Talk:Great Falls, Montana

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

Untitled[edit]

I deleted the section on popular Great Falls radio stations. This is not encyclopedic information, nor should the popularity of a specific radio station be grounds for inclusion. 204.120.161.223 17:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deleted a line about Great Falls having many alcoholics and methadone addicts. Besides the fact that there was no documentation, it just isn't encyclopedic. --Benfergy 07:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


Great Falls appears to gather a number of "grafti" types. I've deleted several bogus entries 29Nov2005

Does anyone know who this Daniel N Oretga is? I can find no references to any Daniel Oretga and Great Falls anywhere else. Ralph 1Feb2006


Great Falls used to have some of the most beautiful Elm tress. Like many communities they have been lost to disease. It was one of the most memorable things about growing up in Great Falls.

No mention of the Great Falls of the Missouri or Lewis and Clark?

Removed USCOTW[edit]

I've removed U.S. Collaboration of the Week template. This page is for talk about the article concerning Great Falls, Montana only. See WP:USCOTW to nominate or vote on articles for U.S. Collaboration of the Week.--Ltvine 06:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I agree completely with Alansohn - noticed this before and didn't pull the trigger. Good edit... Thanks.Pearrari 11:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undo motion picture addition[edit]

Addition of "And has been mentioned in the show Prison Break " doesn't appear to qualify as a motion picture filmed in Great Falls, and also is not verified/cited. Removing.--Pearrari (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Navigation Box[edit]

Created Navigation Box for Great Falls. I have little personal experience with Great Falls but thought that it should have one. It probably needs serious updating, but the framework is there for anyone who feels ambitious.

Era[edit]

Per WP:ERA format should not be changed without proposal and consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Great Falls, Montana. 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) 14:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsourced content[edit]

This edit restores unsourced content removed because it was unsourced. Per Wikipedia's core principle, WP:V, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution....Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

I removed, the material because it lacks reliable sources directly supporting it. It should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. The burden to provide that source lies with you, Montanabw. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You deleted the content for no clear reason, which is Disruptive. If you sincerely and truly think some of those items don't belong in the list, raise it. If you think the list fails WP:TRIVIA, make your case, but the people who spend the most time on this article, Tim1965 and I, are very busy people and these sorts of random deletions by drive-by editors are a huge waste of editor resources. I do realize that you are still a relatively new user, but if you are capable of adding a citation, here's one that probably covers most of the films there. I encourage you to take the effort to assist in improving the article: [1]. Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support SummerPhDv2.0's effort to clean up this article. As mentioned, WP:V states that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." This does not appear to have happend. I also attempted to clean up this article by looking for the words "Great Falls" on all the target articles, and just two movie articles mention the city. I deleted the rest, as well as all the non-notable movies. These unsourced lists litter so many articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So do so. Here is another source: [2]. Please feel free to add these sources. PEOPLE ARE BUSY! (It's 2017 Kentucky Derby week, I may not get back to this article for a month!) Montanabw(talk) 00:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Long debate
People apparently are too busy telling me to answer their burden to do much else. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I deleted the material because it was unsourced. My edit summary said "unsourced". That's fairly similar to this edit summary.
Yes, I'm a fairly new editor? You've been here a couple of months longer than me.
As a drive-by, I'm apparently driving very slowly.
I removed unsourced material. Against policy, not a guideline or essay, you restored the material without an inline citation to a reliable source. Though this is clearly your WP:BURDEN you've decided that I should bow to your person guidelines.
If I were to be pointy, I'd be reverting your removal of Apollos University and demanding that you ask for a cite and wait. That would be disrupting the project to make a point.
That would be sanctionable at ANI. Montanabw(talk) 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gee, thanks for explaining that to me. What else that I haven't done would be sanctioned? How about repeatedly restoring unsourced material? - SummerPhDv2.0 01:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have any other accusations you'd like to make about me, please limit them to my talk page. How long I've been here, your definition of a drive-by, your definition of pointy behavior, who has the burden for restoring material challenged as unsourced, etc. would be lovely subjects to discuss there. Thanks. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine. I did this. And you could have. Between my last search and using the materials, you have now cost me time I could have better spent elsewhere. Do take your own advice and next time don't be such a WP:JERK. Montanabw(talk) 01:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I once heard something about personal attacks being a bad idea. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally, I'd like to suggest that unsourced, non-notable films be removed promptly. If anyone would care to defend them, please do so now. If you'd like to keep unsourced, non-notable films, I'd wonder why.

