Wikipedia

Talk:Missoula, Montana/Archive 3

< Talk:Missoula, Montana
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Looking Pretty Good

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Okay, first of all I have to say I am no good at editing. Every time I try I mess up so I will leave that to you smart people.

Second, I have to say this page is looking a lot better, now will it stay that way?

Third, what is this?

Unlike most towns in Montana; Missoula never truly had any time of population spike, until the 1990's. Since 1990 the U.S Cencus has seen a small population spike in Missoula. In 1990 the population of Missoula was 42,918, or the same as a fairly average american city. the 2009 population estimate is sitting at 68,876. So since 1990 Missoula has seen a growth of more than 25,000 people; which is a pretty large increase in 20 years. The percantage increase since 1990 is 53.6%

It is not very well written and its puffery

42,000 an average american city, really? I'm thinking more like an average city neighborhood.

Anyway all in all the page looks great, well done! I just had to bitch about something. Mizmontana (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi - thanks for your contributions. There is really no guarantee that the page will stay the way it is. Being a wiki, anyone can edit it and the page is subject to change at any time. That can go for the better or for the worse, and it is impossible to predict what will happen to it for the years to come. It all depends on whose watching the page and whose editing it.
As for the oddly-written paragraph, I agree that it is poorly written. I thought about re-writing it and sourcing it, but I realized that the population of Missoula is already nicely covered in the section "Metropolitan Statistical Area". Because of this, I've gone ahead and removed the entire section.
As for the population of an average American city being 42,000, I don't find that to be anything odd - in fact, I would initially imagine that the average would be a little bit lower than 42,000. A city does not have to be large in population to be considered a city. According to our own article on cities, there are cities with populations of only five. The city I live in has around 20,000 people. It's a typical, stereotypical suburban city you'd find anywhere else, so that is why I think that the average is sensible, simply because there are so many smaller-sized cities in the US to counter all the whoppingly-large ones. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Site Structure and Outline

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As the page seems to finally be beginning to have some structure, I suggest that we continue along that theme which I've tried to base entirely on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline which gives pretty clear directions of what Wikipedia's expectations are. Two other articles that I think would be good to look at are Ann Arbor, Michigan and Grand Forks, North Dakota since these are two of the featured articles most appropriate to emulate. Both are smaller sized university towns with Grand Forks comparable with Missoula and Ann Arbor much more grandiose.

Comments and Suggestions

edit

General

edit
  • Those dedicated to work on a page about Missoula are probably passionate about our city, but let's try to remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a travel guide. It should be full of facts, not opinions. Look at it this way, if someone could disagree with you on it, it is an opinion. If you feel it is fact and not opinion, be sure to to link to a source that backs up that assertion.
  • Could we tone it down with the bolding of everything?
  • We all want Wikipedia to be more convenient and easier to use, but that is kind of the point of the City's project. When things all follow the same basic format with modifications for unique circumstances, it's easier to utilize because everyone already has an idea of where to look.

History

edit
  • I spent awhile making this section, but other pages limit this to a single section while those with enough to divide into sections have their own page. I'll get to this when I have time and for now should be lowest priority.
  • I personally think that specific history (such as downtown, politics, etc.) should have their own page with a link to them, but only after someone is willing to fill out that page.

Geography

edit
  • Most pages seem to skip Flora and Fauna, but being that we live in Montana and the Guidelines suggest it (in addition to it being really easy to look up), if chose to include it. Opinions?
  • Since little of note happens in Montana, our news does seem to spend an unbelievable amount of time on weather. Is it really necessary for our Wiki pages to do the same? Is the Winter of 1996 really deserving of its own section? I wasn't living in Missoula at the time, but is this really the type of winter that people will be telling their grandchildren about?
  • Neighborhoods
I would like to make a separate page for this as well, but I'm not familiar enough with the neighborhoods of Missoula and don't know where to get more detailed information. Any suggestions?
  • Downtown

Downtown already has its own page (albeit a pathetic one), but we should probably add there and keep this to a basic description of Downtown's history and significance.

    • Moreover, AJ Gibson was great and deserves his own page, but giving him so much credit for Downtown is hyperbole and he didn't design the Wilma, Ole Bakke did.
  • Who's for having Buildings in Missoula having their own page so that they stop making this page look silly? I can understand the Courthouse, University Hall, and the Wilma, but when you start listing the Hilton Garden Inn and South Patte St. Parking Garage, you're just taking up space. Besides, how pathetic does that make Missoula look if we list a parking garage as something of significance.

Demographics

edit

Economy

edit
  • Does the first section on Economy really need to be Unemployment? Shouldn't employment have priority?
  • Should Wal-Mart be included as a major employer or should it just be consolidated into retail?
  • Why is there a Local attractions section here?

Culture

edit
  • I think this section could be better summarized and then expanded into a more detailed section. Until then, what are some of the major or notable events. Things like First Friday that have been going on for awhile come to mind.
  • Shall we have a beer section? Missoula has three microbreweries (including the biggest and the oldest) and Tamarack and Flathead Lake Brewing both just came to town.

Points of Interest

edit
  • Shouldn't we just keep this under culture?

Sports

edit
  • perhaps we could add an introduction placing sports in Missoula's context. As in popularity, importance etc. The Griz's affect on the local economy comes to mind. Also, Featured Articles don't simply list organizations but summarize sports in a single section while sending people off to appropriate links for further information.

Parks and Recreation

edit
  • Should we talk generally about parks and recreation within Missoula and give Caras Park it's own page? Or just talk more generally about Caras Park and others? Should UM be noted in this section?

Government

edit

Organizations and non-profits

edit
  • I think we need an introductory paragraph about how non-profits etc. are important to Missoula, and are there ways to categorize them better? Any generalizations we could make?

Education

edit
  • Perhaps a description of the Education as a whole is in order as opposed to simple directory-style listing. (we could list them in a side infotable of some kind). Is Missoula's education known for anything in particular?

Media

edit
  • Is anyone familiar with the history of Media in Missoula? What was the first radio station? Newspaper ownership? Political slant? Corruption and notable events?

Infrastructure

edit
  • Why does this include a traffic report?
  • I think we some basic information on arterial roads, highways, bike trails, and the bus system. Maybe even the pipedream proposals for rail that come up every couple years. Though, the history of rail and street cars could probably be given some space.
  • Anyone else think that the medical facilities should be summarized and refer people to the main articles of each?

