty much everyone has a wide screen monitor nowadays. But to find a happy medium, i've changed the header from "References" to "Refs". What do you all think? PumpkinSky talk 20:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hate the charts from the get-go because it's really hard for me and my laptop and my eyes and the small print to edit, so no help here. I'll just do whatever everyone else decides, because what I really prefer is a normal list with a normal footnote at the end of the line (all said with a smile, I dont' really care). Montanabw(talk) 23:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Porn queens?

[edit]

Must we really have the "adult entertainers" section? Can't we just quietly put these people under "actors" or something? And at the very least, must they be FIRST on that section? =:-O Montanabw(talk) 16:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did the sequence alphabetically. As for their own section, that was already there. As for moving them under the general section, I'm open to talk. PumpkinSky talk 17:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd favor merging them in with actors. I mean, it IS "film" I guess. I kind of hate to see that sort of stuff split out and highlighted. (I'd kind of wish is wasn't there at all, but oh well, WP:NOTCENSORED) I mean, I don't think much of that sort as "actors" either, but then, there's an argument to be made that, oh, for example, Patrick Duffy or Dirk Benedict can't act their way out of a paper bag, so who am I to judge quality? (grin). Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can figure out, the rule of thumb is 5 or more warrants a separate section, and they are wiki-notable. So using those guidelines, they warrant their own section. I can't stand Steve Martin - he sucks - but he'd surely be on any list of US comedians. ;-) PumpkinSky talk 20:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adult Entertainers works better tham puting them in a porn actors section of actors as some are just playboy playmates who have not made porn films. Entertainers described the various adult work better.87.114.0.43 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but rule of 5 is probably meant to be broken. And think of what a mess we'd have if we applied it too literally -- say if we split out "authors" (I still like "Writers" better, FYI), into nonfiction writers, novelists, poets, essayists, growly curmudgeons, blah, blah, blah. Seems o me that at the very least, let's put them as a subsection of actors, it's really almost WP:UNDUE to have them first under the heading, you'd think Montana was the sunset strip or something! Montanabw(talk) 22:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem putting them btwn actors and directors. PumpkinSky talk 22:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood on the Yellowstone, etc.

[edit]
  1. How many of the vacation home owners do we want to add and by what criterion? I put in a couple that I know to be more permanent in MT than anywhere else, but what about the others? I am specifically thinking of the following who seem to like their part-time Montana identity: Michael Keaton (who crashed the Bozeman Obama rally, annoying everyone there), Huey Lewis (who shut down Sleeping Child Hot Springs to make it into his own club and tried--but failed-- to do the same with the Mitchell Slough), Brooke Shields (I think still has a home south of Big Timber), Tom Brokaw (owns ranch), David Letterman (owns ranch, talks about it a lot on his show, brought Willie Nelson to Augusta for a concert, so he's popular there), etc. Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. On other stuff, I'd put Kemmis as a political figure more than a writer...though he hasn't been in office for a long time, he's essentially a policy wonk. And what DO we do with L. Ron Hubbard? Writer, religious figure, or cult leader??? Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's Peter Fonda too, I'd include him. Brokaw too. Kemmis I can see moving. If they just occassionally visit or stay a few months a year, eh prob not, but otherwise yes. Didn't John Wayne have a home near Bozeman, and some of the silent movie stars? Anyone born or lived in MT for at least a year or attended college for a continusous year or more I'd definitely say can be included. the part time residents, we'd need to get a consensus on.PumpkinSky talk 20:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fonda's already on. When I lived in Bozeman in the 70s, it was a recreational activity to see how often he appeared in the police blotter with yet another speeding ticket. We also have to check on Dennis Quaid. He used to hang out with that Paradise Valley bunch a lot. I don't hear about John Wayne up here, though, just like I have issues with Frederic Remington being on the list because he visited a couple of times. I think an example of where to draw the line might be Robert Redford, a definite NO, even though he's filmed movies here and been around a lot. Or, Jimmy Carter, who's been known to sneak up here a lot to go fishing. But NOT on the list. (So has Sandra Day O'Connor, actually). This is mostly your project, I'll let you make the call (I also hate editing the stuff that's been put into chart format!) The BIG film stars of the silver screen age were Myrna Loy and Gary Cooper. You may want to dig up this book: Movie Stars & Rattlesnakes: The Heyday of Montana Live Television Montanabw(talk) 22:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I almost didn't put Remington in. I'll take him out. Will think on the rest. PumpkinSky talk 22:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that Browkaw and Letterman help us define where the line goes, as both have ranches up here and spend a lot of time up here (source for Letterman, Source for Browkaw), And if it counts, my uncle-in-law's nephew's wife actually once helped Letterman load a 50-lb sack of dog food into his SUV in Choteau, so he really does actually spend SOME time there! (grin) Montanabw(talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add Quaid, Brokaw, and Letterman, but for the other Hollywood/etc types, I'll wait til someone says "so and so should be listed". I've move Kemmis and removed Remington. More food for thought PumpkinSky talk 14:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's all about refs. That particular article was 1994 (I split as a resident in 1988, beat the stampede out of there prior to the invasion), so I guess my thinking is looking for actual evidence of residency, as opposed to small business investment and a vacation cabin. I don't know where precisely to draw the line, but some evidence that they didn't just fly in on a jet, hide out at The Stock Farm or the Yellowstone Club, then fly away again having no need to interact with the unwashed locals (after all, most of them DO wash) would be useful. this site has a long list, but does ownership constitute "being from" Montana? For example, Letterman self-identifies as a part-time Montanan, Huey Lewis has sued to protect his little paradise, and I was there when Keaton crashed the rally (I was also there when Huey tried to crash a Bob Dylan concert in Missoula and jam with the band, but Bobby D only deigned to permit him to jam with the opening act. Was a good LOL), but on the other hand, I can't find much at all on, say, Whoopi actually living here. She seems to have no interviews where she mentions being here, no one other than a few real estate promoters seem to mention her being here, etc. I suppose it's all about finding a ref that connects them to actually BEING here. (i.e. Whoopi may be on the "not" side of the line??) Does that work?? Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two column refs

