Talk:Bozeman, Montana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Bozeman, Montana was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
February 10, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Montana / Montana Cities  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Montana cities task force.
 
WikiProject Cities (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Archive
Archives


New Arts and culture section[edit]

I just deleted the References in popular culture section and moved the references I thought should stay into a new arts and culture section. I'm now going to try to clean it up, source the existing info., and find new info. Johnny Neutrino (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd add a few of those back in, (Zen and the Art is a major one, there are also several other films made around Bozeman not mentioned) and I'd maybe not call this "arts and culture" unless you want to add the opera, the theater, etc... It could remain a "popular culture" section if it just mentions books and movies. I don't care much for trivia sections and fully agree there is no need for the "every time the place gets mentioned in a cartoon" list, but I think legitimate literary refs and that sort of thing can stay. I'll throw a few things in to show you how I'm thinking. Montanabw(talk) 17:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it looks good. I really just wanted to get rid of the "Bozeman was briefly mentioned in X" references. As for adding arts and culture info., I figure I should just leave it to someone who's actually familiar with the arts scene in Bozeman (I don't live in Bozeman). Johnny Neutrino (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, trivia lists get endless. I'll let Mike add the recent stuff. I'm still in Montana, but not within the "Bozone layer" any more! ;-) Montanabw(talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Notables[edit]

Mike, I think you might be getting in over your head with your refinement of the Notable residents section. Is there such an organizational structure to other city lists like this? I am, for example, thinking or people who may have been "raised" in Bozeman, but not necessarily born there, people who were born there but left at age two and because famous elsewhere, people who lived there only for a short time (Gary Cooper), or people who passed through here on their way to becoming famous (like Loren Acton), etc... Because people do move around, I fear you are opening up a can of worms... (I mean, if you were famous, who would "claim" you? Or me, for that matter?) Also, the categories might be a little arbitrary. Not saying you shouldn't do this, just concerned that you have got yourself in for a big potential mess. Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

BW its not perfect yet, it may never be, but once I get it done, we can refine as needed. It will never cover every scenario, but every good list (embedded or standalone) should have some inclusion criteria. The good thing about doing this is I am learning alot about all these folks. Thanks for caring --Mike Cline (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a fun list. Montanabw(talk) 18:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It's grown to a size where it should be spun off as its own article. Plazak (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Although I don't disagree with you about it being a standalone list, how would you defend that from a notability standpoint in light of: WP:NOTESAL? Do you think it would stand the test?--Mike Cline (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
As a practical matter, there are numerous Wikipedia lists of notable people by city, state, and university. If it is notable enough for a section, my view is that the section is notable enough for a stand-alone article. My primary concern in making the suggestion is navigational: once a section of an article reaches a certain size, it becomes easier for the browsing reader if it is spun off, and connected by a link on the main article, with perhaps a paragraph with half-a-dozen of the most notable. The Notable People Section in this article is already longer (on my screemn at least) than any other section except History. Also, you've done a good job in restricting the list to those with Wiki articles. Plazak (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Plazak - I've finished my reconstruction of the Notables list. If you firmly believe it should be moved to a standalone list, please create it. I have no objections and if others don't, I think the move will make this article better. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I personally see no reason for a spinoff. I sort of hate the Balkanization of Wikipedia into a bunch of little weak articles just for the sake of more articles. If this was San Francisco or New York City, I'd see the point. But we are under 100 names here as far as I can tell. Further, picking the "half-dozen most notable" is REALLY opening a can of worms! Other than John Bozeman, we'd have a terrible time reaching a consensus. Montanabw(talk) 02:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Bozeman Notables needing articles[edit]

In my attempts to improve the Bozeman article to GA status, I have identified the following individuals as notable Bozemanites needing WP articles. Anyone interested should tackle them. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Nelson Story - cattleman, rancher and businessman
  • Fred Fielding Willson - Architect responsible for a great many Bozeman buildings
Agree on Nelson Story. Not so sure about Willson unless he also did a lot of work elsewhere. Be an interesting thing to research. If you note anyone working on Story, I'll peek at the article. Montanabw(talk) 06:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Sweet Pea Capital of the Nation[edit]

