Talk:Michigan

Archives
2002 - 2007

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject United States standards might help.

A call for help, Michigan regional articles (including the two peninsula articles) (a modest proposal)

Dear Michigan Wikipedians:

I note that there is a lot of talent being spent on the Michigan article.

I note that there are eight regional articles for portions of the Lower Peninsula.

Without unduly tooting my own horn, as I came in later and rejuvenated an article that had some good elements in it already, the best article about the Lower Peninsula is the one on

• Northern Michigan. I respectfully suggest that it is the standard against which the others could be judged and modeled. Parenthetically, I'm sure it could improved, too; but I think it's a lot farther along than the other articles.

We also have separate articles on Upper Peninsula (which is fairly comprehensive and better thought out) and Lower Peninsula that is less comprehensive and thought out.

The list just keeps on getting bigger. We're up to eight subregions just in the Lower peninsula.

We have a bunch of other articles that aren't up to speed at all. You (individually and collectively) have the knowledge and expertise to correct them and beef them up. They need your help.

• West Michigan including Michiana
• Flint/Tri-Cities including Tri-Cities (Michigan) and The Thumb
• Southeast Michigan
• Mid-Michigan
• Southern Michigan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7&6=thirteen (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We also have another regional article, namely Metro Detroit that is being developed on its own.

That's my special request for your attention.

Additionally, the Michigan article ought to be modified to at least note the existence of these other articles (and reference them in the text when appropriate). 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Stan 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Stan 01:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

Why was the facts and trivia removed?

Why was the facts part removed? It was a good addition to the article and actually gave it life....161.150.2.64 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Would whoever restored the facts section at least remove the portions that are verbatim duplicates elsewhere in the article? Thanks.Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I restored the section on state facts. Wikipedia tends to frown on trivia sections (see WP:TRIVIA), but a fair amount of work went into this list. If you want it removed, then make a proposal on this talk page.------Asher196 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or another whether a trivia setion exists, but the portions of the trivia section that are duplicated verbatim on other portions of the article should be removed, either from the trivia section or the rest of the article.Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply restored the section. If there is redundant information, then by all means remove it.Asher196 (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done using this diff. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The trivia section has been restored, but now only contains 3 facts. Is this what it was like before? Because this seems too sparse to overturn the trivia policy. Somerut (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Michigan and the Thumb

I would submit that you do the readers no service by isolating the Michigan article from the regions. As you will see if you go to the discussion page of Michigan, there are lots of regular contributors to the Michigan article who were largely unaware of the regional articles. While there are those who spend a great deal of time and effort on the Michigan article, there are those who have spent lots of time on such articles as Northern Michigan, Central Michigan, West Michigan, Southeast Michgian and the Thumb. Not to mention Michiana. Blithely getting rid of the internal links is unfair both to our readers and to our contributors. I hope you will see my rationale. Best wishes. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

You should probably place that on the talk page of the user who removed the article, not necessarily here. -- dcclark (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I did before I posted it here. However, it is an important issue, which should be at least thought about by the people who are editing the Michigan article. I've written here before, inviting those of you who are contributing here to spread out, and share some of the work. We need you. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Etymology

2 Questions:

1) Both this article and the article on Lake Superior claim that the Ojibwe name mean nearly the same thing, even though the Ojibwe words are Gichigami (big water) and Mishigami (large water). Are both these definitions right? The words, although similar, don't look close enough to have the same meaning (although they're closer than "big" and "large). --MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

2) The article on the Mexican state of Michoacan (with its strikingly similar name) claims it means "place of the fishermen." Does anybody know more about a possible connection between the names Michigan and Michoacan? --MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1) It's not only (just) European languages (tongues) which (that) have several (many) words (lexemes) for approximately (roughly) the same (identical) thing (object).

