Talk:Bozeman, Montana

Archives
Archive 1

New Arts and culture section

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

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

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

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

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

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 ~~

deleted college town

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)