Talk:Upper Peninsula of Michigan/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Change in highway wording

Rather mention it than revert, but Imzadi, I understand the thought in your edit summary but your change seems to conflict with even your own edit summary and I think that now it is wrong. Of course, interstate has two meanings (a specific highway system, and a road the spans multiple states. Now it says that there are no federal highways there except the one Interstate, which is not correct. Sincerely, North8000

Michigan's segments of the Interstate Highway System and the United States Numbered Highway System are state highways. The numbers are are assigned by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, which is not a government agency. The only "federal highways" are ones owned by the federal government, of which there aren't any in the UP. See Michigan Highway System for more details if necessary. In short, the two interstate systems are just state highways that don't change numbers at the state lines, have a specific highway marker, and in the case of the Interstates, are built to specific, minimum design standards. Imzadi 1979 → 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the info. North8000 22:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

S.T. Stahlmann

While S.T. Stahlmann's self published book will not be found in any major retail outlet, he is of regional significance. His skill as a hunter and penchant for recounting his experiences both verbally and in writing contributed to his regional notoriety. Upon release of his 2004 novel, he was featured in Marquette's Mining Journal (28 June, 2004) for his culturally significant contribution to the culture of Upper Michigan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.74.148 (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

S. T. Stahlmann, although attractive in both sound and notion, is not a real person and is merely a figment of wildly out of control imagination. I propose that the original poster of this discussion be barred immediately from making additional posts.

Its clear the edit should stay out until there is solid evidence that he exists and is truly notable. North8000 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to above posters: S.T. Stahlmann is, in fact, a real person. He was born in Iron Mountain, MI, in the mid-1980s and lived in the U.P. until his early 20s. Stahlmann has made it his worthy goal to educate members of the "lower 50" (a.k.a. "trolls") about the worthiness of the Upper Peninsula. Stahlmann's noteable accomplishments include: pronouncing the word "walk" with the letter "l", pinpointing Jewish community gathering places on Google, and purchasing swamp land for further development in the attempt to control wildlife populations. All of these achievements are directly related to Stahlmann's early education and degree-related studies in the U.P. On a side note, Stahlmann is also extremely familiar with economic wage theory, and is able to discuss its ramifactions at length, despite the listener's desire to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.77.216 (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless something can be provided to prove the aforementioned text actually exists, someone with editing authority must intervene.

The name fails the Google test. There is no book listed on amazon.com for that author. Sorry, this passes the WP:DUCK test as a hoax. Imzadi 1979 → 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Land area?

So, if the land area is 19%, shouldn't the one section say one-fifth instead of one-third? Chris857 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, 29% is correct. I accidentally typed 19% in the edit summary and another editor assumed that was what I meant. older ≠ wiser 22:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The total land area of the entire state is 56,804 sq mi; the land area of the UP is 16,419 sq mi; 16,419/56,804 is 29%. If you want to compare total area (land and water), the state of Michigan is 96,716 sq mi and the UP is 36,140 sq mi; 36,140/96,716 is 37%. older ≠ wiser 22:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I had posted here and edited and then reverted myself on both. Forgot that land area is very different than area; doubly so for Michigan. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I relied on BK's edit summary, and noted the discrepancy. Looks like that is now resolved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Geology

This article could use a section on geology. I'm thinking it should include:

glaciation
tectonic activity and volcanism
rocks and minerals

Does anyone have additional suggestion or is able to work on it? Chris857 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the knowledge base to do something like that, but I wonder if that could be tied into the history section? As in, pre-history with how the UP came to be the way it is today, followed by Native Americans etc.? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If someone doesn't beat me to it (which would be preferable) I could work on it over time. North8000 (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a possible source, also for geography and climate. Chris857 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Largest cities

An anonymous user inserted a number of additional locations into a table that was previously titled, "Cities and Villages of the Upper Peninsula". These additional entries were various townships with populations over 2,000 people. The table was then switched to "Largest Cities & Towns of the Upper Peninsula over 2,000". I had two problems with this change:

As the IP resolves to Appleton, Wisconsin, I can't be sure if the editor was from WI or uses AT&T DSL service in the UP (which is all route through Appleton and appears to be in WI). Either way, "towns" in Michigan aren't the same as "towns" in Wisconsin, and a town there is equivalent to our townships, but here they would be a generic term that encompasses cities, villages and unincorporated communities. Townships, on the other hand, are incorporated subdivisions of a county and may or may not have a built up area that would be characterized as a "town". Imprecise language leads to confusing results.
The total at the bottom of the table wasn't updated, which was a summation of the population of a specific class of entities that are either a city or a village. Also, two of the links were red, one probably from a typo ("Mcmillan" vs. "McMillan" and the second an omission of an entire word in the name.)

Using WP:BRD as a guide, I had reverted this editor's bold change, and hoped s/he would discuss it. The change has been reinserted saying that the Michigan article has townships in its list. Checking Michigan#Largest cities, it has one township at #10 of 10. There are two issues though at work with that list.

Until about 2 weeks ago, it wasn't in the article.
The list was a template that was deleted at TfD along with a number of other ones over some problems, and it shouldn't be taken as canonical. The template was just substituted in place to deal with the closure of the TfD.