Notable People

edit

Other Topics

edit

Sister Cities

edit

We only have three sister cities, surely we can say something about how they became our sister cities. Though, can anyone explain how we have a library, foundation, and center named after Mike Mansfield in addition to portraits and statues, but no sister city in Japan? Dsetay (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Panorama?

edit

Does anyone who has ever edited this article or even been in Missoula, have a panorama picture of Missoula? If you do please respond to this.

User:Missoulian 11:03, December 23 2010 (UTC)

Bay City Montana

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It would seem by the new low-resolution image at the top of the page that we are now a bay town. Isn’t that nice, I have kind of been missing living near the water. It is also labeled as a panorama. Even thou it’s hard to tell what it is an image of because of the low resolution, I can say with a great deal of certainty that it is not a panorama

I liked the last image it was a beautiful picture of Missoula.

Mizmontana (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply


Dont worry to much, the picture changes so often, there is bound to be another beautiful pic of Missoula.

User:Missoulian 18:03, December 26 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.204.101 (talk)

You are right the picture seems to change almost every day, it's kind of silly. I do like the in box picture right now and I think it has been up for two days that may be a record. lol Mizmontana (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Featured Article

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I think this article has improved greatly in the past month or so, enough to where I think it should be considered as a Featured Article. Does anyone second this? User:Missoulian 19:47, January 3 2010 (UTC)

no, it's not even close. Dsetay (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Even though I appreciate your input User:Dsetay, I want to get get your input on this. What is the difference between the Spokane, Washington article, which is under consideration of becoming a featured article, and the Missoula, Montana article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.202.11 (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're kidding, right? The Spokane article is way, way, way more filled out. It has separate, filled out sections for history, neighborhoods (not just a debatable list), economy, sports, etc. Even their summaries are more complete than most of our sections. Simply compare Missoula and Spokane on the Media, Parks, and Education sections for the most glaring differences. It's not even worthy of being upgraded to a 'B' class, as is. I'd like to make adjustments to the aforementioned criticisms when I get a chance, but I'm a little busy right now and it's harder since I haven't lived in Missoula for 2.5 years.Dsetay (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Having taken a city article through the FA process twice, I'm hardly an expert, but I can tell you this article is still a ways from even being close. First, at least try to get it to GA status, then the fine-tuning can start for FA status. GA will address many of the basic writing issues, organizational issues, and formatting issues still present. In just looking over the article (I only did so because my sister just got accepted into grad school at the University of Montana) here are some suggestions:
  • Pare down the subheadings. Third-level (or lower) Subheadings should be used sparingly, but should definitely be avoided if they only have a sentence in them, such as in the Culture section. The vast majority of these smaller sections could be merged together or eliminated.
  • The University of Montana is mentioned in multiple subheadings: in history, in education, and in culture. Having it mentioned as part of these sections makes sense, but not as a separate subheading in each instance. The mention in culture provides no additional info not already present elsewhere. Watch out for any duplication throughout the article.
  • Trim the history section down and consider moving most of the finer details to a History of Missoula, Montana article. The history section needs to summarize the development of the city to give the reader a general, yet thorough, idea of how the city developed and why.
  • More sources. The Southgate Mall section has no sources and probably could be eliminated anyway. The tourism section is also unsourced and could easily be done without since pretty much every city has a visitors bureau of some kind. Along with that, make sure sources are properly formatted using the appopriate citation template. The vast majority of citations so far are bare links.
  • Make the many lists into prose. WAAAAAY too many bulleted lists.
  • Eliminate the history and sponsorship sections for the hospitals. That info is not needed at all and does little to help the reader understand the main subject better. All we need to know is that the city has these hospitals, this is what they do, and have won these awards/recognitions (if applicable).
  • Eliminate the gallery at the end. Galleries should be used only in very specific instances and city articles are not one of them. The article is long enough (even once it's trimmed) to incorporate photos into the appropriate section. See WP:IG.
  • The University of Montana template shouldn't be on this article since Missoula is not part of the university; it's the other way around. The Radio Stations in the Missoula market also shouldn't be on this page.
There are many other things that will need work, but the biggest start is just combining sections and eliminating cruft. Basically, when choosing what info to keep and get rid of, think what info is needed to help readers understand the subject best? The main subject is the city of Missoula and the danger in any city article is going off on tangents and minor details that do little to help the reader understand the subject better at all (like I said in the note on the hospitals section). --JonRidinger (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the suggestions. You have many of the same criticisms I have, particularly about the bullet lists. Believe it or not, it was once much, much worse. Fortunately, your suggestions come mostly on sections I haven't had the time or motivation to rewrite yet. I'm guilty for the history section, but I'll try to fix the other issues first.Dsetay (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Welcome. Just so you know, I have also been guilty of writing fairly extensive history sections for city articles, especially cities I am familiar with. I consider myself an amateur historian and know a lot of the finer, mostly trivial, details of those things I study the most, so it's tough to decide what's really impoartant and what isn't. The key is really getting it down to the most important developmental events and knowing which details are necessary and which aren't. My best advice would be to write a new, shorter history in your sandbox, then move the current history to the History of Missoula, Montana article to be created, then transfer the shorter history into this article. The guidelines at WP:USCITY basically have it at more than 5 subsections and/or 10 paragraphs being a good sign to think about making a separate article if I remember right. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Neighborhoods and the Wilma Building

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I grew up in and lived in Missoula 30 years all these so called neighborhoods are not in common usage or in the vernacular of the local populace, and what evidence is there that the Wilma (built in 1921) was the first steel framed building in Montana? The Metals Bank Building in Butte has it beat by over ten years and there is at least another steel frame building in Butte at Broadway and Main that even beats the Metals Building. Please don't make up facts that are fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazran (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am sory about writing false info on the Wilma. On http://thewilma.com/history.php it says it was the FIRST steel framed building in MISSOULA. I 100% thought it said Montana, so I am sorry, and by the time you read this: it will be changed. :) User:Missoulian (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaPackerboy (talk • contribs) Reply

Trade Area?