BW - Take a look a this source: [1] --Mike Cline (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not the point. The "Sweet Pea" flower is toxic and inedible. It is not the same as the edible pea, sometimes called a "sweet" pea. So there is a need to clarify how things are written. You linked to the toxic plant... and I didn't want to tweak the wording without consulting the source. And at the time I looked at the article, I was home on the rangedialup, where deer and antelope play google books doesn't like to load.  ;-) I'll take a whack at the section and see if I can do a workable explanation and rephrase. (And I also own bunch of vintage 80s Sweet Pea buttons, does anyone acutually buy these? We all claimed they'd be worth something someday...)Montanabw(talk) 23:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bozeman, Montana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arctic Night 23:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm taking this one. I'll make some general comments and provide a general adjudication at the end. Arctic Night 23:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead

  • As far as I remember, lead references are not needed if the same fact is cited elsewhere in the article. It won't hurt though.

History

  • I'm not a fan of the short sub-section 'Early history'. This should be incorporated into something else, as in my opinion this is too short and disrupts flow.
  • "although the Gallatin Valley was primarily within the territory of the Crow people." should ideally be sourced.
  • Large parts of the 'Nineteenth century' section are unsourced.
  • "Eluding both Native Americans and the U.S. Army, who tried to turn Story back for safety reasons..." - when I first read this I thought it meant that both the Native Americans and the U.S. Army tried to turn Story back for safety reasons. Is this correct? If not, the wording should be changed to clarify.
  • Much of the 'Nineteenth century' section is comprised of short one- or two-sentence paragraphs describing individual events. Ideally, for flow reasons, these 'paragraphs' should be merged.
  • In the 19th century section, much of a paragraph is dedicated to events that did not happen during the 19th century, specifically "in 1966 and became the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Bozeman Fish Technology Center. The Center receives approximately 5000 visitors a year observing biologists working on diet testing, feed manufacturing technology, fish diseases, brood stock development and improvement of water quality." While this might be important to establish context, I would say that this would be best placed elsewhere.
  • In the 'Twentieth century' section, the 'individual paragraphs' do not flow well, and seem 'all over the place' (that's about as precisely as I can put it!). For instance, information about the 1977 Sweet Pea arts festival should not come before the 1915 post office information. This section should flow in a chronological order, not an events-based one.
  • "It is Montana's premier natural and cultural history museum..." Much of this paragraph describes the museum itself, not the history of the museum. In addition, 'premier' appears to be a bit of a peacock term.
  • "Bozeman receives a steady influx of new residents and visitors in part due to its plentiful recreational activities such as fly fishing, hiking, whitewater kayaking, and mountain climbing. Additionally, Bozeman is a gateway community through which visitors pass on the way to Yellowstone National Park and its abundant wildlife and thermal features..." - This shouldn't be in the 'Twentieth century' history section, as it has nothing to do with the town's history.
  • "...have also served to draw people to the area." - This entire paragraph is unsourced.
  • 'Twenty-first century' has a hidden 'cite' tag in it - see the raw text for that. This should be fixed.

Geography and climate

  • "According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 12.6 square miles (32.6 km²), all of it land." - this should be cited, especially since it is a statistic.
  • Most of the first paragraph of this section is unsourced.
  • "This undoubtedly contributed..." - 'undoubtedly' should be avoided.

Demographics

  • Most of this section is not sourced using inline citations.

Government

  • "misc emergency" - clarify?
  • I honestly don't think the list of departments is really necessary, and if it is, would recommend that it be incorporated into the rest of the article.

Schools

  • This should be more than just a list. There should be some prose here, and ideally some photos.

Media

  • Again, this should be more than just a list.

Appearance in art, literature and media

  • I believe this is usually called 'In popular culture' on Wikipedia, although I would check to be sure.

