Talk:Chanhassen, Minnesota

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chanhassen Dinner Theatre[edit]

No article on Chanhassen is complete without something to do with the Chanhassen Dinner Theater. I'm too busy working on my (extensive) project for Wikibooks, but if someone else familiar with the area could write it in.. Chanhassen Dinner Theatres --Alasseo 01:41, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chanhassen, 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 23:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chanhassen, 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 21:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1960s growth rate[edit]

What caused the population to grow by 1,899.6% between 1960 and 1970? The History section really ought to explain this extraordinary growth rate. 174.24.28.66 (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chanhassen, 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


"The racial makeup of the city was 92.5% White, 1.1% African American, 0.1% Native American, 3.9% Asian, 0.9% from other races" -- other races? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.186.220.59 (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chanhassen, 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best Place to Live[edit]

@Magnolia677 - Why isn't it notable? The sentence immediately before the one I added says Chanhassen was selected as the #2 best place to live in 2009. Why wouldn't it be notable to mention the city received the #1 spot in the nation in 2021? - Dynamiccookies (talk | contribs) 18:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dynamiccookies: How is Money Magazine's opinion about Chanhassen of any use to Wikipedia's readers? Is Moneys opinion reliable? Is it encyclopedic? Magazines publish these silly lists all the time...."best places to retire"..."best cities to visit"..."best cities for seniors". Just look at the subjective criteria Money used to select the "best place". There is a "fun" measure? What the heck is a fun measure? Also, Money outright excludes places with "no ethnic diversity", which means places that are mostly white, or mostly black, or mostly Hispanic...and every Indian reservation in the United States, are not even considered good places to live. What??? Have a look at List of U.S. communities with African-American majority populations in 2000, and then look at the blackest place in the United States--Falcon, Mississippi--then click on the picture and see who the photographer was. I can assure you Falcon and many other mostly-black places--places which would outright be excluded from the Money list--are wonderful, decent, happy places. Money's list is for entertainment value only and has no place in an encyclopedia, and most of the time these unreliable and unencyclopedic lists are added by real estate agents who live in the place (not saying that's what you're doing though...just making a point). I would like to get a discussion started about this so we can banish these lists from Wikipedia for good. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment - Should the 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' rankings be included?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result is that the 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' rankings should not be included in this city's article. It was considered that such rankings have no authority and no encyclopedic value. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should the 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' rankings be included on this city's page? - Dynamiccookies (talk | contribs) 14:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: Please see the fourth and fifth sentences that used to reside in the History section.

Argument: As you can see in the above section, @Magnolia677 is disputing the notability and reliability of the 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' lists published by Money (magazine) (and all other lists of this nature across Wikipedia).

Personally, I feel it is notable. It's been published by a nationally recognized magazine. Regardless of the metrics they used, the fact is that this specific city was placed on their list and the list was published nationally. If there are issues with the metrics of how the list was created, that should be taken up with the magazine. Additionally, the magazine is a highly regarded finance magazine, which itself was recognized as one of the 'Best Business Magazine(s) of 2020' by The Balance Small Business website. (I do recognize the cyclical nature of using another 'best of' list to justify the magazine's notability.) Plus, Money (magazine)'s Wikipedia page's literal third sentence says: "It is well known for its annual list of "America's Best Places to Live"."

If we deny this type of list, then, as @Magnolia677 suggested, all other similar lists would need to be denied as notable across all other Wikipedia pages. Or, there would need to be some type of metric determined for dictating which sources are reliable and which are not.

Disclaimer: I am not a real estate agent as @Magnolia677 mentions is often the case (a very valid concern that I'm simply addressing, not criticizing), nor do I live in in the city. I do, however, reside in a neighboring city, so I still could have a biased opinion, and therefore would like the input of others on this matter.

- Dynamiccookies (talk | contribs) 14:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


No - City rankings in magazines and newspapers—such as this one in Money—frequently reach conclusions based on ridiculously subjective and unencylopedic measures. One of Money's criteria is how "fun" the city is, and Money outright excludes places with "no ethnic diversity", which means places that are mostly white, or mostly black, or mostly Hispanic (and every Indian reservation in the United States), are not even considered good places to live. This cruft has no place on Wikipedia city articles.

Policy/guidelines/consensus:

  • WP:USCITIES#Demographics - "The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data."
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities#Are city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. appropriate/encyclopedic? - A rough consensus was reached against inclusion of these types of rankings in Canadian articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctantly (because I love lists), I agree with Magnolia677. Lists of the Money magazine type are too subjective. But there is an alternative that gets to the quality of life issue using census data. Taking a look at summations of such data, I find that Carver County where this city is located ranks very high among a grand total of 3,142 U.S. counties in health and longevity and in the top 35 in health and longevity of all counties in the U.S. In other words, the quality of life is very high as judged by health of the residents. If you would like to include this sort of data take a look at the longevity section for Kay County, Oklahoma and copy the format and use the references if you wish. (I created the format, which I have used for contributions to a handful of counties of interest to me.) When the 2020 census is fully examined, there will undoubtedly be updates of the material in the present article.
    • To my mind, you only need three measurements to get a good picture of the quality of life of a place: longevity, per capita income, and education -- the factors long-used to rank counties in the Human Development Index by the UN and the World Bank. Smallchief (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No - In general, these types of lists are highly unreliable load of B.S. that mainly exists to sell more magazines. Though I would vote to delete this stuff because of MOS:PEACOCK, I typically don't like to waste my time arguing for its removal. On the other hand, if I ever see this type of stuff in the intro of an article, I always move it to the history section, because this type of content feels like MOS:PEACOCK in the intro section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of magazine rankings:
  • Portland, Maine - One of "20 Best Cities for Beer Lovers" and "10 Great American Cities for Vegans".
  • Austin, Texas - The #1 "Next Biggest Boom Town in the U.S.", "America's No.1 College Town", and #2 "Best Cities and Neighborhoods for Millennials".
  • Boulder, Colorado - The #1 "Best Cities to Raise an Outdoor Kid", #10 "Queerest Cities in America", and #1 "Foodiest Town".
  • Myrtle Beach, South Carolina - The 11th "best place to retire" and "26th best place to live".
  • Burlington, Vermont - One of four "places to watch" and "one of the 'prettiest' towns in America".
  • Peachtree City, Georgia - The #1 "Best Places to Raise Kids".
Magnolia677 (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No The ranking from these lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. For the most part, I don't learn anything about a city when it says, "Foo is the most livable in 2006 and 2012" except that it was their turn to be highlighted in a popular list article. Fettlemap (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No unless the source is utterly authoritative. Which is very, very unlikely indeed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No - As the other editors have said, these magazine lists are mostly crud. (Summoned by bot) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No There are rankings like the All-America City Award that are important and should be included, but magazine ranking aren't one of them.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No - Money magazine's rankings are inconsistent and unreliable. Hence, no need to include them. Sea Ane (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes - for a medium-to-large city, this sort of ranking would be trivial; but for a small city like Chanhassen, I would say it's notable. Of course, there are a lot of "best city" rankings, but I believe Money magazine's is the most well-known. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No these lists are generally arbitrary and unimportant. We wouldn't include "was featured in an inflight magazine as a great travel destination" and that would be at least as encyclopedic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chanhassen,_Minnesota&oldid=1200782845"