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, This is User:Missoulian and I have a question for wikipedians (like myself)? I posted some info on Missoula from this website: http://www.mindypalmer.com/default.asp?pageid=profile. It says that the trade area of Missoula was 373,961 people, as of 2007. After, someone posted it as being 180,000 from this PDF file: http://www.missouladowntown.com/wp-content/uploads/Missoula-Employment-Analysis-FINAL_Review-Draft12-10-08.pdf . The exact sentence is in Page 2; Paragraph 4; sentence 1. I am not sure which one is correct? If any-one could help myself, and help this Wikipedia page; It would be greatly appreciated.User:Missoulian 1:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on your inquiry on my talk page, I looked at both files, and I'm leaning more towards your estimate, Missoulian. The pdf file estimating approximately 180,000 residents has sources for some of its data, but not for this statistic specifically. Since I down that the drafters of that report went around and counted heads, it is likely they got that number from somewhere, or calculated it themselves, but we really have no way of knowing.
The site you referred to does indicate where it gets its statistics. I did some digging on the web, and found this link from MAEDC (which was the source of the stats for your link). This was the most current information I could find.
Both the links you provided are to secondary sources which would normally be perfectly appropriate. Still, as statistics can get misused when they get further from the original source, I think the MAEDC link proves best in this situation. Unlike the two initial links you gave, the MAEDC link is fairly clear about how the calculation came about (total population of the listed counties).
Bottom line, I've updated the article to something closer to your number based on the info from the MAEDC link. Added a comment on the page next to the stats so hopefully future editors will take a look here before changing. If anyone wants my input, I'm happy to revisit this, but please drop a note on my talk page to grab my attention. Hope this was helpful!--GnoworTC 23:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help! I am glad to see that you thought my input was correct. Once again Thanks. User:Missoulian —Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC).Reply

Realistic trade area

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Missoula trade area population has recently been added to the Missoula page and it states That the trade area is 360,000. Two sources are cited one is from the Missoula greater Downtown master plan and places the trade area at 180,000. The other source is from the Missoula area economic development corporation it puts the trade area at 100,009 for the Primary trade area 193,358. For the secondary trade area which includes Granite, lake, Mineral, Powell, Ravalli and Sanders counties. This source also shows a third trade area of 363,120 That trade area includes Deer lodge, Flathead, Lincoln and Lewis and Clark counties.

It looks like both sources basically agree on the 190,000. Which I think is the real trade area. To include Kalispell and Helena in the Missoula trade area is just asinine.

Both cities have as much shopping as Missoula. Helena even has a Macys, which Missoula doesn’t have anymore. Having lived in Helena I know, if anyone leaves town to go shopping they go to Great Falls, which is only 90 miles away on I-15 and has more shopping than Missoula. But really they just stay put now days because they have every box store we do.

Missoula is not a wholesale distribution point for these communities either. Butte is more of a distribution center than Missoula, that is why FedEx is building huge new distribution center in Butte. I think there may have been a time, a long time ago, when Kalispell did rely more on Missoula but that is just not the case now.

So if the trade area needs to be listed and I’m not sure it does, it should be the more realistic 190,000. Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Realistic trade area response 1

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments1 person in discussion

Most insane response EVER! Seriously! It all has to do with population, not big box stores!? every city/town in America over 20,000 population has big box stores! You know Missoula is the hub for Western Montana and you are just coming up with a lame excuse to say other-wise. The only reason Missoula is the hub is becuase its city has well over 60,000 people! When the UM is in session over 75,000!

Great Falls comes close, but they are the hub for central Montana, and they got hit by the recesion hardcore. Helena not even half of Missoula, and Butte and Kalispell? NOT EVEN CLOSE! I am not trying to be rude, I am just saying that you need to get your facts right. User:Missoulian 4:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW the Kalispell Micropolitan Statistical Area is 90,000 the Missoula Metropolitan Statistical Area is 109,000 that is not a huge difference. Helena's Micropolitan Statistical Area is 74,000 and yes you did sound rude. The bold is meant to be humorous. --Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

And just so you know, the college students or many of them at least are counted in the census. 66,000 includes the students, take them away and it would be something more like 53,000. http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/resid_rules.html#Students

--Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply


You really don’t understand what trade areas are do you, that is rhetorical so please don’t respond. I will try to explain it when I have a little more time. The 360,000 figure you are talking about is the tertiary trade area. Tertiary trade areas really do have to do with the reliance on goods and services, trade and distribution. It is a little trickier in western Montana because there is not one dominant city that is the trade and disruption center for a large area. The population is somewhat more evenly distributed over several communities all of similar size each having their own stores, hospitals and such which as you say most communities of a few thousand do anymore. In this way western Montana is more like the Midwest than what the rest of the west is like. So far as distribution of goods from wholesalers, this happens through cargo carriers and their distribution centers. Some would argue that Spokane is the tier one wholesale distribution center for western Montana. By the rationale you are using Helena could put Missoula, Great Falls, Butte and Bozeman in their tertiary trade area. They are no more reliant on Missoula than Missoula is them. Do you think Missoula and much of western Montana are part of the Spokane tertiary trade area? That ones not rhetorical.

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I also must point out that your population figures are creative and erroneous. And that Great Falls was not hurt near as hard by the recession as Missoula. It was hit hard by military reductions and a weak dollar that keeps the Canadian shoppers at home. However they are sure to be seeing an upswing with all the new oil up around Cut Bank.

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was just talking to someone that works for one of the larger Malls in Montana and she agrees that the 190,000 amount for Missoula's secondary trade area is most likely closer to the real figure for the total trade area. However I guess I was wrong about the weak dollar keeping the Canadian shoppers at home. It turns out the weak dollar is good for business the Canadian shoppers have been coming in droves.

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also I thought of another area much like western Montana and that is southeastern Idaho. Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Twin Falls none of them can really claim the others are part of their trade area.

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

trade area rephrased

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I still think it should just not have the trade area listed or have the 190,000 figure but until I have time to do more research I think this would look much better.

As of 2006 one survey showed Missoula as having a primary trade area of 100,086 a secondary trade area of 93,272 and a tertiary trade area of 169,762 for a total trade area of 363,120


Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Even though I THINK Missoula is the Major trade area for Western Montana I do think this issue has been resolved.

User:Missoulian 7:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


I don’t consider it resolved I see it as having reached a temporary compromise. I do not dispute that realistically Missoula is the largest trade center in western Montana. I dispute the numbers. There are areas included that I don’t think are part of the real trade area. I mean a firm being paid to tell this company or that company what they want to hear has put most of the figures you can find together, its all a shell game.

The general formula is pretty much as follows: A Primary Trade Area is usually the geographic area in which between 55 percent and 70 percent of customers and/or spend originate, while a Secondary Trade Area represents a further 15-20 percent.

The Tertiary Trade Area then accounts for 5-15 percent of additional trade.

Using the formula of this survey which is pretty much drawing a big circle around the city, Helena’s trade area would be bigger than Missoula’s trade area. Do you think it is? I don’t.

That is the point I am trying to make: The tertiary should just be eliminated it doesn’t work in this area with the population so evenly dispersed and each community pretty much self-sufficient.

--Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok, first of all Trade Area is not Trade are? I am just so confused on how you think Missoula is not the Center of Western Montana? Helena is considered in Central Montana. Why are you even bringing Helena in to the conversation? All I want to know is the REAL trade area of Missoula too, and I would consider Kalispell, Hamilton, maybe even Butte and Bozeman in Missoula's trade area, because A trade area is usually centered around a larger city. In this case I think Missoula would be that larger city. I would like get some other wikipedians involved in this issue, becuase enless we define a trade area of Missoula we (Missoulian/Solglad Tomeetyou) are going to be talking back to each other until Hell freezes over!

User:Missoulian 7:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of everything I wrote a small typo is first thing you choose to comment on. I’m pretty sure you are the only person on the planet that thinks Helena is in central Montana and that Bozeman is in the Missoula trade area. It is as if thou we are witting about two separate things, you really don’t seem to have a grasp of the topic on the table.

--Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Even though I have already written a detailed peer review and offered further suggestions, I'll comment on the lead here as well. I'm not really sure what the problem with the new lead to the point that it needs to be reverted to the previous version. Is the new lead perfect? No, there are additional things that could be tweaked if it were headed for FAC, but it's not. It hasn't even gotten it to GAN yet. Despite that, the new lead is a significant improvement in scope and in language over the previous version; it's very much headed in the right direction. The point of a peer review is to improve the article. There is no such thing as "passing" or "failing" a peer review. It's simply an opportunity for editors to get additional eyes on the article they are working on to offer suggestions and critique what is currently there. Finishing a peer review doesn't guarantee any kind of article advancement in the quality scale either, though that is certainly the hope and purpose behind requesting a peer review. If you have a major problem with the way the lead was rewritten, it's always good to initiate discussion yourself rather than whole-scale reversions. Vague statements in the edit summaries do little to help any concerned editors actually improve the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

What we have here is an editor who has previously caused problems in some of these articles (full disclosure: said editor has previously leveled some nasty personal attacks against me for calling said editor on his/her previous tendentious editing). I suggest this person simply be reverted per BRD and encouraged to explain themselves on this talk page. I have no interest in enduring another round of abuse from this editor, but I will support others who wish to exercise appropriate quality control and assist in reverting inappropriate edits. Montanabw(talk) 23:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you JonRidinger for your very civil discourse. I had a problem with some bolding and completely over reacted with a complete revision. The lead looks good thank you.

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! And thanks for your reply as well. As for the bolding, it is somewhat common in city articles (also common in school articles) to bold previous or alternate names. It's not required or standard across the board, but I have seen it done in instances where a previous name was long-standing or otherwise well-known. It's also good to bold if the previous name is a redirect to the current name (I did that in the Kent, Ohio article redirecting Franklin Mills, Ohio to Kent and bolding Franklin Mills in the article). If the previous name was obscure, then it probably doesn't need to be used. I'm not familiar enough with the history of Missoula to know how long the previous names were used. It's helpful to do that because some histories may use the previous name, so if someone comes looking for the city under the previous name, it's clear this is now the name of the city. Again, it all depends on how long the previous name(s) of Missoula were used. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The earlier names didn't last long, hence I don't think there is a particular need for boldface here. Usually, when I see multiple names bolded, it's in the first sentence: "X, once known as Y and sometimes called Z is... blah, blah, blah... Not a huge deal, really. Just too much BF in the lead looks almost as tacky as WRITING IN ALL CAPS! (LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

undo button

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Believe it or not, if you don't agree with part of an edit, you needn't undo the entire thing. Just change the part you don't like. If the page was a featured article I could maybe understand the "don't touch" mentality by people who make one edit every three months. On the other hand, this is a B-class article that clearly needs improvement in areas. The economy section sucks. Were the changes perfect? No. All encompassing? No, I have things to do, and I was beginning to work on it in stages. But, if every time I edit this page it gets reverted because someone wants to protect their one sentence, I may as well give up. Just return the page to lists and trivia tidbits like it was here before I began working on it a year ago, if you'd like. Dsetay (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am assuming that his was aimed at me. Actually you are the one that deleted a section and replaced it with information on FCC guides for wireless devices which had nothing to do with the section you deleted, so that puts the burden on you. I saw that you added the information again and had no intention of touching it because this time you didn’t delete other pertain information. Nonetheless I really don’t see how this information belongs in the economy section. It is my understanding additions should not be worked on in a piecemeal manner but rather that you put the information together and then add it. I’m truly not trying to be a pain and am working in good faith and assume you are as well.

Mizmontana (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, then delete the section on the FCC's basic trade area. Do you feel the same about the Bureau of Economic Analysis economic area? It uses the word "economic" twice in the title, I'm guessing it may be relevant. Especially since your own link uses it as a source. Speaking of that, the information in that sentence I deleted was based on a dead link and neither new link provides the same information. An unsourced claim about economic numbers that were debatable in the first place probably shouldn't be in the article. But, I really don't care. Do the economy section yourself. I don't even live in Missoula. If I bother working on the article again I'll finish the rest of the article first, and when the economy section is still undone (which I expect to be the case), maybe I'll have permission to make edits.

Dsetay (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now, now, people! How about we all take a deep breath and discuss the content and quality of sources. I did a copyedit of the section to organize it a bit more logically but made no content edits because I would rather see the people with the access to the research work on that. This article can be upgraded, but the way it gets there is to be well-sourced and relevant. Montanabw(talk) 20:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Economy stuff

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Wonder if there are no Missoula-specific stats on occupations if we should have the Montana statewides in there at all? I can see a GA or FA reviewer asking what the connection is(?) Not a huge deal to me either way, but wondering the thoughts of others on this. Montanabw(talk) 22:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply


I tend to agree with Montanabw, Missoula specific info would be what is needed here. This may have nothing to do with that but I did some looking around and was surprised to find that Missoula’s economy has been in decline since the mid 2000’s, just didn't know that.