Business and industry, Non-profit foundations and Points of interest

  • These sections are really, really short, and should ideally be merged into other sections of the article.
  • Non-profit foundations should be more than just a list and should contain a bit more prose.
  • Should be more than just a list.
  • Points of interest... I can't really think how this could be more than simple original research.

At the moment, I don't think I will be able to pass this article. Editors who feel this usually have to choose from one of two options - put the nomination on hold for a week to give editors a chance to make some changes, or fail the article altogether. I think I will be choosing the latter option today. A significant amount of work needs to go into this article before it can be promoted to GA status, especially in the latter stages of the article. While simple MoS fixes could warrant a 'hold' decision, this article has too many sections that are just lists that need expanding. In addition, large portions of this article remain unsourced. Arctic Night 00:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Big bang theory[edit]

In the media appearance section there should be a mention of its appearance in Big Bang theory where Sheldon moves there briefly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.34.221 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no significance to this. If we mention every time a TV show or a comic book or a popular song makes a reference, we'd have a giant trivia list, which is discouraged on wikipedia. It would be different if the whole TV series were set in Bozeman, but it's not. Major literature or significant cultural references are one thing, a minor TV comedy series, however momentarily popular, is not. Montanabw(talk) 23:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
i would cocur with this once all the trivial mentions of New York City in the media are included in that article. Not relevant to Bozeman --Mike Cline (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
On a related note, couldn't star trek be mentioned 'arts' section? Bozeman played an important role as the home town of a central character and the town itself (though as a future representation) was the setting for a number of episodes and for most of the 8th film in the series. Just a thought ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.214.202 (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

deleted college town[edit]

I added "Bozeman is a college town it is dominated by Montana State University - Bozeman which accounts for a third of the cities population." It is a truthful statement and helps people get a feel of Bozeman and how important MSU is to the city. I know Bozeman is very proud of being the home of MSU so I think this is a good add. However someone going by the name Montanabw deleted it with the comment "Non-encyclopedic tone". Now I have no clue what makes them think the tone is not encyclopedic it seems very much so to me. Regardless, if they thought it had a "Non-encyclopedic tone" why delete it why not just give it the tone they think it needs. I intend to put the statement back in the page but I am open to ideas on phrasing. Just thought I would bring it here and see what others think.

Thanks Missoulianette (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Original statement: Bozeman is home to Montana State University - Bozeman. Your statement: Bozeman is a college town it is dominated by Montana State University - Bozeman which accounts for a third of the cities population. I would say the second statement as written is un-encyclopedic for the following reasons: 1) the term College Town is undefined and controversial (see the article) 2) the word dominated is a peacock term that adds little meaning and a lot of distortion to the article. What does it mean? I cannot see MSU from my house in Bozeman. I don't think that MSU runs the city council or appoints the mayor of Bozeman. I don't have to get permission from MSU when I want to plant a tree in my yard. If anything dominates Bozeman, its the Bridger Range. 3) 1/3 of the cities population. Here you are doing a bit of Original research by comparing a transient student population to the census population (of which the majority of students are not included). All three of these statements are unsourced as well. The question we must ask is what improvement your statement brings to the article. The original statement is factually correct, easily understood and uncontestable. Any reader can read the MSU article for details about MSU. Equally, any reader of the MSU article can read the Bozeman article for details about the city. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Mike, that is precisely what I felt when I did the revert, you said it better than I could. So glad to meet you, Missoulianette. Feel free to ask me directly next time if you'd like. Montanabw(talk) 22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Opening sentence to the article linked by Mike Cline "A college town or university town is a community (often literally a town, but possibly a small or medium sized specialized city, or in some cases a neighborhood or a district of a city) which is dominated by its university population." Not only does that describe Bozeman perfectly (perhaps that is why Bozeman's university and travel agencies all refer to Bozeman as such), but they use the word "dominate" that you just denigrated the usage of. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mean you can see the university from your house. It means that Bozeman's economy is very dependent on the school. The fact that it employs more than the next 10 largest employers combined attests to that. Besides, is there no irony in using an undefined, controversial, and for that matter the non-existent word "un-encyclopedic" to describe college town as such? Finally, considering that we just filled out the census this past year, you'd think people knew how it worked. It doesn't matter if they are a transient population, where they vote, where they pay taxes...it matters where they lived last April. So, yes, students are included in the population number. Actually, 1/3 is an understatement. Student's alone make up closer to 40% and when employees are included it's nearly half Bozeman's population. Now, when you consider how many Bozeman businesses exist to simply serve that population and it is clear that Bozeman's economy is dominated by MSU. The largest employer in Bozeman that isn't a social service is Walmart. Bozeman is a college town by every possible conception of the term. Wait, do I have to quote a bunch of essays from sacred wikipolice texts for this to mean anything?Dsetay (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, what about just Star Trek?[edit]