Sourced, non-notable films should probably also go. Much as we wouldn't list non-notable residents (even if we can source them), I can't really see a reason to include random films just because we have a source. (If we did, New York City would be several dozen pages longer.) If you feel the film is notable and would like to include it for that reason, I'd suggest you WP:WTAF

Unsourced, notable films? At this point, it should be obvious that they have been challenged and will need sources.

As for the sources: Yes, I personally accept greatfallsmt.net/community/fun-facts. That said, I think we need to rename the section if we are going to use it. Currently, we are saying these were "...filmed in Great Falls". The source, however, says they were "...Made In and Around Great Falls".

The site montanakids.com/cool_stories/Movies/Movies.htm is similar; it's apparently reliable but says "Great Falls area". However, if we dump the non-notable films, there is no reason to use this source.

Since the section includes "Unsolved Mysteries", "Motion pictures..." probably isn't the best choice.

I don't want to be accused of being a jerk, etc. so I'll let this sit for a day or two. If no one has any complaints, I will be removing the unsourced and non-notable films, giving the section a new title and filling in the refs (the bare URLs). - SummerPhDv2.0 02:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd go even further than that, SummerPhDv2.0. It's my contention that lists like these generally have little encyclopedic purpose and considerable promo purpose. I'd propose that to be included, one of two conditions need to apply. Either there has been reliable (not IMDB) coverage of the filming outside the local area (e.g. Variety) or the film itself can be shown to either portray the city in a meaningful way (of course by reliable secondary sources such as reviews in the press), or the filming of it had a substantial impact on the community. Otherwise, it's just trivial. BTW, the guideline for US settlement articles indicates the proper title for a section like this is "In popular culture". John from Idegon (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
John, the trivia issue is a totally different concern, and you can take that problem up with WP cities... I don't know why suddenly Great Falls got picked on when there are hundreds for far more obscure towns and films listed across Wikipedia. SummerPhDv2.0 was very uncivil to just go in and blank the content without doing any prior research, checking to see if the article was being curated, or otherwise being polite. It would have been far more polite to tag. People who don't create content fail to understand that we who do are often working on other projects as well as monitoring content for vandalism and so on; it is a serious inconvenience to have to drop other work to put out these wholly avoidable brushfires. Montanabw(talk) 08:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please discuss content, not editors. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All films in this list are now cited. I personally am hesitant to include movies filmed in Cascade County as "filmed in the Great Falls" unless there is a clear reason. I removed The Untouchables from the list of films, because it was not filmed in Great Falls. Only a single Montana location was used in that film Hardy Bridge (see Inbody citation, and cites on the Hardy Bridge article). I cannot find any references to Frozen in Fear being filmed in Great Falls; the Montana Film Office says it was filmed in the small towns of Darby and Hamiltion[3]. I retained Northfork: Although Giant Springs State Park is not inside the city, it is right on the city border (unlike Hardy Bridge, which is 30 miles away). Iron Ridge is a low-budget film, otherwise not notable except that (as the article about the film points out, with citations) the film is Montana financed, produced, and made (which otherwise makes it notable for the Great Falls article). The Vessel, Reborn, Tomorrow Will Be... , and Who's in the Mirror are all ultra-low-budget horror films made by a local filmmaker (who appears to have abandoned filmmaking post-2013), and could be removed. I cited them, but will allow someone else to determine notability. Although The Best Bar in America is similarly ultra-low-budget, it featured a famous bar (the Sip 'n Dip Lounge) in extensive scenes. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Tim1965. Should we add those films to the Cascade County page? Given that I had real life work that was pretty intense the last two weeks and am trying to create articles on at least some of the Derby horses, your extra effort is much appreciated. I loathe these lazy drive-by editors who lack even the common courtesy to inquire or tag. Montanabw(talk) 08:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll add the appropriate ones to the Cascade County, Montana article. (I had to look up what county Darby was in! Ravalli...) - Tim1965 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updating photos[edit]

