Talk:Lake Duluth

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lakes Low‑importance

	Lakes portal Lake Duluth is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wisconsin Mid‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Valders"? Or "Greatlakean"?[edit]

I haven't been paying attention to this article.

Early in this article's development the following passage was added: "The drawing on this page is accurate but uses the obsolete term, 'Valders'. Valders was replaced by the term 'Greatlakean' when stratigraphic problems forced Valders to be abandoned."

I have several concerns with it.

the assertion is unreferenced;
the assertion contradicts the article's current references;
I don't understand this passage -- in particular I don't know what "stratigraphic problems" means in this context;
I am worried that the assertion is "unencyclopedic".

The contributor who inserted this passage may be correct. But this passage lapses from compliance with our policy on verifiability. We don't aim for "truth". We only aim for "verifiability". Using our current references the term is "Valders".

FWIW I spent ten or fifteen minutes trying to see if I could find a reference that definitely said the term "Valders" had been superceded by "GreatLakean". No joy.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glacial Lake Duluth → Lake Duluth
Glacial Lake Frontenac → Lake Frontenac
Glacial Lake Minong → Lake Minong
Glacial Lake Admiralty → Lake Admiralty
Glacial Lake Algonquin → Lake Algonquin
Glacial Lake Great Falls → Lake Great Falls
Glacial Lake Missoula → Lake Missoula
Glacial Lake Ojibway → Lake Ojibway
Glacial Lake Passaic → Lake Passaic
Glacial Lake Tight → Lake Tight
Glacial Lake Tonawanda → Lake Tonawanda
Glacial Lake Bassano → Lake Bassano

– The prefix "Glacial" is usually unnecessary disambiguation and is WP:OR in many cases. The lakes in question are rarely referred to in sources as "Glacial Lake So-and-so". Many of these glacial lakes such as Lake Chicago and Lake Agassiz are already at deglaciated names. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC) — AjaxSmack 03:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This move request does not cover lakes with ambiguous names such as Glacial Lake Iroquois (although they would be better located at titles with parenthetical disambiguators). — AjaxSmack 03:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This seems to be an improvement in relation to WP:COMMONNAME usage. A full week has gone by without any objection, so there don't seem to be any hidden problems. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Do as reliable sources do.... First Light (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I've seen lots of sources that use "Glacial Lake _____" to make it clear that it is an historical lake being discussed. Powers ^T 01:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But "glacial" does nothing to denote "historical" (Lake Vostok and Lake Ellsworth currently exist) and there are far more non-glacial historical lakes (e.g. Lake Bonneville, Lake Makgadikgadi). — AjaxSmack 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There may be individual cases where omitting the prefix is appropriate, but I don't think a mass rename is a good idea, as the issues may be unique to each lake. Powers ^T 00:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The request is not for a mass move. I checked all of the above lakes for potential ambiguity and noted that lakes such as Glacial Lake Iroquois are not included in the nomination. If there are any other "issues", please note them. However, as I noted before, usage of the prefix "Glacial" is, in many cases, original research. — AjaxSmack 23:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support all as per WP:COMMONNAME. No other lakes are disambiguated by its type (e.g. Lake Superior is also glacial). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per argument put forward by nominator. If the alternative suggestion is to bring these all up individually - I don't see how that is helpful. LaTeeDa (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support all unless common usage needs to be invoked on an individual case basis. Marcus Qwertyus 15:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lake Duluth. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]