Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dakotas

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jerzy (talk | contribs) at 05:29, 30 May 2008 (→Expansion: + comment →"The Dakotas" - article about word or region?: + new secn). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:29, 30 May 2008 by Jerzy (talk | contribs) (→Expansion: + comment →"The Dakotas" - article about word or region?: + new secn)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 12, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject iconUnited States: North Dakota Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Dakota.
WikiProject iconSouth Dakota Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On June 3, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/The Dakotas. The result was keep. Xezbeth 19:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Expansion

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)

  • 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 Connecticut and Massachusetts 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!"
    --Jerzy•t 05:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 North Dakota, South Dakota, Upper Midwest, and/or Midwest articles according to the respective relevance of each fact.

The difference between 1 and 2 rests on how much the #Expansion 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.)
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.
--Jerzy•t 05:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: