Talk:Mayo Clinic Square

Why do these go in reverse order...? 70.228.95.184 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Slightly unnerved
I'm a bit unnerved at the content I saw on this page, but of course I mean controversial pages will always receive uncited assumptions. Still, I can't believe someone actually thought Block E closed because of the smoking ban and "competition." It's like talking bad about a place when you've never been there. Sometimes you gotta read the newspaper folks. .:davumaya:. 01:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Stores closed
I walked down to block e today to sell a game at Gamestop. When i got there it was closed & the store was empty. i came on here to see why most stores were empty & noticed the article was out of date. Gamestop is closed & if someone could update the article it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.54.226 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Image
Image:First Ave. and 7th St..png has been nominated for deletion on Wikimedia for copyright reasons. Discussion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

One Bar Survived
After old Block E was razed there was a restaurant/bar on the NW corner of the lot that survived a few more years before being razed for the new Block E complex. Anyway remember what it was?

A: There were two bars I remember from Block E: Moby Dick's and Brady's Pub. I am very familiar with the old Block E, and used to work at the McDonald's there when I was youner. MattButts (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

New Picture Needed?
I took the 2007 photo of Block E. Next time I am downtown, I will get a picture of Mayo Clinic Square. (All the ones I have now were taken during the Pride Parade and have too many distracting foreground elements.) MattButts (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mayo Clinic Square. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330033504/http://www.startribune.com/business/84186862.html to http://www.startribune.com/business/84186862.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019045715/http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/05/block_e_casino_plans_unveiled.php to http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/05/block_e_casino_plans_unveiled.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131028193309/http://www.citypages.com/2013-09-18/arts/can-local-artists-turn-block-e-around/ to http://www.citypages.com/2013-09-18/arts/can-local-artists-turn-block-e-around/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091128123308/http://www.citypages.com/2004-04-21/news/q-when-is-a-mall-not-really-a-mall-a-when-it-s-block-e to http://www.citypages.com/2004-04-21/news/q-when-is-a-mall-not-really-a-mall-a-when-it-s-block-e

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic Square → Block E (Minneapolis) – "Block E" is the original name of the article, and the name by which the block is referred to in the majority of sources. The current title of the article refers to a building on the block, not the actual block itself. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 06:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Oppose . Block E is the common name.  We should not rename public areas like this to accommodate what appears to be a sponsorship arrangement.  Kablammo (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean support? It is currently named "Mayo Clinic Square".
 * Yes, thank you. Changed. Kablammo (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, as nominator. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – some evidence about what the common name is would go a long way to helping decide. Nom says it's "the name by which the block is referred to in the majority of sources" without saying how he came to that conclusion. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Google searches 14 July 2019:
 * "Block E" + Minneapolis : 84,800
 * "Mayo Clinic Square" + Minneapolis : 10,300
 * "Mayo Clinic Square" : 18,900
 * The article was renamed four years ago, which likely increased the number ghits for its current name. Kablammo (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Google web hit estimates are notoriously useless, especially of wikipedia article titles (and former titles). Looking in books and news for recent years, the new name seems to be running ahead, but not by a lot. Dicklyon (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Full-text searches:
 * ProQuest Global Newsstream:
 * "Block E" + Minneapolis : 1,875
 * "Mayo Clinic Square" : 252
 * MPR News:
 * "Block E" + Minneapolis : 102
 * "Mayo Clinic Square" : 5
 * Kablammo (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the real question is whether the new name has significantly caught on. Can you limit those searches to recent years to get some more relevant data on that? Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not the question at all, nor are such data more relevant. And there is no need to bias the results in that fashion.  Kablammo (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.

The article name change
This article is about the block, not the Mayo facility. The new article name leads one to believe the article, replete with history of the block dating back over a century, is about the facility, with a recently rewritten introduction to support the name change. The name "Mayo Clinic Square" is quite new while the article was created to document — and was always about — the storied block, not any individual occupant or portion.

There was discussion of this leading up to the switch (of which I was not part, I just discovered the change) and the article name was still changed? It seems there should be serious consideration of reverting the name of this article and a new article created for the sports facility.

2603:8000:C003:C000:1CBC:40B3:A17:C816 (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Block E represented a physical 'block' of Minneapolis, but it was essentially just a marketing gimic representing the enclosed shopping mall that consisted of retail, bars and restaurants. I don't believe it was even called Block E until it's construction in 2001, although I could be wrong. This study in 2004 explains it well "Block E is a large-scale, urban mixed-use project that combines retail, entertainment, hospitality, and parking uses. Located in downtown Minneapolis, it derives its name from the city block upon which it is built." Mayo Clinic Square is essentially the same thing just totally renovated, and with a new name. It is customary per WP:NAMECHANGES that when the subject of the article changes names, Wikipedia follows suits. I would also point out that it is not a public area, it is a private mixed-use building, which yes includes a sports facility, but also has other restaurants and businesses. This is no different than a shopping mall or a skyscraper changing names. I think the previous discussion was closed rather quickly and was flawed as there was only 1 person besides the nominator supporting, neither of which had convincing arguments. JayJayWhat did I do?  02:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * So we are in agreement.


 * Block E is a municipal designation that dates back decades, not a commercial one or otherwise, and the article is about the block and its history, not what the singular name suggests in context of today and the article; it is still Block E, Mayo or not. Note that the Block E name was no gimmick... the name was used in the 1970s and '80s as a scarlet letter; "Block E" became a purposefully derogatory name used by politicians and others who condemned the area and advocated for its purge. Block E was not, as the study claims, a "project" like the mall Mayo Clinic Square was originally built as. Mayo may be a new name for the development but it is not the same organic, layered block of multiple varied businesses and activity that developed over time as the block did originally, contributing to Block E's history, popularity and notoriety. The history of the block in historical context is what the article is about and that's why the name should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:C003:C000:1CBC:40B3:A17:C816 (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was the one who changed the name of the article from Block E to Mayo Clinic Square so there must be some misinterpretation. My point is getting misconstrued, although there is rich history of Block E and it's developments over the area during the past few decades, Mayo Clinic Square is the current name of the complex and current sources still refer to the complex as Mayo Clinic Square. The history of Block E is important and is needed for the context of what is now known as Mayo Clinic Square which is why I don't think a split of the article would make much sense either. JayJayWhat did I do? 18:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)