I'm currently updating the photos on this page with newer, much more relevant, and higher quality photos. Do not obstruct these changes. If you do wish to revert back to any of the old, outdated photos please have a valid reason why and discuss it here. Thank you! Villian88 (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_over_the_Falls.jpg (missing photo link added to clarify the following discussion) • SbmeirowTalk • 02:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not how Wikipedia works. Justifying changes in content is on the person wanting the change. If your changes are disputed, then the article stays the same until a consensus is reached. With copy, that is usually a relatively simple task, as you have sources to argue from. Here, since we are talking about images all we have is policy and subjective judgement. Per image policy, images are used to expand on existing copy so readers have a better understanding of the copy. I fail to see how a B+W photo of buildings covered with snow does that. There is nothing in that photo that is identifiable enough to provide any context vis.the copy at all. The infobox photo should either be a skyline shot of the city or a montage of significant sites in the city, or, worst case scenario, a picture of a structure bearing the city's name. The existing photo is not great, but the proposed changes is not an improvement. The way the image is composed, the flag dominates it. Cropping out the flag would solve that. John from Idegon (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've requested other editor's comments at the two projects that follow this article. John from Idegon (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The American flag and possibly you (Villian88) and/or your buddies don't need to be in a wiki photo. There are bluffs all around the city, so why can't anyone take photos from other angles without a flag or people in the foreground? • SbmeirowTalk • 04:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the version uploaded by User:Villian88 is more recent and higher quality, that same photo's excessive grass, gigantic flag, and two shirtless gentlemen makes it appear a bit too "decorative", which MOS:IMAGES cautions about. While the original image in the article is not great quality, it is certainly "all business"...a busy highway and a view of the city. I have created and uploading a derivative "tweaked" version of the original image, if anyone is interested. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me clarify, as someone who lives in this city, why the new photos are not only a proper, but much needed replacement for the existing photos of Great Falls. First, the existing photos are outdated and neither are of even remotely sufficient quality for Wikipedia in 2018, nor are they representative of the ACTUAL state of this city in 2018. They are akin to an 1840's daguerreotype picture of New York City being used as the main photo to represent modern day NYC. That in itself is unacceptable. The proposed replacements are remarkable in these aspects.
Addressing the photo's the following findings are noted: As John notes "The infobox photo should either be a skyline shot of the city..". The existing photo is 1/3rd comprised of a view of a highway and an outlet mall, and 1/3rd comprised of a view of the sky. Neither of those are a skyline. In fact, the "skyline" in that photo comprises only 5% of the entire photo. The skyline is completely unrecognizable and unviewable in the size shown on any mobile device while viewing this page, and almost as poorly received on the standard web page. This is a major problem. Especially on the most popular viewing platform for Wikipedia today. The proposed replacement photo provides a much better view of the recognizable "Skyline" of Great Falls, with coverage of roughly 25%, while abiding by the image policy that the first photo clearly does not abide by. To expand on Johns other note that "Per image policy, images are used to expand on existing copy so readers have a better understanding of the copy" I'll share the following facts with you. The replacement photo expands on the existing copy in the following way (Beyond just being newer, of higher quality, and more correctly cropped to feature the skyline). 