So, I recently added an entry describing Bozeman's importance in Star Trek into the "Appearance in art, literature and media" section. I was pretty quickly reverted by Montanabw on the grounds that adding one "trivia" item will open the door to many more. However, after looking into it, I see that people keep adding and re-adding its significance to Star Trek and... it looks like not much else. I can understand not wanting to get a list of every show that ever mentioned it in one line, but this was a major motion picture that was primarily set in Bozeman. And to add to that, it's part of the overall Star Trek framchise and was later mentioned by name in a few episodes. I think that Star Trek is major enough to warrant a mention in this section since it's at least more well-known than a virtually unknown band and pretty much everything else in that section. People keep trying to add it back in and I really don't think that letting Star Trek in will hurt the article itself.

So I see 3 options -- get rid of the entire section, since the whole thing is pretty trivial, let the Star Trek mention stay (and continue blocking further mentions), or at the very least put a hidden note on the page so that people will quit re-adding it. I mean, it's got to be easier than constantly reverting the same change over and over. Thoughts? —Platypus Man | Talk 04:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If a major part of a notable movie or novel is set in a location, I believe that it merits mention in the location article (although obviously we have to be very selective for major cities). The trouble in Wikipedia comes in trying to catalogue every mere mention, or every fictional character said to be from a place. If, as you state above, the movie was "primarily set in Bozeman" then I agree that it should be included in the Bozeman article. Plazak (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
If we include every fictional TV show or movie where Bozeman is mentioned, the list becomes endless. There was consensus to dump all this stuff at least a year ago, as the list was getting too long. There is a fairly longstanding consensus that it is one thing when, as in the works of John Steinbeck or Pirsig, the community is mentioned in a nonfiction way, or, as Plazak notes above, if it is the primary focus of a movie or novel, then it makes sense. However, (and here I speak as a Star Trek fan) the use of Bozeman in that movie was wholly a creation from the mind of Brannon Braga, a Bozemanite. Though Bozeman is not as big as New York City, likewise, that article doesn't mention every example that it is mentioned as a location in a film. I guess if Star Trek IV is mentioned in the San Francisco article, then maybe I'm open to some discussion for adding it here. Otherwise, it's just pop trivia that will only attract other, even less important pop trivia. Montanabw(talk) 19:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Follow up: Star Trek IV is not currently mentioned in the San Francisco article. As far as other problematic entries, there is a TV show that keeps trying to add a bit on how one character allegedly lived there, and seems like there were some garage bands with songs about Bozeman we also tossed. Montanabw(talk) 23:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
For the record, as I said, I don't want every TV show on here. Only Star Trek. Don't make any decision on whether or not you think other things will then be added. The way I see it, what this article needs isn't the wall it has right now, but a screening process. Anything that wants to be added should have to fight for its spot on the Talk page like I'm doing now. I'm fine with your opinion that the Star Trek thing shouldn't be on here, and I see where you're coming from, but I don't want you to summarily toss it out based on a fear that the list will become unmanageable. Because that's what we're doing -- managing it.
Anyway, I still think it has a place on this article. For the record, there isn't a comparable section on the San Francisco page. If there were, I'd fight to put Trek in there too, but the fact that this article has this section makes me think that it really isn't complete without Star Trek. And again, whatever is decided here, I think a hidden note should be put on the page so people won't add extraneous things in the future. —Platypus Man | Talk 00:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's fair to see what others who watch this page have to say. Your idea about a hidden text note, one way or the other, is a good one. As for what is there now, we only have a) films actually filmed in the area (ST wasn't), b) Mentions of two local bands done good (which is marginal to the section and arguably could just go into the notable residents section) and c) Mentions in two works of significant nonfiction literature. No fictional TV or Movies -- or novels or comic books, or whatever -- that mention Bozeman but weren't actually created there. I guess, if there is a criterion, that's where the line is drawn -- had ST actually filmed in the area, then I'd wholeheartedly support keeping it. But it wasn't. Boots on the ground, I guess. Montanabw(talk) 18:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
This sort of inclusion debate is nothing new to wiki. It all depends on what one calls trivia. Steele Pole Bathtub band is in the article and no one is arguing about that yet I've have no idea what that is but I've quite familiar with the Star Trek and Bozeman connection. This section is called "...media" and this particular connection is far more than a passing mention.PumpkinSky talk 21:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

