Talk:St. Anthony, Minnesota

Minnesota Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

This article should be called "St. Anthony, Minnesota" (or "Saint Anthony, Minnesota", not "Saint Anthony Village, Minneota". Take a look at the cities own website -- it's clearly called "The City of St. Anthony", not "The City of St. Anthony Village". --Rehcsif 20:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify the above comment - In 1945, the last remaining portion of St Anthony township (Hennepin County) was incorporated, it was known as the village of St. Anthony. At that time, small incorporated entities were known as "villages" and larger entities were known ac "cities". Many years `later, the minnesota egislature did away withe the term "village". Some nostalgic residents liked the old term and the city had its legal name changed to the city of "St. Anthony Village".

By the way, Apache was the second enclosed mall in the twin cities, not in the world. Southdale, often called the oldest mall, was built in 1956, not 1961. The "oldest enclosed mall" title is problematic anyway as smaller enclosed malls, including Appleton, WI, preceded Southdale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DWMelcher (talk • contribs)

Do you have a cite for any of this (the St. Anthony related stuff)? Everything on their website referrs simply to "St. Anthony" or "The City of St. Anthony". --Rehcsif 17:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have reference. I'll retract my comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DWMelcher (talk • contribs)

No need to retract on a talk page! This is where we discuss stuff like this in the hopes of improving the main article. If you can find a cite for your statement above (which I restored), it would make great information for the article. If for whatever reason it isn't true, then we should rename the article, as I mentioned above. No offense meant -- just trying to get to the bottom of this! (As an aside, make sure you sign your comments on talk pages using four tilde's: ~~~~, or just click the signature button in the edit window. Thanks!) --Rehcsif 03:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. From the below link to the Minnesota statutes, it appears that the city did not actually change its name to "St. Anthony Village" but was permitted to use that term at its discretion. DWMelcher 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/413/02.html

Does anyone know how to trigger the coordinate bot to post the city coordinates here? matt91486 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move Proposal

Since we've deprecated the use of City, County, State in article names, what shall we rename this one?

Saint Anthony Village, Minnesota
Saint Anthony, Minnesota

Accordingly, the official name is City of St. Anthony, without the Saint spelled out, but all its logos spell out Saint. St. Paul is Saint Paul but why is Saint Peter - St. Peter? Also the high school is St. Anthony Village, so do we include Village or not? Officially it's not SAV, but in terms of common usage, it is a very distinguishing and descriptive name. Go at it! .:davumaya:. 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Residents refer to the city as Saint Anthony Village generally speaking, so that should be the name per WP:COMMONNAME, I believe. matt91486 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)![reply]

I disagree. We should use the official name, note the 'common' name in the article, and use a redirect from the common name if deemed appropriate. This is analogous to "Twin Cities": Everyone calls the metro area that, but Twin Cities redirects to Minneapolis-Saint Paul which is the 'official' metro name. --Rehcsif (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if we use the official name is it:

I'd go for Saint Anthony. .:davumaya:. 17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there's also a St. Anthony in Stearns county, as well as St. Anthony being the name for what is now part of NE Minneapolis. Thererfore, St. Anthony, Minnesota is currently a disambiguation page... --Rehcsif (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well one of those facts can be combined into the current City of St. Anthony page. What is today's St. Anthony was yesterday's Northeast Minneapolis ala History of Minneapolis. The only contention then is the city in Stearns County. I find it flabbergasting that a town the size of 90 people and decreasing can be designated a city by the state. Blah. But considering common usage, how many people will want to know about the Stearn's County city? We could just leave that page at St. Anthony, Stearns County, Minnesota and ensure a disambig link is added. Reasoning of common usage being Minneapolis for example auto-redirects to Minneapolis, MN even though there are about 3 other "cities" named Minneapolis in the nation. .:davumaya:. 19:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple points: 1) You have it backwards: What was yesterday's St. Anthony is (part of) today's NE Minneapolis e.g. the area east of the Stone Arch bridge including St. Anthony Main). 2) 'City' is a legal designation that has to do with if/how the city was incorporated, not size... Anyway, I'd be fine with your compromise. I'd suggest "St. Anthony, Minnesota" points to the suburb, moving the current page to "St. Anthony, Minnesota (disambiguation)" and including a dablink from the new page.

Done davumaya 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Center Controversy

There was an edit conflict a while back suggesting that the dispute was not relevant. The sheer volume of media coverage on this says that it is, regardless of a guilty verdict or not. Some form - of course well sourced and objective as possible - should indeed be included in the history section of the article. matt91486 (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]