Talk:Saint Paul, Minnesota

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleSaint Paul, Minnesota has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 6, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 21, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Countdown to GA[edit]

As this article is constantly getting closer to GA status (and thus FA via A-class), I figure it's time to do a countdown to GA where we point out everything that does not me GA requirements and fix it it ASAP. Calebrw (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Criteria[edit]

  1. Well written:
    (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[2]
    (b) all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ It is highly recommended that the Manual of Style is broadly followed, but this is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ a b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Issues[edit]

  1. Generally well-written, see 1(a) and 1(b) - Calebrw
    (a) Clear in almost all sections. The history section needs to be thoroughly read through, which has been done a few times, but you never know. - Calebrw
    (b) No significant problems here. I looked for all major MOS issues that I could think of. A quick check for weasel words/words to avoid should be done. - Calebrw
  2. Sources are looking better by the day. Some missing intext citation (see below). - Calebrw
    (a) Good. Footnotes section included. - Calebrw
    (b) Lacks citations in several places. - Calebrw
    (c) No OR that I see. - Calebrw
    History - Calebrw
    Geography and climate - Calebrw
    Demographics - Calebrw
    Education - Calebrw
    Recreation and arts - Calebrw
    Each Museum and performance group should be referenced.
    Economy - Calebrw
    Sports (last paragraph) - Calebrw
    Transportation - Calebrw
    Ground - Calebrw
    Sister Cities - Calebrw
  3. Quite broad, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline recommends more sections (See below) - Calebrw
    (a) Recommended changes including health care and utilities additions, the economy and media sections being separate, climate being a sub of Geography, Notable natives and residents as a section is missing completely though there are some mentioned in the prose.

- Calebrw

I would recommend against adding a 'notable natives' section, unless you're going to write it as prose. A link to a separate list is probably sufficient, though, unless there are specific individuals that you want to highlight. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. (b) No problems - Calebrw
  2. Stable - Calebrw
  3. Fair, not edit warring. - Calebrw
  4. Images are present. - Calebrw
    (a) Needs to be checked. - Calebrw
    (b) Needs to be checked. - Calebrw

My review is above. Calebrw (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pig's Eye?!?![edit]

This sentence: "The city's current name replaced Pig's Eye when city founders decided it was not the nicest name for a capital and took the new name from Saint Paul's Chapel, which was built in 1841." needs a bit of clarifying. WTF?!?! Is this seriously a joke? My first instinct is to instantly remove it as vandalism, but it appears reasonably well written. If it is true, it needs a citation. Seriously? WTF? Who in their right mind names a city "Pig's Eye"? LOL! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned. That statement is not vandalism. Here's a citation: [1]. Interesting. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Good to see you found the source :) I will be inserting more sources to affirm that not to worry. I don't know if you're from the Twin Cities or not, but in elementary school we are taught the history of both cities and the history of Pig's Eye and the infamous Pierre Parrant is not glossed over at all. Perhaps if we used the original French word, it would not sound so ridiculous. It's quite common knowledge here but I imagine it would sound silly to an outsider :) .:davumaya:. 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by Dr. Cash. Glad you added the ref. I updated and used it in several other places, so thanks for the find. Calebrw (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Takk for cleaning as well. .:davumaya:. 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that sentence in the lead now looks like word-for-word Plagiarism of Dr. Cash's source. We'll have to re-word it.--Appraiser (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of which, we should note the name change is attributed to Saint Paul's Chapel. As such should we move the Lucien Galtier out of the History into the Lead? the Minneapolis article is fairly specific for its etymology as well. .:davumaya:. 21:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames[edit]

There seems to be an awful lot of 'nicknames' in the infobox for the city. It makes it look a little cluttered. Are all the following really all that notable and/or important?

Nickname(s): "The Capital City", "The Saintly City", "The STP", "Pig's Eye", "Hockey Town USA", "Moscow on the Mississippi"

I would think that 'The capital city' isn't all that important, as it (or similar variants, such as 'cap city') could apply to just about any one of about 51 cities in the US. It could probably go. 'Saintly City' seems to make sense, but is this really used, or is it nothing more than just a play on the 'Saint' in the name? 'The STP' appears to be just based of the initials of the city, an abbreviation. It may have worked it's way into everyday language as a colloquialism, but I don't think I'd list it as a 'nickname', which to me, should be reserved for the official marketing nicknames used by the town's businesses.