Mizmontana (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Problem seems to be lack of data. Can we find sources where you were "looking around"?? Footnotes solve many an editing dispute. Montanabw(talk) 05:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Best policy to follow is if you can't find specific info for the city, don't include whatever fact it is you're trying to include (in this case the fastest growing occupations). Including the fastest growing for the state is irrelevant here, especially after the local politics section explains how different Missoula is from Montana :). --JonRidinger (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The source used for the occupations also links to the unemployment rate for Missoula county, which I think is relevant. What think all of you? Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Since there is a separate article on Missoula County, Montana, that is where such data would be relevant. The only way it would be needed here is for instances where the editor wishes to compare/contrast the city's data with the county's (which I would only use if the two data sets were remarkably different). There is no need to dublicate county or state level data here just so it can fill a void. There should be some city-level unemployment data in the US Census. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Can youfind a link? The Montana DLI stats are only by county... though in Missoula county, the city is the dominant player, economically. At least since they closed the mills. Montanabw(talk) 00:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Most recent census releases can be found at http://factfinder2.census.gov. The problem is that you can't directly link to a data set (at least as far as I understand it). You have to click on "geographies" and then search for Missoula city, Montana. On the left side there will be a menu for the various data set categories available. I wish I could give you more specifics, but the factfinder2 site is not the easiest thing to navigate. --JonRidinger (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Which is why I'm more than glad to let SOMEONE else do it! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 02:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thankfully, the Census Bureau has made it possible to bookmark data sets, so not only can we link directly to city-specific sets, but we can include higher level sets (state, county, national) with it for comparison if needed. Here is the bookmark for Economic stats for the US, Montana, and Missoula side-by-side: http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/10_1YR/DP03/0100000US%7C0400000US30%7C1600000US3050200. The other source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics website http://www.bls.gov/data/. It does not have a bookmark option I am aware of yet, but can be used for unemployment rates (more recent than the Census). Follow the link, scroll down to "Unemployment", then click on "One-screen data search". A new window will open and will have search options for states, metro and cities above 25,000, and the actual cities themselves. The most recent unemployment rate for Missoula (October 2011) was 6.8%. The Census has "percent unemployed" at 8.4. --JonRidinger (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Highways

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

this diff is the former and current version of the highways section, preserving the refs if someone wanted to take them elsewhere. I rather boldly chopped this down because it really was a bit excessive; I kept that all the highways exist, a bit of minor trivia about each IF it was relevant to Missoula, and really, most of the rest should go into the articles on the respective highways. I also tossed all the stuff on the exits and which road goes where, because I doubt anyone is really going to care, and absent a map, it isn't helpful to a tourist, JMO. Hope this edit is viewed as being in good faith, I was concerned we had a WP:UNDUE problem here, as well as a slightly flowery, encyclopedic tone. Montanabw(talk) 23:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Infrastructure section

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm guessing that I've made the Infrastructure section too long. Before certain people begin deleting broad swaths of it as certain editors have a tendency to do, I'm suggesting that the section be made into its own separate page and summarized here. I'll nominate myself to do it since, well, I'm pretty sure no one else will. I plan on fixing the other sections first though (Except for Economy, of course. That'll left for the self-declared experts) because I'm tired of looking at it for now. Of course, I'm open to any other suggestions.

Dsetay (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think some copyediting can salvage it, I chopped some. Montanabw(talk) 00:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Economics Section

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here are some resources for whomever plans on doing the Economy section. Not all go to the municipal area and simply consider the Missoula MSA. Good luck.

Dsetay (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Missoula, Montana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cadiomals (talk · contribs) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC) So far I have read through the article and it is well written, organized and broad in its coverage. I will be checking out the citations and references for factual accuracy and verifiability, but so far this article has a good chance of getting GA. Cadiomals (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Here is my full review:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is an organized, well-written, well-sourced article

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    Good prose that meets most/almost all WP guidelines
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    adequately sourced where necessary
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
    no original research is apparent as all necessary statements are cited
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
    Goes into detail without getting off topic
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
    No NPOV is apparent
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    Some very nice pictures, just the right amount
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    The strong points are that it is informative and organized. Prose and citations are adequate but could still be improved, but overall this meets the good article criteria.

Population change? (at least add *)

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, I think there should at least be an Asterisk next to the city and county population estimates. I have seen other cities around the world add this because even when a college is out (in most cases I have seen) students seem to stay within the college's residing city, making the estimate larger. What I would like to see:

city- 68,788 *(84,430- See details)

Metro- 109,299 *(124,941- See details)

Something like this would make me very happy if anyone can help or respond it would be great.. as it has been bugging me tremendously.. Thanks

ATOTHEJPiano (talk)

Census numbers are census numbers. That's what we need to use. Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say.. I am saying to use both figures.. of course we need to keep the 2010 census estimate; But why not basically add a notice saying: 68,788 is the population of the city- (but when the students of the university are added, it is 84,430). I just want people to see demographic change when students are enrolled in the University. We don't have to change the number on the demographic chart's.. just add something to show that the University is Missoula's base for growth. Can someone at least add a small section about this... I think its worth noting.

ATOTHEJPiano (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

you don't seem to realize that most of the students are already counted in the 2010 census totals for the city and metro area. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2010/resid_rules/resid_rules.html In other words, the students are factored into the population of the city. without the students factored in Missoula’s population would be closer to 52,000 and the metro area closer to 94,000.

Missoulianette (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Like others alluded to above, the census is a snapshot in time where they (theoretically anyway) ask everyone in the country where their primary residence was on a specific day. The primary residence of all full-time college students at UM would either be in or around Missoula (minus the few who commute from East Missoula or Frenchtown, the student population has already been counted). Dsetay (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

There has already been a huge edit war over this, ATOTHEJPiano, and the question of transient student population of a college town in general has been long settled to NOT be included, for many of the reasons the others here have mentioned; many students don't live within the city limits, many live there year-round and don't leave, a summer drop can also reflect graduates leaving town or summer employment elsewhere, and so the number of enrolled students really cannot be correlated in ANY meaningful way to the town's population, as many are nontraditional or at least are not dorm-dwellers. Montanabw(talk) 23:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

New census population estimates

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I hope this does not make anyone upset, but I changed the population numbers to official census estimates. I know they are estimates, but I always feel obligated to update the estimates as soon as they are revealed to the public. It is just an update. Please do not get upset. Thanks,

Missoulian (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

New section architecture add on?

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think somewhere in the article (more likely under Infrastructure), it should list some significant feature's of Missoula's architecture history, and present day look. anyone else have a thought on this subject? Like I said earlier, I think it could be added under "Infrastructure" and then underneath "City layout and development". Missoulian (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

What the...?

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a reason this page is again being inundated with lists and too many pictures that took months to get rid of in the first place? Please don't try to turn this in the Billings page with a Points of Interest tour-guide field. That page is crap, remember. Dsetay (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I won't stop you if you revert (I didn't add that stuff). Article is a GA, don't want to screw that up. I'm not sure which edit is the last "clean" version, but if you go back to it, those wishing to add new material have the burden. I think some of the restructuring of headings in the transportation section was OK, but there isn't a need to add two photos of the Mountain Line... there is also a Downtown Missoula article, where a lot of that can go... Montanabw(talk) 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

A Collage?

