Talk:Michigan State Capitol

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Elevators And MGTV

There is actually 5 elevators in the building. Two public, one each for legislators behind each chamber, and a service lift from the basement to the ground floor. Not sure if the elevator number is for when the building was originally built so don't want to change it erroneously.

And MGTV is no longer an entity but both the house and senate have television services that have live streams and archives available on the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B019:B7A8:3723:8CBE:A18E:3E01 (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

storm in April 2020

rough translation of the first section of that article (FAZ, one of the best German newspapers):

"When in April 2020 militias stormed the capitol in Lansing, there were no violent scenes. The attackers, heavily armed, stopped in front of the House of Representatives; they weren't let in. But they chanted "liberate Michigan" , and their show of force aimed at intimidating representatives. Occasion of that were restraints created to contain the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. The attack was lauded by Trump.

Later, the FBI prevented a terroristic attack that had been planned within the militia: they wanted to hijack the democratic Gouverneur Gretchen Whitmer and to take Representatives as hostages."

Isn't that worth mentioning in the article ? --Präziser (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it merits a mentioning on this article. But if other's do, it could be a sentence or two at the bottom of the "History" section. But, again, I'd not really add anything. The much larger Dec 2012 Right-to-Work protests are the capitol which numbered in the thousands which caused battles inside and outside the building isn't listed. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

National Guard

User:SandyGeorgia, User:Doncram, I saw y'all's names pop up in the review of this article. Do you have any opinions on this content? I don't know if it's FA-worthy (and I hate those one or two sentence sections), but it's certainly not "irrelevant" (and I blocked the vandal). Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, i see only two contributions by me to this article, with this addition of photos and other info related to its National Historic Landmark listing being the more significant. But I have not been seriously involved. I see the link to "this content" is about mentioning the National Guard being called up to protect the Michigan capitol on one or another Trump-related day. I don't feel strongly about it, but consider it possibly mildly interesting to persons reading otherwise about the capitol. Is it really the capitol, anything about the capitol itself, that is in that news, though? It is fine to have in, but I could go either way on discretionary call to include it or not. Hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I deleted it per NOTNEWS ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

FA concerns

This older FA has significant issues. There's sizable uncited text, and some failed verification issues (some stuff about War of 1812 stuff is sourced to ref 3 but doesn't seem to be in there). There's also some close paraphrasing issues:

• Marshall officials were so certain of its selection that they built a governor's mansion compare to the people of Marshall were so sure of their town's selection that they built a governor's mansion
• The Detroit building then became a public school [parenthetical] and library until it burned in 1893 compare to The building then became a public school and library until it burned in 1893

It's also concerning that this FA is sourced entirely to web sources, most of which are published by the Michigan government, when there's been two whole books on the subject by Seale published by U of Michigan Press. Hog Farm _Talk 19:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Doncram who has been involved here in the past. Hog Farm _Talk 19:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)