| Revision as of 03:23, 21 April 2008 editWizardman (talk | contribs)Administrators400,781 edits old afd← Previous edit |
Revision as of 05:29, 30 May 2008 edit undoJerzy (talk | contribs)57,486 edits →Expansion: + comment →"The Dakotas" - article about word or region?: + new secnNext edit → |
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
I would like to expand this article a bit, but I'm unsure of the best method. Should it be discussed as a singular region, or should there simply be a discussion about the similarities and differences? |
|
I would like to expand this article a bit, but I'm unsure of the best method. Should it be discussed as a singular region, or should there simply be a discussion about the similarities and differences? |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I may be alone on this, but as a native South Dakotan that has lived in several other states, I find it very annoying when non-Dakotans refer to it as though it were one state. For example: We took a trip to Mt. Rushmore, which is in the Dakotas. I suppose this is more of a personal rant, though, and I wouldn't know how to properly include any of this in an article. ] 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
Also, I may be alone on this, but as a native South Dakotan that has lived in several other states, I find it very annoying when non-Dakotans refer to it as though it were one state. For example: We took a trip to Mt. Rushmore, which is in the Dakotas. I suppose this is more of a personal rant, though, and I wouldn't know how to properly include any of this in an article. <br> --] 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* IMO, the non-terminological stuff has to be primarily about what they do ''jointly'', which shades into what they have in common with each other but not with their other neighbors. What's also true of the whole of a many-state prairie, or of much of the Midwest and/or Manitoba & Saskatchewan, is no more relevant to this article than what, say, Connecticut and Massachusetts have in common, but has not inspired a ] article. What is ''different'' between them could only be relevant if there is some surprise or irony involved ... suppose they have similar mineral resources, but way less mining is done in one because the raising of sheep is so much more favored by one's climate, and mining would disrupt that industry: sort of "You'd think they'd both have nickel mines, but no!" <br>--]•] 05:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
== "The Dakotas" - article about word or region? == |
|
|
The lead sent of the accompanying article says, and the first 2 of the 3 "readable prose" 'graphs bear out, that the article is about terminology; the third graph differs in describing the Dakotas rather than "the Dakotas". I think the article is incorrectly organized, and it can eventually go either of two ways: |
|
|
# If the first two 'graphs become a minor section, then the lead sent becomes something like |
|
|
#: The Dakotas are North and South Dakota, considered as either a pair of US states or as the totality of the land, people, and institutions of those two states. |
|
|
# If the first two 'graphs remain versions of what they are now, then ''all'' the facts currently in the third 'graph get moved to the ], ], ], and/or ] articles according to the respective relevance of each fact. |
|
|
The difference between 1 and 2 rests on how much the ] discussed in the preceding section produces: the project of expanding the article is an experiment to learn whether there is enuf information that is really about the pair of states or what's in the the pair, without being really about one or the other, considered independent of its "partner" in the Dakotas. (Which is to say, i think the Black Hills, Wounded Knee, and the two cities go out, no matter what.) <br> <!-- |
|
|
-->IMO, the content of the existing article is an argument for outcome 2, i.e., that the title can support a terminology article, but the phrase reflects most importantly the fact that the two states have the word "Dakota" in common to distinguish them from the rest of North America, and not much else. <br>--]•] 05:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)<br> |
I would like to expand this article a bit, but I'm unsure of the best method. Should it be discussed as a singular region, or should there simply be a discussion about the similarities and differences?
Also, I may be alone on this, but as a native South Dakotan that has lived in several other states, I find it very annoying when non-Dakotans refer to it as though it were one state. For example: We took a trip to Mt. Rushmore, which is in the Dakotas. I suppose this is more of a personal rant, though, and I wouldn't know how to properly include any of this in an article.
--AlexiusHoratius 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The lead sent of the accompanying article says, and the first 2 of the 3 "readable prose" 'graphs bear out, that the article is about terminology; the third graph differs in describing the Dakotas rather than "the Dakotas". I think the article is incorrectly organized, and it can eventually go either of two ways:
