Talk:Minnedosa, Manitoba

Untitled
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)

Jimmy Bennett does not live here
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)

Blake Madill
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)

Requested move 5 August 2017

 * 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  Dr Strauss   talk   18:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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.   Dr Strauss   talk   18:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)  --Relisting. — usernamekiran (talk)   21:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  02:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per WP:USPLACE, in addition to the fact that there is a need to disambiguate this. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  02:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be WP:CANPLACE? —  AjaxSmack  04:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The town is greater than the electoral district, and as per WP:CANPLACE, a settlement with a unique name can have it without qualifiers. FUNgus guy (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Support per nom and Nohomersryan, clear primary topic. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Even if that schooner had a page, Minnedosa the town would still hold precedence. FUNgus guy (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 – 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)
 * 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)
 * The category is a poor example. Every article that has ", Manitoba" in it is because it is not the primary topic for its name; the ones that are don't have it. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Support. Clear primary topic for this name - the town is far more significant than its associated electoral district, and page views bear that out.|Minnedosa_(electoral_district) 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. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2017 (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.

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051225025626/http://www.communityprofiles.mb.ca/cgi-bin/csd/index.cgi?id=4615075 to http://www.communityprofiles.mb.ca/cgi-bin/csd/index.cgi?id=4615075

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) 16:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)