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

Hi everyone, I have not been active for the Missoula Wikipedia page for quite some time (5-6 months). I like editing pages on Wikipedia but it takes time and effort (most people know this). I just wanted to throw the idea of creating a collage for the main Wikipedia picture. We as a community have considered this before, but ultimately never went through with it. I am still really interested in doing so. Let me know what others think. Thanks,

Missoulian (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

They just did it for Billings, Montana and theirs looks pretty good. I'd say if nice and inclusive, all of commons-approved images, it's worth a try. Maybe put up your drafts here for comment. Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, I have recently taken some good photos of Missoula and the surrounding area. They include Downtown and several neighborhoods, parks, and outlying areas. I have also taken some photos of landmarks (including the Wilma Building, the XXXX's. the carousel, the mall, etc.) I will post several collages and see what everyone thinks, and ask for suggestions on what might be improved. I will post them within a week from this post. Thanks,

Missoulian (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Check out the one they did for Billings, Montana, it wasn't too bad! (Except they didn't need two photos of the rims...) My take on collages is that it's important to highlight the community in a representative way that still looks good in the browser, about 5-7 images tops, IMHO... also, not to use too many out of city limits photos, as those are of the county, not the city (UM against Mount Sentinel is classic, and one image that can incorporate scenery) one idea might be to post the best 6-10 pics you'd like to use and see which ones get a salute. IMHO, the Wilma and the Carousel have potential, but a photo of the mall is a waste of time, every town of any size has a mall, Missoula's is not particularly special (other than one of only three decent ones in the whole state) and so that's not particularly unique about Missoula, but what about all the unique architecture at UM, like Main Hall? Also look to historic buildings like the Courthouse. Maybe a commercial building with a unique setting...St. Pat's hospital, maybe...just ideas. Montanabw(talk) 22:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply


Hello everyone I have finally finished some sample collages that I think are suitable to become the Front page picture for our Missoula article. Let me know your opinion's and hopefully you all like them, if you have suggestions on what could be improved please tell me. All the photos in the collage(s) were taken by myself today (the 27th of April).

Missoulian (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

 
Sample collage 1
 
Sample collage 2

Those look good, nice job! Myself I like the one with the courthouse the best. Missoula Dude (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • You're on the right track, but here's my take:
  1. First off, if there are not enough suitable images already on commons, maybe reshoot some when the sky is blue, these have overcast skies and makes Missoula look like it does in the winter! (Lived through five Missoula winters, very depressing time of year there) See how these look in sun: File:Missoula county courthouse.jpg, File:Missoula, Montana - Wilma Theater.JPG
  2. For layout, the second layout design is better than the first; the panoramas just don't work, too small.
  3. The three images that are "must haves" IMHO, are Main Hall, the Wilma, and the Courthouse. Rankin Hall is a maybe, we don't want to overdo the UM images, but given UM's prominence, two images of UM MIGHT be acceptable. Should try to shoot Main Hall with the "M" visible if you can!
  4. Both images have too many boring modern buildings. Find more funky ones like File:Northern Pacific Railroad Depot (2012) - Missoula County, Montana.png or File:Gleim Building.JPG
  5. Nix washington-Grizzly stadium, sure, it's a football stadium, but ... yawn... or maybe fill it up and use something like this: File:WaGriz RollingStones.jpg or another one of afull stadium (there is one more at commons, can't find it now...)
  6. Maybe do an interior of the carousel, showing the horse (I might have some, but all probably have people on them...)
  7. GOTTA add this one (posted here too) File:Fall Clark Fork.jpg, can;t tell which tall building visible in the background, but WOW!
     
    WOW!
  8. Note more images of possible use here and here

Al for now. Montanabw(talk) 22:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I will continue to make some new collages with the suggestions you had in mind. Thanks for the overall positive feedback so far... I will get some more samples uploaded within a few days.

Missoulian (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

In my free time I created this collage based on User:Montanabw suggestions... let me know what you think.

Missoulian (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

 
sample collage 3
Hmmm. movement. Football stadium shot is a good add, I'd try to get the courthouse in sunshine. I'd add main hall in the center sort of like Layout 2 has that other building, and I'd dump the panorama of the town (too small in a collage) in favor of something else. The shot of the WIlma might be as good as we have, but I wish there was one with it in the center, not off-kilter (perhaps you can download that image and play with cropping it, then re-upload??) We can put the panorama elsewhere in the article. Montanabw(talk) 16:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply


Here is my final attempt to please everyone... I have made 4 more collages based off suggestions given, and hopefully we can decide on Missoula's new front page picture.

 
sample collage 4
 
sample collage 5
 
sample collage 6
 
sample collage 7
 
sample collage 8

I personally like the 5th collage the best, as it showcases many different parts of town, while staying within 8 total images. My personal second favorite is the 7th or 8th. Let me know your opinions and hopefully we can decide unanimously.

Missoulian (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm more or less OK with the basic layout of 5, except that I'd swap the Clark Fork in autumn photo where the one of the courthouse is, and toss the boring high rise altogether (which building is that, anyway?) because no one visits Montana to see a high-rise (only we Montanans are impressed at the sight of a building of six floors...sigh) Maybe don't replace it and let the Washington-Grizzley stadium photo go the width that subsection... When we find or take images of Main Hall, the Wilma and the Courthouse taken on bright sunny days, we can swap them out later. We don't really want to portray Missoula in its gloomy season, it's autumn when it's most glorious! Montanabw(talk) 20:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
8 is definitely better. But what is that very boring modern building? Thought it was either one of the hi-rise dorms or the Millennial building, but doesn't quite look right... do we need it in there? Seems there must be something cooler to use...interior of the carousel maybe? Or some more weird and funky architecture like the Xs sculpture by the depot at the top of Higgins, maybe during a farmer's market (are they still doing the farmer's market up there?)? (dang but all photos I have of carousel have identifiable people on the horses, so can't use). Something about the funky granola culture of Missoula, which is part of why it's a special community? (was over there this past weekend, but cloudy whenever I was anywhere where a photo would be nice, got a good shot of Bernice's Bakery, but only with cell phone, not sure it's relevant here...) Montanabw(talk) 17:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The building which you are referring to is the Broadway building a part of St. Patrick hospital near the outskirts of downtown. It was a pretty miraculous building for Montana standards when it was built in 2002. It has 8 total stories with two underground floors for parking and hosts over 685,000 sq. feet of usable space (all medical use). I have always thought it was a neat addition to the skyline of Missoula. I like the current layout and will continue to make more collages over the next few weeks. I will post them when I get a chance, but I am glad most of us like the current photo we are using.

Missoulian (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, the hospital. I remember when they blew up the old one; that was quite a day. I guess my thinking is that maybe that image would do better as a stand-alone in the section on the medical facilities; Mizoo has a good reputation for a heart center, etc., that would be a bit to expand upon...as it sits, given that it has the same "look" as several other modern buildings, I'm not certain it's the best in the collage... Montanabw(talk) 20:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Good point, though I think most were taken by Missoulian, who I presume uploaded them under the proper license at commons. That said, It IS a good idea to list all the original images - at commons - so that copyright can be verified. Montanabw(talk) 19:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Edits by Zzomtceo (Michael Aranda, Emily Graslie, Hank Green)

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Several edits that I made were reverted by Montanabw. I don't think they should've been undone and rather than start an edit war I decided to create this talk section. Should the most recent edit by zzomtceo be kept or removed. I think that it provided relevant information about people from Missoula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzomtceo (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

These links are to three people who have put videos on YouTube. Nothing notable about them, I'm surprised their articles haven't already been AfD'd. What is WP:NOTABLE about them? Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

They have acquired a sizable following, and are (at least in the case of Hank Green) very influential 173.241.124.178 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I guess they don't qualify for the main page. But there's no way they qualify for AfD. Zzomtceo (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Neighborhoods and zones of Missoula, Montana

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone please look at linking to this orphaned article? Gbawden (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Missoula Climate

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

(Moved from user talk) Regarding the climate data to Missoula, I had to edit the climate box for a couple of reasons and undid your edit. First the precipitation data is slightly off. For example in the previous revision the May and October precipitation should be 2.01 inches and 0.88 inches respectively, not 2.00 inches and 0.89 inches. Secondly in the NowData source which has data on the normals, they updated the website a year ago and unfortunately removed information regarding average days with precipitation and snowy days. That's why I introduced this source for those values (you can see the readme file) to know how to interpret the data. Both of them display normals, not averages and have the same values as each other. Lastly, if you look up the WMO climatological normals for this location, sunshine hours are recorded as mean monthly sunshine hours only. HKO is incorrect in taking these values and converting them into daily hours, which introduces rounding errors. Plus, the source allows the sunshine data to be easily verified. Ssbbplayer (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You put in the high temp records, not averages. Missoula might be the banana belt of Montana, but to say that the average or normal high in January is 66 degrees is utter and complete nonsense. Montanabw(talk) 00:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
No. That is the record high in January. If you look closely at what the weather box (template) displays and the syntax in it, it displays the 66 degrees as the record high in January and the normal high as 33.2 degrees. Please read this extremely carefully since I have been editing US weather boxes for a while. I see nothing different from the 2 pages. Perhaps you're misinterpreting the weather box syntax in the editing box. The field "Jan record high F=", "Feb record high F=" and so on refer to the highest temperature recorded in the month. If you look at other major cities in USA and in Canada, the data that they put in is the record high, not the averages. The high temp averages goes under the field "Jan high F". Where you put these fields in the weather box when you are editing doesn't make a difference at all. Here is the example Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm planning to move this discussion to the talk page of that article. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm a 4th-generation Montanan and lived several winters in Missoula; I know it's not 66 degrees in January! My point is that the box is easy to misinterpret when you begin it with the record high temperatures. The point, is that the box needs to show the average temps first, then the extremes beneath them. I'm not arguing about the data, I'm taking issue with the layout, which is easy to misread and misleading. Montanabw(talk) 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Climate