'Pig's Eye' appears to be a valid nickname (see above), so it can certainly stay. 'Hockey Town USA' seems to only be referenced by a single Sports Illustrated article. Is this actually used by people or businesses, or was it a one-time thing? Usually, when I think of "Hockeytown", I think of Detroit (though as a Penguins fan, I don't want to! Damned Octopus! ;-) ... Not sure what to make of 'Moscow on the Mississippi' -- it appears to be backed up, but I'm not sure what it references? Either way, I'd probably recommend slashing a few of the nicknames, and rewriting the infobox item to (the quotes also aren't needed in the infobox):

Nickname(s): Pig's Eye, Saintly City, Moscow on the Mississippi
Concur. That's too many nicknames. I haven't ever heard anyone call Saint Paul anything but Saint Paul, but those see to fit. Calebrw (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason the "Capital City" is there is because locally we use that a lot. For example Capital City Partnership (number 4 on google search), Capital City magazine, Capital City Trolleys (formerly, etc as well as several businesses [2]. I don't really care either way whether to include it or not. I'm explaining there is a reason it was there for so long because its a common reference to Saint Paul within the Twin Cities. If you are thinking national notability then of course there are many other CCs such as DC, Boise, etc. .:davumaya:. 21:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification items[edit]

Just to clarify based on the edits I've seen today. This might help to sync up the text together which still needs to be tweaked and woven a little better.

  • Pig's Eye Landing IS Lambert's Landing. Pig's Eye setup shop near Lambert's and thus one became the other. It also does not help that today this area is known as Lowertown.
  • The Cathedral of Saint Paul went through five (four?) buildings. The big thing we see today was built in 1904, well beyond the early years of SP. The older chapels were nothing but log houses or brick buildings.
  • Use Saint Paul instead of St. Paul whenever possible.

.:davumaya:. 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Seems to me that other than Wikipedia, the city usually is spelled St. Paul, in contrast to St. Louis, MO, where its Wiki article uses the abbreviation. 216.179.123.145 (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
      • The St. Louis article states that it "sometimes is spelled as Saint Louis" though no fact corroborates this. Thus they likely used consensus. For St. Paul, common usage can be used to favor both. So ultimately, I've used several websites of long time institutions to examine their usage. City's website, SPPS, Saint Paul Hotel, St Paul CVB, Saint Paul College, Saint Paul Chamber of Commerce. Besides the shorter URL, the majority of text in these websites specifically spell out Saint. .:davumaya:. 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think it matters either way. It's almost always useless to debate orthography in this manner. -epicAdam (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good points. A couple of other issues with the article that should be addressed:

  • Try to seriously minimize the use of second and third-level subsections, focusing instead on the use of primary sections only. An example of this can be seen not too far away in the Minneapolis, Minnesota article, which is FA-class. Note that that article uses only primary section headers containing only prose, with well-placed images. The main sections with the biggest issues in the Saint Paul article are 'government and politics', 'transportation', and 'arts and culture', which have several 2nd and even 3rd level subsections. It would be better to weave this information into the main section using prose only, without the separate headers.
    • Subsections removed.Calebrw (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The 'arts and culture' has issues which will easily come up in GA review with completeness -- most notably are the bulleted lists. These need to be converted to prose format and discussed in the context of the overall arts and culture scene of the city.
  • The 'economy' section is very short.
  • The placement of images indicates some issues. I think in places, the article is a bit image-heavy, and some of the images could probably be moved to daughter articles. The biggest problems are the large size of the skyline image at the bottom of the geography section (it's just too big and bulky). The demographics section could probably deal with one fewer image; while the image showing the irish population in 1872 is certainly notable in wikipedia, does it really need to go in THIS article, which should cover the overall article of the city of Saint Paul. Try to keep the photo captions short and concise; there are three captions on images in the sports (1 image) and transportation section (2 images) are a bit too long and should be pruned.
  • The 'government and politics' section also appears to be image-heavy. I'm also not real crazy about starting a section with an image on the left-hand side, especially when you have another left-justified image later on down in the same section, as well as a right-justified image, too. It makes for awkward placement of the text, and can cause issues depending on people's monitor size. It also seems to make the two 'main article' links at the top kind of blend in together, as well as with the text itself, so they don't stand out as strongly. Suggestion: do away with the 'vision of the peace' pic, move the state capital to top-right, and the city hall image can be lower down (right or left-justified is fine). I'd also do away with the subsections, instead concentrating on integrating the discussion on the government and politics into one main section. Since Saint Paul is the state capital, it would be acceptable to have a separate section on 'state capital'. The table under 'legislature' is a bit large, bulky, and doesn't really accomplish much. A prose discussion of the state and federal representatives of the city, and how they integrate into local politics, would be much better. The table can just go (no offense to whomever created it, obviously).
    • Images have been fixed to look better. Prose is a bit better with subsections eliminated. Calebrw (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are the biggest issues with the article as I see it. I've got this page watchlisted now, so I'll try and help out where I can. Though I didn't want to simply be bold and make major changes right now since it appears that there are some editors at work improving the article. Nonetheless, these are issues that will likely come up in a GA or FA review. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ravedaves comments[edit]

Overall it mostly needs copy editing. I think most of the facts are there, just not presented the most clearly.

Lead

  • Add an Also here? "Saint Paul _also_ serves as the county seat of Ramsey County, the smallest and most densely populated county in Minnesota.[3]"
  • "Though now overshadowed in population and national attention by Minneapolis, Saint Paul contains many of the state's institutions, organizations, and preserved architecture, as well as much of its political activity." - Preserved architecture doesn't seem to fit in that sentence well.
  • Intro goes:
    • settled near native Americans....
    • overshadowed
    • then back to it's original settlement
  • Put all of the settlement items together in the lead?
  • Does mentioning of travelers companies really belong in the lead? "As a financial and commercial hub, it is home to The Travelers Companies."
I dunno, I did that because I can't think of any economic importance of SP. .:davumaya:. 07:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • is it ..."the" Hopewell tradition Native Americans.... or just ...Hopewell tradition Native Americans...
  • The pigs eye section needs help. It needs to link to him founding a bar and the area begin named after it. Also there is a pretty bad run on sentence there.
Yeah I just realized Pig's Eye Tavern started it all. The tavern near the landing spurred the whole thing into becoming Pig's Eye Landing. .:davumaya:. 07:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

.... Gotta go to sleep, more tomorrow.

History section[edit]

Hey I know this looks like its ballooning and that Minneapolis has a very small history section but I am hoping to style this section similar to San Francisco which has approximately 7 and a half paragraphs. I would like to aim for six concise paragraphs for Saint Paul. It may seem excessive but I would like to detail the capital somewhat. Kindly, if you take out some material please make sure it already exists or is copied into History of Saint Paul. I painstakingly grabbed a lot of sources for this section. .:davumaya:. 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw James J. Hill still needs to be mentioned, particularly the feat of connecting SP to Seattle. .:davumaya:. 21:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Highway photo[edit]

I believe that recently re-captioned photo is of 35E southbound.--Appraiser (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The image is in fact 94. Google Map of the area. This image was almost certainly taken from John Ireland Blvd. Where the City Bus on the far left is heading down the ramp (going right) is from 94W to 35E S. Calebrw (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
O whoops yeah it is coming from Mpls, its that big bend in 94 that goes up and over into the massive merging part. I didn't notice the bus, looked like the bend from the south. .:davumaya:. 18:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah; you're right. 35E isn't four lanes wide before its curve. I don't think I've ever looked at 94 from that angle before.--Appraiser (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Saint Paul, Minnesota[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I and other members of WikiProject Minnesota would like to improve this article in preparation for the 2008 Republic National Convention which will draw a great deal of local, national and international press coverage. The will corresponded to people viewing this article more frequently than in the past.

Our overall goal would be to achieve GA or higher.