I would like to keep the table in this article, and limit it to just cities and villages as before. To deal with white space issues, we may want to limit it to just the top 10 or top 15 (15 because we have a table of the counties' population density next to it, and the UP has 15 counties. Beyond that, the two tables need some updates to comply with MOS:DTT in terms of accessibility and formatting. Imzadi 1979 → 22:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I like leaving it at just listing cities. If anything, every city has an article, but not all of those townships did. Brevity is preferable. Chris857 (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I updated the tables to 1) add the missing metric conversions and 2) update the coding so that all of them are sortable tables with proper row and column headers per MOS:DTT. Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Enclave and exclave

I quite agree that calling the lower Peninsula "Michigan proper" is wrong. It suggests that the Upper peninsula has lesser status, when it was admitted to the union at the same time. However, the above article might be a useful link. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

How so? The UP is neither an enclave nor an exclave. older ≠ wiser 12:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bkonrad on this one... the definition doesn't apply. The Straits of Mackinac prevents there from being a contiguous landmass, and no second state separates the two land areas. Imzadi 1979 → 15:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the normal definition of a peninsula

This is getting contentious, despite the ridiculous topic. Until reliable sources are found that verify that this is an actual historiographical and/or scholarly debate, we can't include it in the article anyway. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While the Upper Peninsula of Michigan does meet the loosest definition of a peninsula, that of a piece of land bordered by water on three sides,(link1) it is worth noting that it does not meet the common understanding of the term, which is a piece of land bordered on three sides by a single, contiguous body of water at more or less the same level (link2, link3). Even when definitions do not explicitly mention the characteristic of contiguity, it is usually understood (link4). There are innumerable bodies of land in the world that meet the loosest definition of a peninsula but are not recognized as such. In the Wikipedia article on peninsulas, there is no example other than the Upper Peninsula of Michigan of a 'peninsula' whose sides are bordered by multiple bodies of water at distinctly different levels. In the absence of the political border that follows the river that connects the two Great Lakes, the Upper Peninsula would not be viewed as a peninsula. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I moved your additional commentary into a footnote as including it so prominently in the text, even in a parenthetical like that, gives undue prominence to your contention. The dictionary definitions you used for footnotes though also do not explicitly require contiguity either, and I'm inclined to remove even your footnote. Imzadi 1979 → 07:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The second and third definitions are indeed explicit in describing the surrounding water as belonging to a single contiguous body; there is no other way to interpret them. As I have noted, this situation also describes the vast majority of recognized peninsulas. I challenge anyone who disagrees with me to come up with any examples of recognized peninsulas not bordered by a single contiguous body of water in situations where there is no political boundary involved. If you find this difficult, then I would suggest that removing the note is inappropriate. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement In the Wikipedia article on peninsulas, there is no example other than the Upper Peninsula of Michigan of a 'peninsula' whose sides are bordered by multiple bodies of water at distinctly different levels. is not completely accurate. There is the Anatolian Peninsula (which redirects to Anatolia and encompasses most of the Asian land mass of Turkey. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

While the Mediterranean, Dardanelles, Sea of Marmara, Bosphorus and Black Sea are named differently, they are all at the same level today (although this was apparently not true as recently as 5600 BC) and are all parts of a single contiguous body of water, the World Ocean. Similarly, lakes Huron and Michigan are parts of a single contiguous body of water, Lake Michigan–Huron, making most of the Lower Peninsula a true peninsula. The Great Lakes, in contrast, are not a single contiguous body of water. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

From [1]: Satellite altimetry shows that the surface of the Black Sea is, on average, 30 cm ( R 10 cm) above the level of the Marmara Sea (Beșiktepe et al., 1994). The Marmara Sea, in turn, is approximately 5–27 cm above the level of the northern Aegean Sea (Bogdanova, 1969). While this is considerably smaller than the difference between lakes Superior and Huron, this difference along with the differences in salinity differentiate these bodies of waters as being somewhat other than a single contiguous body of water. older ≠ wiser 16:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There are no waterfalls, rapids, rivers or locks marking the divisions between these bodies. The current flows are obviously two-way, or the Black Sea would be a freshwater lake (as it once was). Satellite altimetry can no doubt detect differences in elevation within a single ocean. The concept of a contiguous World Ocean remains valid despite these minor fluctuating differences. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reference that says that these inland seas are part of a single ocean? older ≠ wiser 17:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Check out this. I did not contribute to the World Ocean article and its authors are not coconspirators of mine. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That's really not very clear. I mean, by the same sort of logic Lakes Superior and Huron are all part of the single Great Lakes water body. older ≠ wiser 18:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not true. If Lake Huron was salt water, Lake Superior would still be freshwater. There's a major elevation difference that requires locks for navigation and renders the water flow one-way. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be arguing obscure technicalities. I suspect most people would not think of the Black Sea as part of the Mediterranean or Atlantic Ocean and likewise that most would readily recognize the UP as a peninsula. I don't think we need to give undue emphasis to obscure technicalities. After all, "[s]ince the sixteenth century, English peninsula has referred not only to land almost surrounded by water but also to a piece of land of which three of four sides are coastline." [2]. older ≠ wiser 18:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that last citation, I'm even more inclined to strike the footnote. Obscure technicalities be damned, the UP is a peninsula. Imzadi 1979 → 18:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, you are not being either reasonable or rational. These distinctions are not technicalities and are not obscure. I claim that out of thousands of recognized peninsulas worldwide, there are few or no examples that are bordered by bodies of water at distinctly different levels where a political border is not somehow involved. If I'm wrong here, demonstrating that fact should be easy. The idea of a contiguous single surrounding body of water is generally understood even when not explicitly stated in definitions. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Are you saying that English-speaking persons would not recognize the UP as a peninsula? Really? That you need to spell out so many qualifications in explaining what you mean suggests to me that perhaps it is not really a "common" meaning of the term. older ≠ wiser 20:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This is at bottom a definitional problem. Some definitions include the implicit assumption that there is one body of water, and some do not. Most emphasize that it is a narrow strip of land that is surrounded on three sides by water. Some say it is synonomous with Cape. Some emphasize that it is a piece of land connected by a narrower piece of land (Isthmus) to a larger piece of land. Here is a quick overview. These are all quotations:

Peninsula

A long narrow piece of land projecting out into a sea or lake Oxford Dictionary Peninsula Oxford English Dictionary

A narrow piece of land that juts out from the main land into a sea or ale. From Latin, paennsula (almost + island) Encarta Dictionary
a piece of land almost completely surrounded by water but joined to a large area of land:

[Look up a word starting with D or S for samples of headword or sentence pronunciations on the LDOCE CD-ROM] the Korean peninsula —peninsular adjective Definition of peninsula. Retrieved March 31, 2013. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) GEOGRAPHY Body of land surrounded on three sides by water. "Illustrated Glossary:Landforms and Bodies of Water". EnchantedLearning.com. Retrieved March 31, 2013.