population University/City[edit]

This was deleted from the Bozeman page "With a student body population of 14,153 [7] and a city population of 37,280 the student population of the University accounts for over 37% of the city's population" along with the deletion this person posted the statement "You are drawing your own conclusion from two separate sources" also eluding that it might be "original research" (OR). It is not "original research" because the sources for the information are reliable Wikipedia excepted sources. As a matter of fact one of the sources is the U.S. Census Bureau which happens to be the only source excepted by Wikipedia for city population figures. These are the citations that were listed: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/30/3008950.html and http://www.montana.edu/opa/facts/quick.html#Demo the second source is the Montana State University website also an excepted source. So this was not a conclusion being drawn it was actually just a matter of simple math.

MSU is the biggest most important think in Bozeman. It is why Bozeman is Bozeman why would you not want to point that out?

Missoulianette (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You really need to read and understand WP:SYN which is a subset of WP:OR, a wikipedia policy. Although the individual sources may be reliable and accurate, you are drawing a conclusion (37% of the city's population) that is not explicit mentioned in either source. That is synthesis and against WP policy. Here's some of the problems (and the reason your synthesis is actually inaccurate). Many MSU students don't live in Bozeman (more than you might think) and thus would be excluded from your calculation. Many MSU students are non-resident students and probably not counted in the Montana census but your calculation assumes 100% of the student population is included in the overall Bozeman population which we know from the previous two facts, can't be true. So although your individual sources may be accurate, you are drawing a conclusion not supported by either (an inaccurate one at that). Find a reliable source that says 37% of Bozeman's population are MSU students and we can include it, otherwise, its Synthesis and its out. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
You need to read this and understand http://2010.census.gov/partners/pdf/langfiles/qrb_English.pdf According to census rules, people should be counted ("enumerated," in census-speak) at a residence if they: Live or stay at the residence most of the time. Stayed there on April 1, 2010 and had no permanent place to live. Stay at the residence more time than any other place they might live or stay.
That means most college students should be counted at their college address, either on campus or off campus. They should be counted at their parents' home only if they live and sleep there most of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missoulianette (talkcontribs) 19:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I originally had “the student population accounts for over a third of the city’s population” but you deleted that so I got more specific. Now I would be happy to put back that statement or I am open to alterative phrasing. Given the way the census is counted you can’t logically argue with the fact that at least a third of the city’s population is students. Missoulianette (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Missoulianette, the importance here is that you fail to consider what makes someone "a student." Many Bozeman residents take a class or two, but would not identify themselves as someone seeking a degree; many Bozeman residents choose to attend their local university for their degrees but are also permanent Bozeman residents. Over 1/3 of the enrolled students at MSU (last I checked) are "non-traditional" students -- people who are married, are parents, or at least are over age 23 and not legal dependents of anyone. You make a huge set of assumptions to imply that being an MSU student somehow means you are just a young early-20-something who really live with your parents somewhere else. It's actually quite insulting to the many residents of Bozeman who also happen to take advantage of having a major university in their town. And also, you fail to consider that many MSU students don't live in Bozeman, they live in Belgrade, or Livingston, or Manhattan, or at least outside the Bozeman city limits, so it's really comparing apples and oranges to say that you can even correlate the student population of MSU to the city population of Bozeman. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I have no idea where or when you checked last but you can check here http://www.montana.edu/opa/facts/quick.html and I can tell you from having, not that long ago gone to MSU that 1/3 of the student body at MSU is not nontrad not even close. The only college in the state that even comes close to that is MSU-Billings. But please do check it out for yourself. I have to say I am stunned that you even want to down play the importance of MSU just don’t get it.