2) No way. The number of linguistic coincidences world-wide is astounding, and such a one. Michoacan is Nahuatl (with a typical Uto-Aztecan ending), and Nahuatl is part of the Uto-Aztecan language family. Ojibwe is Algonquin - and so far there is no evidence that the two language familiies are related, and they are in fact generally treated as separate phyla (though Algonquins ***much*** further South must have had some contact with the Aztecs), and the grammatical formation of the words is completely different, as are the meanings of the source words. Just one of those things. 41.241.111.58 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"1800s" vs "17th century"

I understand the point of the recent edit to the captions and take as given its technical correctness, but "century" designations for dates always seemed a bit self-consciously formal to me (kind of like Roman numerals) and never quite as obvious as the straight-up years. I'm inclined to change it back; thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers)#Longer_periods supports spelling out the century: Because expressions like the 1700s are ambiguous (referring to a century or a decade), they are best avoided. older ≠ wiser 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I'm still not real nuts about the change (or the policy!) but it's always easier to swallow things when a considered decision has already been taken on it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

John, I think you could make a case for your point using Wikipedia:Ignore all rules----Asher196 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hah, no doubt! I think I'll save the argument for something that really rankles me though. In this case I'm willing to accept that it is just my enfeebled brain that finds it such a chore to make the one-digit adjustment from "X century" to "X-100" span of years. JohnInDC (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(Which, it figures, is a calculation I managed to do the wrong way in the caption to my comment.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sister States?

Just browsing the page of my home state, I noticed someone seems a little geographically challenged, because whoever edited it seems to believe Michigan shares a border with China and Japan. I can't edit pages because I'm at a high school and we're blocked from doing so, but if anyone feels like changing it that'd be cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.162.254 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that refers to those (silly?) little arrangements where some state or city in one place in the world arranges to become the "sister" of another state or city in a much different part of the world - promoting international relations, gives you something to put on the Welcome signs on the highway, that kind of thing. Essentially meaningless, but essentially harmless too; in any case, presumably accurate here (though come to think of it I have no idea what the source of the claim is). JohnInDC (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, alright then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.162.254 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoreline length

The claim of ranking second was removed But it seems pretty solid that Michigan has 3288 miles of shoreline, and I found a large number of sources (of various quality levels) asserting the "second only to Alaska" bit. Perhaps putting the length in, minus the claim, might be good? The edit summary said "thoroughly covered on talk"... I didn't see it here, does someone who remembers have a link into the archives? Else I will go search I guess. ++Lar: t/c 12:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Have a look here. Similar language was removed several years ago. By NOAA measurements, Michigan is 9th. Another source shows the state as 3d. Another says 2d. This discussion tailed off these different sources were laid out, I think because the sources were in conflict, and also because the strongest ones appeared to be NOAA's, and "9th" didn't sound particularly noteworthy. (By the same token, while "longest freshwater shoreline in the United States" appears to be true, it's kind of a 'duh' point.) That is surmise on my part, however. In fact the discussion simply ended without the shoreline claim being restored. JohnInDC (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'm a big fan of "teach the controversy" so I will take a cut at a change in the section that cites the 2nd claim, and also states that other sources have differing claims, citing the NOAA site referenced showing 9th, and showing the "largest freshwater" claim too... let's see what you all think of that :)... ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case you'd more accurately be "teaching the confusion", because there is surely a way to reconcile all these different numbers somehow. Indeed *that* is what would be interesting to understand. How can NOAA say that Florida has 8400+ miles of shoreline, for example? I just don't get it. Figure *that* out, and then maybe you have something to say. ("Michigan has the second longest shoreline after Alaska. NOAA places Michigan at 9th, cite, but NOAA's measurements include blah blah blah" - that sort of thing.) Interestingly, if you go to the DEQ website (showing on your Google result page), they have Great Lakes measurements that seem to jibe pretty well with NOAA's. It's the seacoast that seems to be screwy. I do think that'd be better than putting up three contradictory sources along with what amounts to a shoulder shrug saying, in effect, "well, no one really knows what the truth is." That's not particularly informative, and of questionable relevance to an article that is, finally, about Michigan. JohnInDC (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that the source quoted makes the claim that Michigan has the longest freshwater shoreline in the world, but I suggest that this may not be a meaningful claim. The longest shoreline of what? Compared to any country, continent, or sub-national entity? There are also problems with how you measure a shoreline, and how large any lake has to be before its shoreline is counted. Does it really have a longer shoreline than all countries with a lot of lakes e.g. Canada, Finland, Russia? PatGallacher (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