A peninsula is a piece of land that is bordered on three sides by water, but is still attached to the mainland. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_for_peninsula What is the definition for peninsula? Answers.colm
a portion of land nearly surrounded by water and connected with a larger body by an isthmus; also : a piece of land jutting out into the water whether with or without a well-defined isthmus Definition of PENINSULA. Retrieved March 31, 2013. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
1. Noun. (geography) A piece of land projecting into water from a larger land mass. www.lexic.us/definition-of/peninsula Lexic.us

(geography) A piece of land projecting into water from a larger land mass. Translations:

   Dutch: schiereiland

   French: péninsule

   German: Halbinsel

   Italian: penisola

   Spanish: pení-nsula

Etymology: From paene, almost, and insula, island. AllWords.com "Definition of Peninsula". allwords.com. Retrieved March 31, 2013. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

A peninsula is a piece of land that is almost entirely surrounded by water but is connected to the mainland on one side.

Peninsulas can be very small, sometimes only large enough for a single lighthouse, for instance. Lighthouses often sit on peninsulas near rocky coastlines to warn sailors that they are getting close to land.
Peninsulas can also be very large. Most of the U.S. state of Florida is a peninsula that separates the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean.
Peninsulas are found on every continent. In North America, the narrow peninsula of Baja California, in Mexico, separates the Pacific Ocean and the Sea of Cortez, also called the Gulf of California. In Europe, the nations of Portugal and Spain make up the Iberian Peninsula. The so-called Horn of Africa, which juts into the Arabian Sea on central Africas east coast, is a huge peninsula. The nations of North Korea and South Korea make up the Korean Peninsula in eastern Asia. In Australia, the Cape York Peninsula is only 160 kilometers (99 miles) from the island of New Guinea. The Antarctic Peninsula seems to point to the tip of South America, several hundred kilometers (miles) away."Peninsula". National Geographic education. Retrieved March 31, 2013.

a long piece of land that is mostly surrounded by water, but is joined at one end to a larger area of land Peninsula. Retrieved March 31, 2013. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Main Entry:

peninsula [puh-nin-suh-luh, -nins-yuh-luh] Show IPA Part of Speech: noun Definition: projecting mass of land Synonyms: cape, chersonese, headland, neck, pointPeninsula. Philip Lief Group/Thesaurus.com. 2013. Retrieved March 31, 2013. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

A more complete discussion of the many definitions at Peninsula. Retrieved March 31, 2013. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) I would also offer as food for thought the following: Inland sea This is essentially what I would call a "red frog problem". Someone once laid down the general rule that "all frogs are green". Some uncouth 1st year student asked, "But what if there is a red frog?" That this is an odd geographic anomaly does not take it outside the general usage. In conclusion, by most definitions the Upper Peninsula is what is commonly understood as a "Peninsula" It has been so understood since before 1837. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the Michigan article, "Under terms negotiated in the 1794 Jay Treaty, Britain withdrew from Detroit and Michilimackinac in 1796. Questions remained over the boundary for many years, and the United States did not have uncontested control of the Upper Peninsula and Drummond Island until 1818 and 1847, respectively." If you can show that the Upper Peninsula was regarded as a peninsula before a political boundary corresponding to the St. Marys River existed (1818) or was contemplated (1794), then you will have made a point in this discussion. Until then, you haven't. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

What is this demand for original research? Are there indications in reliable sources that the UP is not considered a peninsula? older ≠ wiser 20:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not about keeping score, and you are not the scorekeeper. Until you have demonstrated that there is an overwhelming definintion that says this is not a peninsula, and you achieve a consensus, your new argument is unavailing. 1-0. I can declare myself the scorekeeper, just like you. Ipse dixit. You have unilaterally said that 150 years of historical usage isn't enough. WP:OR and WP:Synth would not support your fiat. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It doesn't meet the normal definition of a peninsula, part 2

I'm not sure what is going on here. Obviously, no one has the right to close a general discussion. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This would be a good time to review Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No offense intended - but I will contribute more if and when I have something substantive to say on the subject. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

And I didn't mean any offense either, but keep in mind that repeating the same arguments above isn't going to get you anywhere. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I find it very odd that the discussion was opened and closed in one day over a holiday. Not much time for comment.--Asher196 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The closure statement is correct though: unless there are actual sources disputing the naming of the Upper Peninsula as a peninsula, it's OR and synthesis to insert that footnote disputing 175+ years of history related to the name. Find a source that disputes the name, and we can work on restoring a comment, but using dictionary definitions to dispute it isn't going to cut it. Imzadi 1979 → 03:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, it was never my intent to cause offense by suggesting the U.P. might be less than a conventional peninsula. However, in my view, the main impetus behind recognizing it as a peninsula was and is nomenclatural convenience - which I regard as an excellent justification (at least in this case). WolfmanSF (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