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have recently edited the weather box in the last couple of days but it has been reverted twice in a row. I placed 2 weather boxes below, which contain the same data but with different positions of the parameters (eg. the record high fields goes after the normal low temps) to indicate whether it makes a difference or not. The first one is the original one before my edit while the second one is similar to the first one except that I moved the record high field to the top part and excess whitespace was removed. No data was changed in both versions and the sunshine data has been removed since it is not necessary in this discussion. Both of these have the same data before I made some minor changes to the data. This is to show whether this makes a difference or not based on the claim that "The problem is that placing the record highs first on the chart skews the numbers to make it appear that is the average" as mentioned by User:Montanabw in one of his/her edits. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Climate data for Missoula, Montana (Missoula Airport), 1981–2010 normals
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °F (°C) 60
(16) 		66
(19) 		78
(26) 		90
(32) 		95
(35) 		102
(39) 		107
(42) 		105
(41) 		99
(37) 		85
(29) 		73
(23) 		60
(16) 		107
(42)
Mean daily maximum °F (°C) 33.2
(0.7) 		38.8
(3.8) 		49.8
(9.9) 		58.5
(14.7) 		67.3
(19.6) 		75.2
(24.0) 		85.9
(29.9) 		84.9
(29.4) 		73.1
(22.8) 		57.8
(14.3) 		41.5
(5.3) 		31.0
(−0.6) 		58.1
(14.5)
Mean daily minimum °F (°C) 18.3
(−7.6) 		21.2
(−6.0) 		27.7
(−2.4) 		32.8
(0.4) 		39.8
(4.3) 		46.6
(8.1) 		51.4
(10.8) 		50.1
(10.1) 		41.8
(5.4) 		32.4
(0.2) 		24.9
(−3.9) 		16.7
(−8.5) 		33.6
(0.9)
Record low °F (°C) −33
(−36) 		−28
(−33) 		−13
(−25) 		2
(−17) 		21
(−6) 		26
(−3) 		25
(−4) 		25
(−4) 		15
(−9) 		−4
(−20) 		−23
(−31) 		−30
(−34) 		−33
(−36)
Average precipitation inches (mm) 0.84
(21) 		0.70
(18) 		0.99
(25) 		1.22
(31) 		2.00
(51) 		2.07
(53) 		0.99
(25) 		1.19
(30) 		1.17
(30) 		0.87
(22) 		1.01
(26) 		1.04
(26) 		14.09
(358)
Average snowfall inches (cm) 9.3
(24) 		6.5
(17) 		5.6
(14) 		1.3
(3.3) 		0.2
(0.51) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0.6
(1.5) 		5.4
(14) 		10.7
(27) 		39.5
(100)
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.01 in) 11.8 9.4 11.4 11.1 12.3 12.1 7.1 7.5 8.2 8.4 11.1 12.3 122.7
Average snowy days (≥ 0.1 in) 9.4 6.9 5.2 1.7 0.3 0.1 0 0 0 0.9 5.3 9.7 39.5
Source: extremes (1893–2015): NOAA;[1][2]
Climate data for Missoula, Montana (Missoula Airport), 1981–2010 normals
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °F (°C) 60
(16) 		66
(19) 		78
(26) 		90
(32) 		95
(35) 		102
(39) 		107
(42) 		105
(41) 		99
(37) 		85
(29) 		73
(23) 		60
(16) 		107
(42)
Mean daily maximum °F (°C) 33.2
(0.7) 		38.8
(3.8) 		49.8
(9.9) 		58.5
(14.7) 		67.3
(19.6) 		75.2
(24.0) 		85.9
(29.9) 		84.9
(29.4) 		73.1
(22.8) 		57.8
(14.3) 		41.5
(5.3) 		31.0
(−0.6) 		58.1
(14.5)
Mean daily minimum °F (°C) 18.3
(−7.6) 		21.2
(−6.0) 		27.7
(−2.4) 		32.8
(0.4) 		39.8
(4.3) 		46.6
(8.1) 		51.4
(10.8) 		50.1
(10.1) 		41.8
(5.4) 		32.4
(0.2) 		24.9
(−3.9) 		16.7
(−8.5) 		33.6
(0.9)
Record low °F (°C) −33
(−36) 		−28
(−33) 		−13
(−25) 		2
(−17) 		21
(−6) 		26
(−3) 		25
(−4) 		25
(−4) 		15
(−9) 		−4
(−20) 		−23
(−31) 		−30
(−34) 		−33
(−36)
Average precipitation inches (mm) 0.84
(21) 		0.70
(18) 		0.99
(25) 		1.22
(31) 		2.00
(51) 		2.07
(53) 		0.99
(25) 		1.19
(30) 		1.17
(30) 		0.87
(22) 		1.01
(26) 		1.04
(26) 		14.09
(358)
Average snowfall inches (cm) 9.3
(24) 		6.5
(17) 		5.6
(14) 		1.3
(3.3) 		0.2
(0.51) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0.6
(1.5) 		5.4
(14) 		10.7
(27) 		39.5
(100)
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.01 in) 11.8 9.4 11.4 11.1 12.3 12.1 7.1 7.5 8.2 8.4 11.1 12.3 122.7
Average snowy days (≥ 0.1 in) 9.4 6.9 5.2 1.7 0.3 0.1 0 0 0 0.9 5.3 9.7 39.5
Source: extremes (1893–2015): NOAA;[1][2]
I think I didn't make my point clear. The averages originally topped the chart, with the record highs and lows beneath them. That is the way it should remain; putting the record high first looks bizarre, at first glance, it appears as if that's the average. I have no issues with cleaning up the chart or updating numbers, my problem was the first number being 66 degrees for January in Montana... the reader first looks for the averages, then the extremes, not extreme-average-exteme. I reverted to flip the chart back to its original order; I didn't change the numbers to the newer figures because I didn't want to deal with the formatting, which I would be apt to screw up. I hope this clarifies my concern. Montanabw(talk) 22:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I understand your concerns and I know the problem. I fixed this by putting the averages first with the record highs and lows beneath them by moving the record high fields. See this edit in which I put the averages first then the extremes. Although the formatting is a bit changed, I did that to remove excess whitespace. I normally place the syntax as extreme, averages, and extreme then the precipitation, humidity and sun info below them which is based on the Template: Weather Box page. This is because I normally add weather boxes by copying and pasting the parameters from the template's page which saves quite a lot of time. From what I know, if you want the template to display average temperatures at the top then the extreme high and lows, you have to edit the template itself which will require consensus. For the formatting, I usually don't do that much since it doesn't really make a difference to what the template displays from my experience with editing weather boxes. It will still be there with the correct numbers/conversion, colours. I hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings from both of us. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, Poop! So it's the whole dang template doing this everywhere? Not a battle I can fight. Has no one pointed out the obvious problem with this design??? If it's a template-level problem, I guess it's beyond the scope here. Sorry for my blowup; it IS helpful to have the averages first even if the template doesn't display that way, so thank you for that. Montanabw(talk) 22:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
No problem.:) I am glad this issue had been resolved and that the climate data for the article is accurate for now (unless a new record is broken). Cheers. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ a b "NowData: NOAA Online Weather Data". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 2015-08-08.
  2. ^ a b "July 2007 was a record setting month in terms of temperatures across western Montana and north central Idaho". National Weather Service. 2007-08-12. Retrieved 2007-09-09.

Perpendicular?

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"(T)he Mullan Military Road, which ran perpendicular to the northern bank of the Clark Fork River. Through downtown Missoula, the route of the road is now Front Street."

Looking at a map, Front Street is parallel, not perpendicular. Is there some reason it's being called "perpendicular" that isn't obvious, or did the writer make a mistake on geometry?

Shawn D. (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Repaired[3] Thank you, Shawn D.! (Also, oops.) —LLarson (said & done) 16:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Missoula, Montana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 16:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply


@Cyberbot II: That page isn’t on the Internet Archive. What is archived there is a redirect to the top level of their website. I reverted the changes to [[Missoula, Montana]] while adding {{cbignore}}. I haven’t set the checked parameter to true above because the resulting output would be that the “Archived sources ha[ve] been checked to be working” which is not the case.
LLarson (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Regardless of the source’s content, I’ve changed the checked parameter to true because it conforms to the semantic intention of the hook: the source doesn’t need to be checked again. Perhaps, though, Cyberbot II’s boilerplate could use an update to avoid this ambiguity in the future? —LLarson (said & done) 16:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hank Green and nuclear free

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have two proposals of things to add to the article: that Hank Green of the vlogbrothers currently lives there and that it was the first ever city in the US to be declared nuclear free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-free_zone#United_States). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:892D:FD93:E6FC:BF65 (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • I think the nuclear-free zone thing could get a line in the politics section if it could be properly sourced. Hank Green, on the other hand, is already on the List of people from Missoula, Montana page and certainly doesn't have any notoriety worthy of the main page. As far as I'm concerned, he's best known for having anonymous users add his name to Missoula's Wikipedia page. Wow. Actually, that gives me an idea. Every time one of us has to remove "Hank Green" (which we inevitably will), I say that we also remove his name from the List of people from Missoula, Montana page that his name is already on out of spite. He was barely put on that one anyway. Your welcome. Dsetay (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why do y’all hate him so much? He’s an innovative and influential entertainer, activist, and educator. Why are you so reluctant to acknowledge that he lives in your town? Starzajo (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Missoula,_Montana/Archive_3&oldid=1225442085"