clearly cited official source. It stays.209.26.38.158 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but this official source (NOAA) doesn't bother to address the pertinent question: longest shoreline of what? Kevin Forsyth (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. The claim is indeed somewhat imprecise (sourced or not). That said, I don't have any problem with it as a practical matter, because whatever it is actually supposed to be saying, it is, by and large, consistent with our common sense of the thing. Michigan has, in effect, two *huge* beaches that, when you add them together, total more miles than anyone else's huge freshwater beaches. Maybe the shoreline of Minnesota's tens of thousands of lakes adds up to more (though I doubt it) but even if it does, the claim seems kind of hypertechnical by comparison. Plus, when you get to that level of measurement you are probably talking about things that no one has ever tallied up anyhow, which means all you can say then is, "no one knows", and how interesting is that? JohnInDC (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and have removed the offending clause. What about saying that "Hungary has the most money in the world", by comparing Hungary to all of the world's people individually? Though I take the point that coasts are quasi-fractal in nature, I don't think that's really relevant. It is still possible to define a practical 'shore length' by considering the smoothest curve that approximates its curve to an order of 10 metres (or whatever). But the clause is stupid anyway. It certainly can't be compared to other countries (it has a much smaller freshwater coastline than Russia), and since most countries do not subdivide in the same way as the USA, it can't be the subdivisions either. The problem mainly comes in when considering mini-lakes. Of course, the USA IS the world, so the question is moot (as made evident by the term 'World Series'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.111.58 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

tiger stadium

caption says commerica is home of tigers. isn't that the former home? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.192.141 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the former home of the Tigers was Tiger Stadium. Since 2000, they have been playing at Comerica Park. --The Last King of Brush Park 18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Edit

Moved from the signpost by User:Ravedave

Hi, I recently made an edit to the page of Michigan. I received a rebuke from an admin for "disruptive editing"/vandalism. I would like to apologize, because there was a misunderstanding: what I edited as 'total area' I thought was actually 'land area'. The change I made was because I recognized that the number was way off for land area, and the numbers I used in my edit were from the United States Geological Survey website for Michigan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by idawriter (talk • contribs)

It appears that the page contains the land + water figure. However the figure on the michigan page does not match the one at List of U.S. states by area. Also Idawriter was correct about the rank being 22, not 11 as listed. -Ravedave (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it really is 11th in total area. Rmhermen (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The ranking depends on whether the area in question includes only land area or total area. It appears that according to the figures I used, Michigan is the 22nd largest state; however those figures are only based on land area. The figure that is on the Wikipedia Michigan page is for total area (land and water). And because a significant portion of the total area of Michigan includes the great lakes, the figure for total area is much larger than the figure for land area. And in that context it appears that 11th is probably the appropriate ranking. -Idawriter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idawriter (talk • contribs) 14:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Water and politics

I think there should be a new section named Water and politics or something like that, especially about the Nestle story. Do you agree?

• [1]
• Austerlitz -- 88.75.203.73 (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

City photos

I think whoever placed the city photos of Detroit, Grand Rapids, Flint, Lansing and Ann Arbor was brilliant; good idea and nice photos. Detroit, Flint, Lansing, Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor are clearly culturally significant and major economic contributors to Michigan. These are the cities known by those outside Michigan. But is a photo of Royal Oak even appropriate? Southfield, Troy, Dearborn and Auburn Hills are more noteworthy and significant on the global scale, but I don't think they'd be appropriate either. Westland, Taylor, Warren, Sterling Hts and Livonia have more people and probably an greater number of non-resident visitors/workers each day, but I wouldn't include photos of them. I wouldn't delete it because I'm not a regular contributor. Others here have done such a good job on this page, it makes me a little more proud to call myself a Michigander. However, I think removal of Royal Oak's photo is worthy of consideration as a housekeeping measure. mp2dtw (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Before going back and looking at the photo I was composing a response in my head along the lines of, well, Royal Oak may not be so significant but it's really very pretty in parts, a great example of early expansion up Woodward Avenue, and the photo illustrates it - but then I saw the photo, and I agree. It's altogther nondescript. Maybe a photo of a vibrant Main Street, showing how the older buildings have found new life, something along those lines - but not that. I took it out. JohnInDC (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Population figures etc. at Lansing, Michigan and Grand Rapids, Michigan

The edits on this page by user Calebrod3294 are part of a larger pattern. He has changed many articles. The figures on these two are so screwed up by his many apparently vandalizing edits that they need to be undone -- reversion would help. This user needs to be warned, blocked, etc. This is above my pay grade. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Stan

I believe Calebrod3294 is also the person operating under the IP addresses 99.0.66.181 and 99.0.66.4. Phizzy (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

michigan state bird

should someone add that the state bird in upper michigan is the mosquito 68.188.201.146 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)ski