So you see a definition in a dictionary and then interpret that to mean the UP is not a conventional peninsula. That seems the essence of original research. On the other hand, if there are reliable sources that discuss the issue -- then there might be something warrant a mention. older ≠ wiser 11:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Flogging a dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe this has gone on as long as it has. The immense overwhelming weight of sourcing is that it is called a peninsula. Trying to take one definition and interpret contrary to that, on a question of terminology has no place in article content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I will have more to say on the subject later, but a point that I want to make now is that popular usage of a term is not always consistent with the technical or most common meaning of a term. Pointing this fact out in an article does not imply that the popular usage is wrong or should change; it is merely an observation of an inconsistency. There is no need for anyone to feel threatened or insulted by someone making such an observation. Here is an example from my current neck of the woods: San Francisco is situated at the tip of the San Francisco Peninsula and as such is obviously part of the peninsula. However, the term "the Peninsula" as used locally for many years excludes San Francisco. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The Niagara Peninsula is bounded by water of different levels. The Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area, widely described as an "inland peninsula", is surrounded entirely by dammed rivers. Foobaz·o< 07:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

True. In the former case, a political boundary runs down the river connecting the lakes, just as in the case of the U.P. According to the article on the latter, the reservoirs on either side of the unnamed peninsula are connected by a canal so as to be on the same level. Quoting from the article, "After the Cumberland River was impounded in the 1960s and a canal was constructed between the two lakes, Land Between The Lakes became the largest inland peninsula in the United States." WolfmanSF (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Cutting the canal made it a peninsula because it severed the connection to the mainland. Equalizing the water levels was incidental.

As another example, consider North Holland. It is another peninsula surrounded by water of varying heights. Foobaz·o< 10:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is the land upstream of the canal that is considered the peninsula. That land was already previously cut off further downstream by the Ohio River. "Mainland" would be considered the area further upstream.

North Holland is an extremely unusual example in that it involves artificial freshwater lakes (previously part of the sea) a few feet below sea level. You could also cite examples of peninsulas bounded by the ocean on one side and estuaries perhaps a few feet above sea level on the other side. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The immense overwhelming weight of sourcing is that it is called a peninsula. Trying to take one definition (OF MANY) and interpret it contrary to that, on a question of terminology has no place in article content. And so, due to the "OF MANY", even if the main Wikipedia argument (The immense overwhelming weight of sourcing is that it is called a peninsula.) were to disappear, even the pedantic argument would fail because it is just on or some one definition(s) of many. The first two placed I looked it up had nothing about "same level" in the definition. And so, in addition, the title of the thread (doesn't meet the THE normal definition, emphasis added on the singular "THE") contains a false implied premise. So, it is an interesting conversation, but the argument that the article is wrong for calling it a peninsula (if such argument is made or is implied) fails. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it is not called a peninsula or that doing so is wrong. My point is that it represents an outlier, an unusual case, among landforms that are recognized as peninsulas. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Not to be too blunt, then what's the point? Honestly, unless you can find an academic source that asserts this position, I don't think anything in the text of the article will change. Now if a geography text book had a discussion on the definition of peninsulas and discussed the UP as an outlier example, then a footnote cited to that might be appropriate, but I'm no longer convinced anything in the article needs to change. Imzadi 1979 → 16:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I recognize the sincerity of WolfmanSF's point. In the interest of coming to a consensus, I don't see the harm in a parenthetical aside — in a footnote. Provided that it mentions there are competing definitions that don't read the way he claims. I don't know that geographers would agree with the claim, either. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be OK with a quick "by some definitions" note. BTW, east of the ~~Sioux~~ Soo, the water levels on both sides of the UP are at the same level. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's Sault, colloquially Soo, but not Sioux Chris857 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My intention is to provide objective data to prove my point, and then propose an appropriate edit to the article. Please be patient. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the UP is an "outlier, an unusual case" among peninsulas. But it's still definitely a peninsula. Maybe you should add a sentence like "Unlike most peninsulas, which are surrounded by water at roughly the same level, the northern coast of the UP is a full eight meters higher than the south." This avoids the debate over whether or not it's a peninsula, but still makes your point. Foobaz·o< 07:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, except I would say "most of the northern coast" instead of "the northern coast" North8000 (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As a resident of the Upper Peninsula, I must say this discussion is rather stupid. We Yoopers call it a peninsula, and everyone else should respect our right to do so, regardless of whether it actually is one by strict definition or not. --Saukkomies ^talk 15:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I put in Foobaz's idea with my tweak. Hopefully that should settle it. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Imzadi1979 reverted my addition, it is 100% fine with me that they did so. We should bring this discussion to a conclusion one way or the other. My own opinion is that the addition (mostly written by Foobaz) the way I put it in would be fine (and provides some nice info on water levels on the two sides), and also the article as it is (with no mention of the topic) would also be fine. I oppose anything that says "it isn't a peninsula". North8000 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

At best, I think that it should be a footnote, but either way, it shouldn't be in the lead without being in the body of the article per WP:LEAD. Also, it needs to be cited, and why are we using metric for a US topic? Imzadi 1979 → 20:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Side note: I put it in the body and not the lead, so I assume that your "lead" note is just in general. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Does it NOW use Daylight time?

I find:

"In 1967, when the Uniform Time Act came into effect, the Upper Peninsula went under year-round CST, with no daylight saving time. In 1973, the majority of the peninsula switched to Eastern Time; ..."