It is that spirit that improvements are needed—so that we may put the most accurate face on St. Paul (and the surrounding area).

Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Saint Paul, Minnesota/archive1.

GA #2?[edit]

GA #2 should be ready soon. I think we need to copyedit for sources. Some of the reviewer's comments however I noticed went against WP Cities, which probably reflects changing attitudes on WP standards. That's fine but I'm not going to totally revamp or explain things that have received Consensus before. .:davumaya:. 19:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think GA is in reach now. Still could use more refs though, but then again, this isn't FA or A-class yet. Calebrw (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Civic confidence?[edit]

In the lede, it is stated with a book of Twin Cities noir as a reference that Pig's Eye was re-named to "inspire civic cofidence". Growing up in St. Paul, I always heard (and maybe even read in a museum) that it was that the Church didn't really like the name and pushed to have it changed to St. Paul, the patron saint of the first church built there. I'm not sure how definitive the book is, especially with the Christian nature of the quote provided, so does anyone else have any idea of whether it was a civic or a church decision, or a combination? Awickert (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The article on Pierre Parrant has the story I heard before, with the arrival of Lucien Galtier resulting in a change of name of the city. Awickert (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Pig's Eye was never actually chartered, it was merely "well known" as the settlement's name. At that time there were other competing names and the church decided to also join the fray with Saint Paul. Galtier's influence on the settlement as well as the fact that upper echelon French had a stronghold on politics of the day may be the reason the townsmen incorporated it the "Town of Saint Paul" by 1849 (even though Town was not even legally defined). It should be noted that same year both the "state" of Minnesota (MN Territory) and Ramsey County were created. No formal city chartering had even been legislated yet. Thus it is incorrect to use the term "city" when talking about St. Paul before 1849. Merely, the settlement was given limited self-governing powers in the 1800s based on archaic colonial era processes. City Charter Making by William Anderson is an interesting book on this topic: http://books.google.com/books?id=Lm4WAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=minnesota+territory+charter&source=bl&ots=pWjm3RCg13&sig=VV1u_HtRF40_YwgNvIWknsdK5Hw&hl=en&ei=T5uCSvz0FZGxtgeZ0fXWCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=minnesota%20territory%20charter&f=false -- It states Saint Paul only had 1,112 people by the time they submitted to be capital. With these facts in mind and that historical records don't give us an exact timeline account of the "name change," it might be inferred that this wasn't a big deal -- a coin flip might as well chosen the city's name. Thus Galtier's account that has survived today is the only one that has become notable to mention. davumaya 10:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent demographics reversions[edit]

There seem to be two census bureau sources that have different numbers for racial makeup but look like they're from the same time. [3] [4] Anyone who's editing that section have any clue what's up with that? Awickert (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason why there are two sources from the Census Bureau website is because there are two different kinds of statistics I have on Saint Paul's racial composition. In the racial composition, I put in the percentage of a certain racial group along with statistics of that racial group's percentage of Hispanic ethnicity. For example, I will put "White Americans make up 66.5% of Saint Paul's population; of which 62.1% were non-Hispanic whites. Therefore non-Hispanic whites make up 62.1% of Saint Paul's population but when including white Hispanics, it's up to 66.5% of the population. On one of the sources it displays the percentage of whites with both Hispanic and non-Hispanic ethnicity combined. On the other source it displays the percentage of non-Hispanic whites if you scroll down.
On the other hand, User:86.121.11.118 uses the statistics from the "Race alone or in combination with one or more other races" box, which includes the number of whites and mixed-whites along with other racial groups. I don't use the information from that box. It just doesn't make sense to me. I like to put in statistics on just the percentage of people who are one race alone. I put in the percentage of multiracial people with its own percentage. This is just me.
Cool Stuff Is Cool (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Cool Stuff Is Cool

Image problem: Stpaulboats.jpg[edit]

The image Stpaulboats.jpg is short on source/publication information. It originally had no source information except "Gilman book" which says nothing. I went ahead and filled in the information on the book. But as I don't know what page it came from, which is the minimum that would be required. Really it is preferable to also have who was the original author of the photograph and who actually published it originally and when (without having the actual original publication information it is not technically proven that it is out of copyright).