[edit]

I knew this would come up. Do we have to use two column refs? PumpkinSky talk 20:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it's a "have to," but everyone keeps going through all the articles I work on and adds it. I do find it makes it easier for me to review footnotes, not a moral issue, though. Montanabw(talk) 22:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction?

[edit]

Man, I really don't think we want the "fictional Montanans " in at all. Mike and I have been trying desperately to keep trivia out of a couple of articles because once this starts, you'd be amazed how many characters come out of the woodwork. I'll go with the consensus, but this is a BIG can of worms to open, IMHO (Zephram Cochrane, anyone???) Montanabw(talk) 17:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination is to create a SAL Fictional Montanans if so desired and the link in a see also section in this article. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SAL??? what's that? I've seen fictional characters in other lists and it's not a big deal.PumpkinSky talk 20:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have NO IDEA how bad this can get, I mean Billy Ray Cyrus' character on some dumb sitcom (not Hannah Montana, and ouch, there's another one) was supposedly a Doctor from Montana (except with a bad deep south accent). This could grow to hundreds once we start getting serious about the B westerns and such... Montanabw(talk) 23:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but still, what's a SAL? PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DUnno the acronym, but I presume a separate list?? Montanabw(talk) 21:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can do the same thing we did with the football list. PumpkinSky talk 22:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reamer and Remington

[edit]

I just deleted Frederic Remington because we felt his connection was not strong enough, ie, he "just visited". But Reamer has been added. Is Reamer's connection any stronger than Remington's? Did he actually live in MT? This fits right along with our talks trying to define our inclusion criteria. PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Montana (gridiron football)

[edit]

This is the first section big enough and ready to make a sub list so I've created it, leaving 5 entries in the main list. I've also nom'd it at WP:FLC. PumpkinSky talk 02:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. I would take the prose text from the 2nd para of the football list and place it under the section heading in the main list. I would not list the 5 entries. (What is the criteria to be part of the five?) People will continue to add names if it remains a list. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just chose five of the more interesting ones. I think if we only leave the link to the sub list it'll leave people wondering and not clicking. This way they get an inkling to whet their appetite. I've seen other lists done like this. I think people adding to the list of 5 in the main list won't be such a big deal, let's see how it goes, is that okay? I till wonder about the narratives at the top of the sections. I simply don't know myself. I'm going to ask someone very knowledgeable about lists. PumpkinSky talk 20:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(copied post from User talk:Killervogel5)...:See the related List of people from Montana and look at the military, pioneers, and recreationalists sections. Mike Cline thinks we working on the Montana lists should have these narratives in each section. To me that has the danger of making them more articles. see one of the related threads wherein we've talked about this at Talk:List_of_people_from_Montana#List_of_people_from_Montana_.28gridiron_football.29. He thinks we should move the football article 2nd para to the main article. I simply don't know about this point myself. How much narrative at the top of a section would be considered "too" much? With the goal of making an informative main list that could also become a FL, how should this be done? I'd also appreciate one of your good thorough reviews of the football article that is at FLC right now. Tks. I am copying this to the list talk page linked above. Pls respond there so we can all read it there. Tks.PumpkinSky talk 20:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)...PS...what about sections with 1-2 people only? Should they be merged into a section with5 or more people?PumpkinSky talk 20:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the sections where the lists have been split out to sub-articles, you must have prose (see WP:SPLIT; "If a section is split from the original article, a summary section should be left in the original ("main") article. At the top of the section, it should contain a link to the newly created page, easily achieved with {{Main}} template."). It does not have to be as long as the lead of the split list, but it should cover the main points of the topic that was split out.
As to "narratives" in each section, I wouldn't see a problem with that, as long as they aren't too long (3-4 sentences for each average-size table; 1-2 introductory sentences for smaller tables). This ensures that the lead will not become too stuffed with information that could be broken out elsewhere. A couple of prose sentences here and there will not turn this from list to article until the narratives start to become bloated and oversized. — KV5 • Talk • 10:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful. Many thanks. What about sections with only 1-3 people? Can they stand alone or should they be merged to a bigger one?PumpkinSky talk 11:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are sections within a larger list, they are fine as is. — KV5 • Talk • 11:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Very kind of you for your help. PumpkinSky talk 12:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Montana State Legislators