If the Upper Peninsula uses daylight saving time now, please make a note of it because of the mention (see above) of no daylight saving time. The 4 counties which border Wisconsin are in the Central Time Zone now; the rest of Michigan (including entire Lower Peninsula) is in Eastern Time Zone now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, Houghton County at the bare minimum does daylight saving time (since I live there). And Daylight saving time in the United States#Michigan states, unfortunately without ref, that all of Michigan has observed DST since 1973. Chris857 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, they use DST throughout the entire yooper; however you have to be aware of the time zone change in the four counties that are contiguous to Wisconsin. This is unlike Arizona, which is split as to parts that observe DST and parts that don't. Indiana used to have that, but I think is now unified. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

U.P. vs. UP

I know that the Manual of Style advises against the use of periods in abbreviations but in this case I think they're necessary. "UP" is a word as well as an abbreviation and without the periods, the abbreviation is ambiguous and possibly confusing to users who might be unfamiliar with the region and its colloquialisms. I'd add them back in, in keeping with Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Comments? JohnInDC (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Unlike "am" vs "a.m.", since UP is all caps, I don't see the potential for confusion. "US" already exists well in articles even though it could be similarly confused with "us". Imzadi 1979 → 00:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There are very few speakers of English in the world, native or otherwise, who are unfamiliar with the abbreviation a.m.; likewise US for United States. Probably you don't even need to know English to know the latter. I am betting however that few Australians, Brits or even Montanans would know as a matter of common knowledge that the Upper Peninsula of the State of Michigan in the United States is also called the "U.P." rather than the "up". Indeed, most UK natives whom I meet don't even get the name of the state right, pronouncing it "Mitchigan". I'm not sure that all-caps helps much; off the top of my head I can think of a couple of all-cap abbreviations that are pronounced as words, like RICO or FIRREA. JohnInDC (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is why the abbreviation is given up in the lead of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. I see that the abbreviation is supplied first thing, but the abbreviation without the periods to guide pronunciation is ambiguous to any user who does not already know the abbreviation. "UP" is a word, which - as it happens - is also the first syllable of the article subject. The abbreviation could as easily, and as sensibly, be pronounced "up" as "U.P.". Why not? Sometimes place abbreviations are said like words, like, I don't know, "SoHo" or - a new one on me - DUMBO. My simple suggestion is that the benefit to clarity of giving the abbreviation as "U.P.", with periods, the first time outweighs the trivial transgression of the MOS standard. Particularly when "ignore all rules" affirmatively encourages editors to consider whether unvarying application of a rule enhances, or inhibits, understanding. JohnInDC (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with John that using periods helps to avoid problems with how it is pronounced. older ≠ wiser 03:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur with use of periods for reasons already cited. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm siding with using the periods, too. I live in the U.P., and I've seen it spelled both ways here. However, the ONLY instances when I can remember seeing it spelled as UP instead of U.P. is on bumper decals or other similar applications in which spelling and punctuation standards are completely ignored. Every time I've seen where it is used in a formal way, there ALWAYS are the two periods present in the spelling. So this article should retain the use of the periods, since it is in common usage to do so here in the U.P. --Saukkomies ^talk 01:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There is also the potential confusion with The UP. a Detroit based rock band. In any event, local knowledge can't be presumed of our readers, and I think the dots will aid their understanding. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I went and added them back in. If this strikes anyone as premature, revert me and we can talk some more. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"The Up", the band, has a footnote at the top of this article. However, I will rebut Saukkomies' assertion as another native Yooper. We can't truly rely on past local practices. WLUC-TV always calls the area "Upper Michigan", for instance, and newspapers using The AP Stylebook will still prompt reporters to default to "U.S. #" as a highway abbreviation and use periods in other cases. The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition) is providing style guidance that says in American English, period-less abbreviation are becoming the norm in academic writing. I won't argue the point, but American English is moving more and more away from periods in conformity with the rest of the world, and Wikipedia is written for global audiences, not just Americans or Michiganders. Imzadi 1979 → 04:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I would find it hard to believe that our readers are daft enough to not recognize our intended meaning, that the Upper Peninsula is also known as the UP, not "up". Imzadi is also right in showing that style guides are moving away from extraneous periods. However, Saukkomies' point that the periods are used everywhere here is accurate... so, let's flip a coin? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, when I read the introduction and it said " It is commonly referred to as the Upper Peninsula (UP) and Upper Michigan", my mind persistently took in "UP" as "up" and not "U.P.", and I know what it is supposed to say. I don't know why a naive reader should be expected to know better. "UP" can logically and contextually refer to UPper Peninsula as easily as it could refer to the initials, and it baffles me why we wouldn't want to take this simple step to eliminate the ambiguity. Even if I'm only 15% right; even if I'm only 5% right! - why not? JohnInDC (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Poet Laureate of the Upper Peninsula

They just recently chose the first Poet Laureate of the Upper Peninsula. I believe it is Marquette resident and NMU English professor Austin Hummel. Should we include that information in the article? Not every region gets to have its own poet laureate... --Saukkomies ^talk 20:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

NY Times article

Nice piece on the many pleasures of the Upper Peninsula, with a lot of specifics about attractions. This is a permalink. Harrison, Jim (November 30, 2013). "Imprint: My Upper Peninsula". The New York Times. Retrieved November 30, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Upper Peninsula of Michigan. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060905235910/http://faculty.nmu.edu/upced/UPinfo/UPHIST.HTM to http://faculty.nmu.edu/upced/UPinfo/UPHIST.HTM

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080609005310/http://www.climatesource.com/us/fact_sheets/fact_snowfall_us.html to http://www.climatesource.com/us/fact_sheets/fact_snowfall_us.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus is leaning against this move. In particular, opposers note that the short names are only used in context that it is clearly referring to Michigan. b uidhe 20:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