Missoulianette (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is your problem, you are arguing with two editors who know Bozeman and MSU quite well, and we aren't downplaying MSU, we are simply pointing out that you are making arguments that you can't make with the information you have. As someone who was in fact a non-traditional graduate of MSU and lived in Bozeman for 18 years (as well as a fourth-generation Montanan), I see no reason for you to be "stunned." Yes, Bozeman has a big college that is a major player in the community, but you can't use the population statistics the way you do and you can't use vague terms like "dominated" -- You could as easily say that Bozeman is "dominated" by tourists, "dominated" by fishing or "dominated" by skiers. Your new use of statistics is simply an example of how you aren't using numbers properly: the 10% stats you provided are only for FRESHMEN.The current stats at MSU indicate 2000 students are "over traditional AGE", (about 14% but wait, there's more) but those are defined as 25 and up -- yet the freshman stats define "non-traditional" at age 22 or as "out of high school three years or more" and both numbers fail to include all the students under 25 who are married or parents or both. It also probably excludes all the veterans who are single, childless and under 25, but also certainly non-traditional students. The old SOTA stats and re-entry student services used to use the 1/3 number that encompassed all the above groups (and upped their funding, no doubt). My point is that a "non-traditional" student is someone who probably doesn't have mommy and daddy paying for tuition and providing a place to go live every summer, and I was offended that you implied that that's what a college student was -- For example, I was a traditional age student as a freshman, but two colleges, a marriage, a baby and a three-year break from school intervening, I was a non-trad by the time I graduated. And I would hotly deny that my status as a resident of Bozeman was that of a mere "student" as if I had no roots to the community. (I don't live there now, but it's clear, I guess, that I still have some loyalty there, it seems) Montanabw(talk) 23:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bringing Bozeman-MSU population question up to OR/Noticeboard[edit]

Missoulianette - don't be alarmed but I am raising the question we've been discussing about MSU and Bozeman's population at the OR Noticeboard. For some reason I have been unable to steer you in the right direction here and do not want to get into an edit war with you over this. The discussion here will be looked at by many others more experienced than me. If I have erred in my interpretation of WP:SYN then I will learn from this. If you have erred, you will learn. There's nothing punitive in this at all, its normal collaborative behavior that we all should engage in routinely. Please feel free to weigh in on the discussion, but remember to listen to the council of others as well. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good Idea!

Missoulianette (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

However, the almost 15,000 students at the MSU campus are NOT considered full time residents (even those living in apartments in city limits) of Bozeman. Counting students, the population of the city is closer to 54,000.

