Jump to content

Talk:Minnedosa, Manitoba

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

Untitled

[edit]

Neutral point of view required for the Rockin' the Fields bit. (I was just there this weekend, it was a good time)

Need more information for the whole Minnedosa page and maybe create one for Clanwilliam (town 15 minutes outside of Minnedosa). I have lived in Clanwilliam for 8 years and there should be a page for that place. --kitsumiti 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Bennett does not live here

[edit]

Someone added a frivolous statement about Jimmy Bennett moving to Minnedosa (diff here). That is nonsense, since his parents own a restaurant in Huntington Beach, California. I don't see how they could move to Minnedosa at the same time. Furthermore, whoever added this failed to respond to a request for citation in Feb 2011. Hence, the material was removed, as per WP:VERIFY. --Skol fir (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Madill

[edit]

Blake Madill doesn't even show up in Google Scholar. That may not be a reliable test of notability, but even I show up in Google Scholar and I can't even spell "mathematician". --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 August 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus DrStrauss talk 18:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Minnedosa, Manitoba → Minnedosa – no need to disambiguate, the only other Minnedosa page is the electoral district representing this town FUNgus guy (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —Guanaco 06:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 18:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 02:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sorry. Regardless, there is still an electoral district for this, meaning that it will not be totally unique. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I've already made my pitch at Talk:Pinawa, but will try again. Few readers or editors know where the hamlet of "Minnedosa" (pop. 2,474) is unless "Manitoba" is attached to it. Removing the province from the name is contrary to WP:CRITERIA. Wikipedia should offer its readers clarity, not confusion, because "Minnedosa" could be a musical group or a sedimentary rock, while "Minnedosa, Manitoba" is unmistakably a lesser-known settlement in a Canadian province. Removing the province from the article title also makes a Google search for this place more difficult. Is there some advantage to the readers or editors of Wikipedia to removing the province from this settlement's name (except that it distinguishes the "Canadian style" from the style used on American settlement articles)? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CANPLACE or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This article is definitely the primary topic; the electoral division no longer exists and essentially does not get any pageviews - comparing the two shows that the town gets 98% of them (besides the two topics are directly intertwined). I also don't find the argument that this should be disambiguated just because it could potentially be something else very compelling, Wikipedia does not need excessive clarity or disambiguation. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Nohomersryan, clear primary topic. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - what about the Great Lakes schooner Minnedosa that sank October 20 1905 into the depths of Lake Huron? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CANPLACE – even though the town is rather small, it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the electoral division is derived and defunct. I don't think that century-old ships beat the living settlement either, and pageviews agree [1] – the town receives 3540 views @90 days out of 4120 for all Minedosas combined. WP:READERSFIRST. No such user (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't see a compelling reason for removing the province; certainly none that address the needs of the reader, whom we consider first. There are however reasons why it should be retained, notably clarity (per Magnolia677) and consistency with the form used by the majority of other articles in its category. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the majority of articles require the province because they're not primary, it's sensible to at least consider adding the province to all in order to achieve consistency. The equivalent categories in various other provinces look similar: PE, SK, BC, etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But then, if you don't like the result, either work to change the convention at the talk page of WP:CANPLACE, or consistently apply it, as requested here. We have naming conventions for a reason – that we don't have to select the article titles haphazardly, from case to case. No such user (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the current convention results in exactly that: articles titled haphazardly with different forms from case to case. One can look at the contents of most Canadian province categories to see that. I agree about following conventions at least as far as it's sensible to, but if there's tension between consistency of rule and consistency of result, I lean toward the latter. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clear primary topic for this name - the town is far more significant than its associated electoral district, and page views bear that out.[2] Canada doesn't have the rule about appending a state/province name that the US does, so there's no other reason why the province would be included.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minnedosa, Manitoba. 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) 16:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minnedosa,_Manitoba&oldid=1204017658"