– The destination titles are a bit more WP:CONCISE and already a redirect to these articles. There are no competing articles or subtopics for either which would cause confusion. As far as alternatives, "The UP" would be too informal and unclear, and Upper Peninsula of Michigan/Lower Peninsula of Michigan (current) and Michigan's Upper Peninsula/Michigan's Lower Peninsula are basically equal to their equivalents in recent book references according to Google Ngrams which might indicate there is no preference and the commonnames of each are simply "Upper Peninsula"/"Lower Peninsula". -- Netoholic @ 20:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment I think that "Upper peninsula" and "lower peninsula" are only used in context where it is already clear that it's about Michigan. Otherwise I don't think that those proposed titles identify the topic. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I always include "of Michigan" the first time I say them, unless I'm talking to someone that I know is familiar with Michigan. But the article does that in the body, and I think that this satisfies WP:COMMONNAME because people usually just say the short version. I don't think the change is necessary, but I don't oppose it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be like the M-185 (Michigan highway) example given in the quideline? "M-185" alone is unambiguous but is not the title because it does not identify the topic for those unfamiliar. Because of that M-185 (Michigan highway) is used. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That naming standard is specific to state highways, and was created so they wouldn't have M-24 (Michigan highway) where it's needed but M-185 where it isn't. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I would think that anywhere we introduce the topic, we'd phrase it "Upper Peninsula of Michigan" (both region and state linked), whereas in the same situation "Upper Peninsula of Michigan" would be less helpful. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Support—so long as both parts of each name are capitalized as proper names, which they are. Since there are no other places that share the names, there's no need to keep the longer titles. Imzadi 1979 → 23:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Support. This simply reverses redirects that have pointed here since 2004. Station1 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose but I'd be happy with whatever y'all decide. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The abbreviated name would be confusing to those who aren't from the region and aren't familiar with the jargon. Also, as the redirects are already in place, those wanting a shorter link already have it. Vsmith (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CONCISE, as we're looking to "balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area" (my italics), and I don't think "Upper Peninsula" alone fulfills that. For an anecdotal example, I've met plenty of people from the Midwest US that don't know about the Upper Peninsula—much less people from further afield. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"A person familiar with the general subject area" in this case would either be someone familiar with geography or someone familiar with the State of Michigan. And people familiar with geography will know what the "Upper Peninsula" and "Lower Peninsula" refer to, as would someone familiar with the State of Michigan. Therefore, the articles should be moved based on our naming policies. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

To a person familiar with it? Certainly. Red Slash 22:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. I suppose in Michigan this may make sense, but outside Michigan there are many peninsulas with upper and lower parts, and meanwhile these names are not commonly known. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Our article naming policy standard enumerated at WP:CONCISE is "A person familiar with the general subject area", so in this case someone familiar with the the State of Michigan. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Support - there's nothing else that is THE Upper Peninsula, in caps. Red Slash 22:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Support per WP:CONCISE, the reader is kind of just expected to know which city the Upper East Side is in and which metro East Bay is part of, and if not, they should read the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose The world is very big, and there are upper and lower peninsulas all over. I know that the redirects will straighten some of this out. But we are writing an encyclopedia that is used worldwide and outside of local context and out of the current time frame. Words and phrases can only be understood in context. As a native Michigander, I totally get "Upper Peninsula" and "Lower Peninsula." But local knowledge isn't enough, IMO. We ae all suffering from systemic bias. We come from our backgrounds, and )apparently) have some facility with the English language. But a lot of our readers aren't who we are. I mean this in the nicest possible way. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This would be a more persuasive argument if A) these other peninsulas were notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia, or B) the current, equivalent redirects were in fact causing confusion. Are you suggesting that we also need to rename Downriver... just in case someone somewhere uses that term for another place they know better? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I wasn't. Your hyperbolic hypothetical is illogical and unpersuasive. 00:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:17, May 4, 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain how this case is not the same as, say Upper East Side or East Bay? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I will not play that game. I said what I said, and I meant it. We will have to agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a discussion to try to reach a consensus. Refusing to engage in the discussion isn't particularly helpful. You said "there are upper and lower peninsulas all over". Can you at least give some examples of other peninsulas that go by those names? Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Virginia Peninsula the lower peninsula of Virginia: "It is sometimes known as the Lower Peninsula to distinguish it from two other peninsulas to the north...." Some links confirming that: https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/vbwt/coastal-trail/clp/ https://www.loc.gov/item/gvhs01.vhs00076/ http://visithampton.com/workspace/uploads/newsReleases/hall-of-fame-lower-virginia-peninsula-banquet-may-2014.pdf . Also parts of Charleston are referred to as the "Upper Peninsula" and the "Lower Peninsula" (https://www.loislaneproperties.com/resources/lower-peninsula, https://www.charleston-sc.gov/1297/Upper-Peninsula-Initiative https://enoughpie.org/ourlegacy/ https://www.flywaysc.com/continued-growth-of-upper-peninsula/) Washington state has place they call the Lower Peninsula (https://www.city-data_.com/city/Lower-Peninsula-Washington.html remove underscore, blacklisted) and a Lower Peninsula park there http://www.cityofml.com/559/Lower-Peninsula-Park ). A part of the bay area is called the Lower Peninsula (https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/02/25/republican-challenging-incumbent-marc-berman-for-lower-peninsula-state-assembly-seat/) and a part is called the "Upper peninsula" (https://www.sfsymphony.org/Donate-Volunteer/Volunteer/Upper-peninsula-Membership) Looks like they call a part of the Kenai peninsula the "Lower Peninsula" (https://www.homernews.com/news/lower-peninsula-has-bumper-crop-of-cukes/ https://www.bbb.org/us/ak/homer/profile/atv/lower-peninsula-power-sports-inc-1296-1000046898, https://www.peninsulaclarion.com/news/few-lower-peninsula-residents-comment-on-hospital-service-area-boundary-move/) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually from Virginia and I've never heard it referred to as that. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Rreagan007 and User:King of Hearts I am sorry to hear of your disasppointment that I did not 'rise to the bait.' It is enough to say it is an Argument from fallacy and Reductio ad absurdum. USER: North8000 Thanks for adding those. As I said, there is a ubiquity in the concept. And mainly those were English language examples. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Now you're just making WP:VAGUEWAVEs at logical fallacies. If you're calling my argument WP:OSE, then it is your responsibility to show how the arguments differ this time around. The fact of the matter is, East Bay has many senses as indicated at East Bay (disambiguation), and was confirmed as primary topic as recently as 2019. Again, the mere existence of places with the same name does not mean that one of them is not primary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeating your examples and your argument doesn't make it stronger. Nor does it cure the fallacy. I WP:AGF. You should, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeating your assertion that my argument is a fallacy without explaining why doesn't make your argument stronger. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