Likewise, why are we letting the federal government determine what is our greater community? "Bozeman Micropolitan Statistical Area" has no meaning for anyone in Bozeman. Far southern Gallatin County is in this Bozeman Micropolitan Statistical Area, but do people in West Yellowstone consider themselves part of the greater Bozeman area? NO. However, do people in Livingston consider themselves part of the greater Bozeman area? Yes. Are they in reality? Yes. Many people in Livingston work in Bozeman and many services in Bozeman (hospitals/clinics, banks, restaurants, etc.) serve people in Livingston on a regular basis. The 7,000 people in Livingston should also be included in any mention of a greater Bozeman area. Three Forks-Manhattan-Belgrade-Big Sky-Bozeman-Livingston is 'greater Bozeman' and explaining to the world (it's our responsibility, not of anyone else) what greater Bozeman IS and how many people live there better informs everyone. The truth should reflect reality, not simplistic bureaucratic representations of the truth... pseudo-truth or meta-reality. That is just lazy and makes for an incomplete and misleading encyclopedic experience for wiki users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.234.143 (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


Um, this issue died two years ago, note dates of thread. Montanabw(talk) 01:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Bozeman in popular culture page[edit]

Why not create a Bozeman, Montana in popular culture page or something like that so that the obsessed can have a spot for their incessant need to include references to Bozeman being mentioned in Star Trek, the Big Bang Theory, and wherever the hell else the name has turned up. They get to feel important and everyone else can be spared of countless times deleting trivia. Dsetay (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic, but do ALL city articles have such pages? I fully agree that every time a place gets mentioned in a TV show or movie, it doesn't belong in the town's article (I wonder what one on New York City wouldlook like? YIKES!) I kind of gave up on Star Trek because, in fact, Brannon Braga came from Bozeman and was inserting the Bozeman references on purpose, so there is some argument to noting this (not an argument I'd go to the mat for if someone wanted it all out, but if it must be in, then being clear helps). As for the rest, yeah. Ongoing pain in the butt. So why doesn't Missoula have to deal with this? I know! It's a plot by the Griz! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The Missoula page used to have this problem, but I gradually got rid of them as insignificant when I rewrote the culture section. Yes, Hemingway, Steinbeck, and irthe writer of Fight Club have mentioned Missoula, but only in passing. I kept references to A River Runs Through It, but that's kind of obvious. Plus, it has my favorite quote I need to find a place for “The world is full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the further one gets from Missoula, Montana.” I'd even consider adding The Decemberists' Apology Song since it's about Missoula, but I'll probably wait for someone to inevitably bring it up. Though the Griz plot is a good idea. I just quickly found a cowboy romance novel in Google Books that seems to have a character from Bozeman. Ooh, and here's one about volcano eruptions! But, here's the winner from Gold diggers & silver miners: prostitution and social life on the Comstock Lode, "Lesbian sexual relationships were a part of frontier prostitution, and a famous, although probably apocryphal, tale describes the night that Calamity Jane was ejected from a brothel in Bozeman, Montana, because she was corrupting the other inmates.” That's gotta be included somehow. - Dsetay (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm all for Calamity Jane! LOL! And of course, with Missoula, we really have to note that Colin Meloy's pre-Decembrists garage band in Missoula was called Tarkio... Montanabw(talk) 17:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Olympic Bid[edit]

Simply because there seems to be someone insisting on putting a reference to Bozeman placing a bid for the 2022 Olympics. The was, indeed, a group of residents two years ago wanting to pursue the absurd idea of holding the Olympics in Bozeman, led by Jon Greenspon. He dropped the idea after a survey showed most people in the area thought it was a terrible idea. See: Greenspon trying to unseat Krauss for mayor.

Dsetay (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bozeman Residents[edit]

Referring to the residents as Bozos rather than "Bozeman residents" is a bit more efficient, in my opinion. Many people from Bozeman and the surrounding area refer to themselves and others as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcat009 (talkcontribs) 20:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I put it back. I've lived here 14 years and never once heard the term. Maybe I roll in different circles, but I'd still like to see some sort of evidence for "Bozos" before changing the page.Metadox (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
While the name "Bozeman" lends itself to a few jokes of that sort (and even more for Bozone" - http://www.bozone.comhttp://www.bozone.com) there is nothing official about "bozo". To Metadox's 14 years I will add the 18 years I lived there as well. Absent a reliable source, this is just vandalism and shall be treated as such Montanabw(talk) 06:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)