[edit]

There are 200+ articles on Montana State Legislators in Category:Members of the Montana State Legislature but there is no List of these articles. I will eventually create a list so that all these names do not have to appear in the main list. We'll reference the legislator list in the main list.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for lists redirecting to other lists, this one is already a little out of control. As for the Lege, 150 members, reelected every 2 to 4 hears (House or Senate) this could have thousands of people in it, not sure how WP:NOTABILITY treats folks at this level, ditto for mayors, city council members, etc... thoughts?? Montanabw(talk) 16:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I for one am not going to be creating any new articles, just listing those that already exist.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Legislators definitely should be their own list. The only way to make this one smaller is 1) remove people in it and/or not add any more 2) create sublists like I did with the football guys. When doing that leave a "main" link and soem sample entries. A main list of nothing but main links would be really boring. As we move more to sub lists, this one will get smaller. I'd say anything with over 15 entries warrants a sublist. I'll gladly make any needed sublists and run them through FLC, giving credit to both of you too. Then when that's done we can have a featured topic. I want the lists to be high quality, informative, and interesting. Together we can make this happen.PumpkinSky talk 21:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be the first list of lists on WP. I fear that a "main" link with sample entries is an edit war invitation (why one person and not another?) Don't worry about crediting me here, I'm just being a gadfly and pointing out things that bug me. Montanabw(talk) 22:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're worrying too much. WP:MT has too few people to edit war ;-). But seriously there are other lists with links to a main sublist but also with sample entries listed. Also not one one has edit the 'fictional' section you were worrying about.PumpkinSky talk 22:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lets wait until we get all the Names to Add dealt with and we can see who we can cherry pick into the main list. Still lots of names to add and vet. That should be our focus. On the road in Pittsburgh till Friday evening, but back in Montana over the weekend. Happy editing. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sublists

[edit]

As the main list was (with football) 200K+ with 290refs+, I split off entertainers and athletes to sub lists (adding the football list into the athletes list). This will be all around much better. Consequently I've withdrawn the football FLC as that now redirects to the athletes list. We may or may not need to make more sublists. PumpkinSky talk 03:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that I didn't find Judith Blegen any more, but wonder if she should be listed as an "entertainer". But then, I found her name in four of these: List of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson episodes (1977), entertainer after all? - I don't think a link to music really helps, how about a link to the particular sublist "Musicians" of the sublist instead, for example? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She's in List_of_entertainers_from_Montana under "Musicians". I'm not sure I follow you. You want her listed as one of the sample 5 (currently 4, I usually put 5) entertainers on the main list, which has a link to the sublist? PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was too tired when I squeezed too many things in one remark. Trying to sort it out:
  1. I would not expect any opera singer under "entertainers", therefore suggest to explain right next to that main article that it also includes - you name it, and not exactly "of the entertainment industry", a little broader would help (me).
  2. It would help me further if - instead of being taken to music in general - I could land precisely where the musicians are by a link like music.
  3. In the article of Judith Blegen, the Johnny Carson appearances should show, but I'm not the one to word that.
Do you follow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. The full title is "entertainers and performing arts" and I'd certainly include opera in both of those as opera is both a form of entertainment and a performing art. I have expanded the preexisting explanation to include "classical music, rock music, and opera." See my previous two edits. My next edit will be to tweak this to go to the music section of the list. I'll work on the Blegen article too tonight.PumpkinSky talk 23:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refs for Blegen being on the Carson show aren't the best. Have you found a good ref that lists all her Carson show appearances? PumpkinSky talk 23:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not one, but she appears in four of those lists on WP (What links here, 77, 78, 79, 80), not my topic, I don't know how those lists are sourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists section

[edit]

Working through the names to add, I have come to the conclusion that a Journalist section is needed. We've been lumping them into entertainers (but many of them are not [entertaining]). I think it is a suitable section, so any names tagged for entertainers that are actually journalists should go in this section. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I note there appears to be no article for Norma Ashby, the goddess of KRTV and host for decades of Today in Montana. I don't have the time to create the article, but someone really,really must. (Pumpkin???) Montanabw(talk) 22:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A journalists section is fine by me. I've already moved Chet Huntley to it. As for an article, it can be on our collective todo lists. PumpkinSky talk 22:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This brings me back to Tom Brokaw. In or out?? Montanabw(talk) 17:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. PumpkinSky talk 20:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unabomber free image.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Unabomber free image.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people from Montana. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of people from Montana. 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) 18:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of people from Montana. 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) 07:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of people from Montana. 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) 15:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_from_Montana&oldid=1256995401"