We agree at least on that principle. Let the editors decide! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wanted to add: It is clear that the UP/LP of Michigan are WP:PRIMARY with respect to both usage and long-term significance: they are "highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought" and have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not playing games, 7&6, and "Downriver" is a sincere example: when I first heard people from SE Michigan use the name, I had no idea what they were talking about. "Down what river?" I asked. "Downriver from Detroit" it turned out to be. "Downriver" is a fairly generic term, and it's just as meaningless as "Lower Peninsula" if you've never heard of the place. But that's what they call it, and evidently there's only one "Downriver" with an article, so that's what that article is called. There are countless articles in Wikipedia whose titles are ambiguous or unclear if you aren't familiar with the subject... that's why we start each article with a sentence identifying the subject more clearly and precisely. Also: accusing others of playing games is not AGF; it is rather pointedly the opposite, and also uncivil. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we rename the two articles as “The Upper Peninsula” and “The Lower Peninsula”.

Michigan is unique. Geography of Michigan Largest state east of the Mississippi River, Made up of two (2) large juxtaposed peninsulas. The upper “peninsula is as large as Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island combined but has fewer than 330,000 inhabitants.” Geography of Michigan says it has two peninsulas. The state has as its state motto: Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam circumspice. See Seal of Michigan. Parenthetically, I always felt that the motto should have been plural, to emphasize that both peninsulas are part of one state. In the state it is a matter of pride. “U.P.” and “Yooper”; “Lower” and “Troll” Boudreau, Sophie (August 13, 2017). "9 Undeniable Differences Between Michigan's Upper And Lower Peninsulas".

Of course, the debate and the nomenclature ignores the at least 10 other peninsulas within the Upper Peninsula and the Lower Peninsula. Namely, Keewenaw Peninsula, Presque Isle Peninsula (see New Presque Isle Light) just south of Rogers City, Michigan, Old Mission Peninsula, Leelanau Peninsula, the Garden Peninsula Stonington Peninsula Robinson, John. "Michigan Shadow Town: Stonington, Michigan". WFMK. and Peninsula Point Hotspots Near You 137. Peninsula Point, Delta County, Michigan, Birdwatching near you all in (Delta County), the peninsula adjoining Squaw Bay near Thunder Bay just south of Alpena, Michigan, Tawas Point, and last but not least, The Thumb. If I missed some other peninsulas on the vast coastline of Michigan, I apologize – no slight intended.

By putting in the article "The" before the naming terms, we make it clear that these are not generic 'upper' and 'lower' peninsulas.

That's A modest proposal. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"Playing games" is your construction, not my words. We can throw stones and debate WP:AGF, but what is to be accomplished by that? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Whatever we do, "The Upper/Lower Peninsula" is the worst option and totally violates WP:THE, because the other places are also used with "the" in a sentence. Either the Michigan peninsulas are the primary topic of "Upper/Lower Peninsula", in which case the titles should be there, or they are not, in which case they should remain at "Upper/Lower Peninsula of Michigan". Because the word "the" is not capitalized when used in front of "Upper/Lower Peninsula" (of Michigan), the only THE-compliant reason to support its inclusion in the title is if it serves a useful disambiguating purpose. However, there are no generic articles called "Upper peninsula" and "Lower peninsula", and there shouldn't be, because those are not encyclopedic topics unlike, say, Peninsula itself. Therefore the Michigan peninsulas cannot simultaneously be the primary topic of "The Upper/Lower Peninsula" while not being the primary topic of "Upper/Lower Peninsula". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"Playing games" is absolutely your words, at least a version of them. "I will not play that game. I said what i said, and I meant it. We will have to agree to disagree." Don't WP:LAWYER over the fact that you technically didn't say the exact words "playing games" even though you said exactly that in a different order. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you need to reread WP:Dead horse. Your continuing of this war of words is trivia.

I am not disparaging your sincere arguments on the merits. Readers/Editors will decide that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "a modest proposal" is typically used to flag sarcasm, or the presentation of an insincere argument... in modern parlance: trolling. Regardless, 7&6's "proposal" doesn't make any coherent argument based on policy or existing actual usage... just a bunch of wishing that the state motto was different, and that the nomenclature that people use is bad. If it's a sincere proposal, it's bad one.

In contrast, I appreciate North8000's work in finding other examples of places called by one name or the other. So now we know that the UP is not the only placed called "Upper Peninsula" and the LP likewise. But we still come back to the point that nobody's bothered to make WP articles about them, and that seems unlikely to happen. As an analogy: there are people in the world named "Kirk Douglas" who are not Kirk Douglas (one of them worked at a company I had a summer job at) but this doesn't mean we need to title his article "Kirk Douglas of New York" or "Kirk Douglas (actor)". We keep it simple, matching what people actually call him. (And if my ex-co-worker ever satisfies WP:GNG, we can cross that 5-mile suspension bridge when we come to it.) I started out ambivalent about shortening these article titles, but the more I look at, the arguments for the longer versions aren't compelling from a policy standpoint, and the shorter versions better satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, so...

Support. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment So, noodling on this. So there are several places known as "Upper Peninsula" and "Lower Peninsula" in the US, but the usage on those terms seems to be more local. The term "Upper Peninsula" seems to have national or international use including that there are many cases where it needs a separate name and is sort of a separate place. ; I'm guessing a lot less so for "Lower Peninsula" because it is the main part of Michigan.