Does anybody have the relevant details?

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saint Paul, Minnesota/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 19:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. My review will be posted in the next few hours. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 19:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

:Note: I have not yet completed the review. However, any commentary is welcome. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 21:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC) I have now completed the review. I am placing the article On Hold Symbol wait.svg for two one weeks to give editors time to fix the problems addressed below. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 21:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate
  • References five, 21, 31, 54, 64, 73, 81, and 92 are deadlinks. This should be fixed.
  • There is one {{citation needed}} tag that needs to be addressed. Other than that the referencing looks good. The information in this article matches the sources well.
 Done, I think BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 04:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


This is just a reminder, if you fix/address the deadlinks and take care of the {{citation needed}} tag, I will pass this article. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 01:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Yup, still working on it... BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 03:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Everything looks good now. I am passing this article. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 22:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

IMAGE Problem Saint_paul_mn.jpg photo[edit]

It seems very odd and awkward to show a main photo of a city's downtown when it is obscured to the degree it is in this photo by steam. There are better, more representive downtown photos available. JackWikiSTP (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change it! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 23:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Should the abbreviation be listed as a misspelling[edit]

One entry in the List of common misspellings claims that the abbreviation "St. Paul, Minnesota" is a misspelling that needs to be fixed. I'm happy to do this, but the first line on the text here seems to say that "St. Paul" is valid. Any comments before I start work? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd consider it a misspelling, per se. "St." is a fairly common abbreviation for "Saint", and numerous sources abbreviate "Saint Paul" as "St. Paul". In the body of the article, I changed every mention of the city's name to its full-form title, but I neglected to do if for titles of newspapers and such ("The St. Paul Pioneer Press", for example) because various organizations are officially know by the abbreviation. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 17:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I've removed it from the misspelling list. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Racial statistics a bit outdated[edit]

Is it okay to use City Data for more updated racial statistics? http://www.city-data.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.82.21 (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC) but good article though 92.25.93.35 (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Try American FactFinder first, but yeah, I don't see any reason not to update the demo info. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 21:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sporting History[edit]

I think that it should be mentioned that Saint Paul was the site of the very first intercollegiate basketball game, played between Hamline University and the Minnesota State School of Agriculture, now the University of Minnesota St.Paul Campus. The game was played on February 9th, 1895.

^ "Hamline University: Hutton Arena.". Hamline.edu. Retrieved 10-08-08. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.189.169 (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Structure[edit]

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sister Cities[edit]

Hi! Not trying to be a dick, but hopefully you understand my comment regarding the Sister Cities cite trumping the St. Paul cite in this instance. It would be one thing if the Israel cities were a new addition, which hadn't yet been updated in the Sister Cities periodical (which was the 2014 guide). But since it says they've been affiliated since 1981 and 1996, I simply don't know what the issue is. Therefore I defer to the organization which bestows Sister Cities status. Hope this makes sense. Onel5969 (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not need to push it, just thought that the agency eventually responsible for such relationships "knows" it better. But of course, I do not have other information available. And its website saintpaulsistercities.org is rather sparse ;-) But, shouldn't then the reference be deleted, in consequence? Cheers -- ZH8000 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Saint Paul, Minnesota. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saint Paul, Minnesota. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

St. Paul[edit]

Excuse me, but in Minnesota, where I grew up, everyone and I mean everyone writes it St. Paul, not "Saint Paul." The local daily paper always has been known as the St. Paul Pioneer Press, though in the digital age it has arrogated to itself the online tag twincities.com, which is merely marketing. (Cf. St. Paul Pioneer Press.) I can't imagine any rationale whatever for calling the city Saint Paul on Wiki. It's counter-intuitive and does not correspond to reality. Sca (talk)

PS: I'm posting this also at Talk:Minneapolis–Saint Paul, as the Twin Cities' core cities always have been written Minneapolis-St. Paul. Sca (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Saint Paul, Minnesota. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 11:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Saint Paul, Minnesota. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 16:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Saint Paul, Minnesota. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Saint Paul, Minnesota. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)