The guideline seems to weigh in on both directions on this.....giving one example of saying that "unambiguous is not enough" but then also setting conciseness as an objective. My "mild oppose" call from a different angle. IMO a typical English reader (though many would have a good guess) is not going to be sure of what the article is about until they read the first sentence. You could argue that that doesn't matter. If they searched by the term, odds are that they came to the right place. Or you could argue to leave the extra two words in the title so that the title makes it clear with no question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

None of this is a deal breaker or the start of the end times. I simply tried to elucidate on the lay of the land and history of all this.

I would gently suggest that the thought that the Lower Peninsula is "the main part of Michigan" is wrong. That you can hold up your right hand palm up and make 'the Mitten' does not negate the fact that it takes a creative deployment of the left hand (palm up, bottom two fingers folded, thumb sticking up) to also depict the Upper Peninsula. Put the first knuckle of your left middle finger over the right middle finger, and you've got both peninsulas.

It is 375 miles from the Ohio border to the Mackinaw Bridge. Then it is 300 miles from that bridge (St. Ignace) to Ironwood. And that is ignoring Sault Ste. Marie to the northeast), Marquette, Escanaba, Munising, Marquette, Houghton, and Copper Harbor and a host of points in between. The distances are vast. The terrain diverse. The cultures and history are clearly distinguishable. And there is all that water and Great Lakes. For those of you have never been there, this is hard to understand. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No argument here....IMO it is by far the best part of Michigan and a separate world unto itself. My point is writing and speaking that there is a lot of need and usage to have a name different than the state for the place. Less so for rest of Michigan where most of the people live. Sort of like if you divided your body into head and the "rest of you", there is a common word for the smaller part but not the bigger part. Anyone I know, when they are going to the UP, they say they are going to the UP. If they are going to the LP they invariably say that they are going to Michigan. Same for Michigan residents talking about where they live. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd love to have a who-knows-Michigan-more contest here, but none of this is focused on the topic at hand: whether it's necessary to say "of Michigan" to disambiguate these articles. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a "who knows more about Michigan" discussion. And it was dealing with a second relevant issue which is that the answer to the question at hand may be different for "Upper Peninsula" vs. "Lower Peninsula" North8000 (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't referring to you, but to 7&6=thirteen, whose conduct here been chronically inappropriate. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:JasonAQuest You are wrong. WP:Civil. Give it a rest already. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, and however this comes out, I would suggest that Wikipedia's naming of the two Michigan peninsulas (you can't change what folks call them anyway – Wikipedia is not the center of the universe) should be symmetrical. Treat them the same. There is no overriding rationale to treat them differently, and the broader implication (e.g., that one is more important than the other) should be avoided. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

OPPOSE The current name shows what area they are referring too, far better than a vague name that could be any number of places. The article even stars with "The Upper Peninsula of Michigan – also known as Upper Michigan". I find it unlikely anyone really calls Upper Michigan, Upper Peninsula. Dream Focus 15:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The meaning of your last sentence is unclear, but if you are expressing skepticism that "Upper Peninsula" is what people really call it, it definitely is. "Upper Michigan" is used far less often. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose It is well known that the Upper Pen. is most commonly called "the UP" or sometimes "da UP." If we are going to change the name let's go to the one that is used. One second thought, let's not. This is the division of the state of Michigan, the word needs to remain in the article title. Carptrash (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Area code

As a minor note, the article lists the U.P. as having an area code of 906, but Bois Blanc Township (which is considered part of the U.P.) carries the 231 area code. So, I have noted that in the infobox under the area code listing and in the area code 231 and 906 articles. —Notorious4life (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Notable people section

I was wondering why the Upper Peninsula needs a "Notable people" section when it seems very incomplete and redundant, because some counties and individual municipalities have their own sections for notable people. The state of Michigan as a whole and the Lower Peninsula obviously doesn't have a notable people section. The Upper Peninsula's notable people section seems overly detailed for its listings and definitely incomplete. I propose removing it completely from the article. —Notorious4life (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps something to remember is that the UP has its own regional cultural identity. Even with the geographic diversity, at times Yoopers tend to claim all other Yoopers as part of the same community. As just one example, come playoff time in high school sports, people from across the peninsula start rooting for other communities' teams who are advancing.

Also remember that the population of the entire peninsula is smaller than some cities downstate that have notable people lists. Imzadi 1979 → 22:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved - consensus has not changed since the previous RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Upper Peninsula of Michigan → Upper Peninsula – No disambiguation necessary, most people just call it the "Upper Peninsula" so I think COMMONNAME applies also. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per ~~WP:CONSISTENT~~ WP:CRITERIA. I'll point out the close of last year's similar move request, that such shorter naming is only possible as a subset of the entire state. "Upper Peninsula" (just like U.P.) is an abbreviation, not a common name. This nomination suggests "most people" identify the subject by the target name; by this suggestion over 4 billion human beings call it by this name. My point is not to embarrass the nominator but to demonstrate the logical fallacy of assuming anything related to what "most people" call anything. WP:CONCISE says: "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." The general subject matter isn't Michigan (a relatively narrow subject matter), but (given our broad multinational audience) it's North American political geography. The shorter names do have redirects to this pagespace so all the bases are covered. BusterD (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Support per WP:CONCISE. This simply reverses a redirect that has pointed here since 2004. There's nothing else using the title on WP. Station1 (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CRITERIA. I incorporate the reasons at the close of last year's move request. This has been discussed and rejected before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Per previous close, BusterD and that the title would have little meaning for most. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The shortened title would have little meaning for most, ONLY those that live in Michigan.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.