1. It includes the towering 30x50ft flag at Overlook Park in Great Falls. This flag is not only a central feature of the city's skyline, but also an important landmark in the city. Much as the Statue of Liberty is to New York City. The current photo omits it entirely, which is a massive error and a disservice to every citizen of the town. The flag in this photo should compliment the rest of the view of the skyline, which, at less coverage than the actual skyline...it does. The men and the grass are purposely included in the skyline photo as well, because they are atop an important cultural and historic landmark which is integral to the city. Not only is that hill the highest point, and host to a renowned Frisbee golf course (Hence the athletic wear), it is also host to the flag, a Law Enforcement Memorial, a Lewis & Clark Statue, an Indian Statue, and is the most important overlook location for the City of Great Falls, featuring a wooden gazebo and multiple fixed lenses for viewing of the city. All of these features are not only critical pieces of the skyline view of the city, but they also expand greatly on the overly simply picture currently used as a "Skyline" view of Great Falls. Parks, as noted in the article, are a very important part of Great Falls. Not a chunk of rolled asphalt and steel crash barriers. The existing photo of "Downtown" has many of the same problems. It is outdated, and far too narrowly viewed to be representative of "Downtown" as a whole, which the replacement photo certainly is. The present photo excludes all of the newer residential buildings, condo's, etc from view.. all of which are an important part of "Downtown" and it's current vibrancy and rebirth. The current vibrancy is also not seen, as the picture is from what might as well be a post apocalyptic era. The new photo shows this increase in vibrancy by showcasing the increased building density, and restored landmarks such as The Great Falls Drug Company, The Liberty Theater, and The Montana Building.. along with providing a better view of the US Bank Tower and it's real life impact on the downtown cityscape. The current photo also does not show the typical snow covered view of Great Falls, which the proposed revision clearly does. All of these additional features clearly expand on the existing copy and improve a readers awareness of what actually constitutes "Downtown" great falls. Both on large and small format displays. Given these facts the proposed photos are a clear choice for use as replacements to the existing photos. Villian88 (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I consider photos for community articles (any part of article), I always prefer photos without people over photos that have people, unless photo is about an event. Anything photo that looks like people were staged or planted to get the photographer, family members, friends in the photo, or has a fluffy marketing feel, I rank much lower than other photo choices. Wikipedia is NOT a marketing brochure nor social media! • SbmeirowTalk • 02:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a reminder --- there's no "hard rule" that says the photo in the infobox must be a skyline. I've edited thousands of community articles, and I've seen photos of satellite view, low airplane view, skyline view, county courthouse, city hall, downtown business district (street view), civic buildings, churches, numerous types of landmarks, old historic photos, historic train stations, libraries, museums, city limit "welcome signs", ... Any of the following are valid photos for this article, as well as others too. If people can't agree on a skyline, then you need to consider something else. • SbmeirowTalk • 01:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cascade_Co_Courthouse_outside_3.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Central_Ave_and_Civic_Center_1.JPG
I like the courthouse photo. It's a very high quality image. John from Idegon (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there! I came across this "talk page" discussion by accident while browsing the main page and was sucked right in to this argument! Who knew such a wonderful group of photos could cause such a stir! I am a citizen of the city of Great Falls, and I would have to say that myself and my coworkers all identify the most with what the "villain" had to say. The present photo is a poor representation of our town, both from a literal visual standpoint and by what it conveys. Great Falls is much more than a view of a highway that passes through town! A good point was made about how most the photos on this page, including that one, are very outdated. Great Falls has had a huge resurgence in recent years with many, many changes to the landscape occurring! We had a massive earthquake last summer, but don't worry... the Milwaukee tower still stands! While the image of the county court house is nice, I do not feel that it is a proper image for a representation of our town. It is a beautiful building, with a striking new copper roof (Something missing in the older photo that is posted) but it is nowhere near being "the" symbol of our city or a well known traditional view such as that of the Overlook Park Flag, or notable sights such as the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Station, Paris Gibson Square Museum, The CMR Museum, The Great Northern Train Station, Gibson Park, or Malmstrom Air Force Base. All of those are more talked about and generally viewed as more important to the community than the court house. Someone also mentioned on here that we value our parks, and I have to agree. Parks are a central part of everyone's life in this town and I think that featuring one in the main photo is a great idea, especially if it also features the city! Overlook Park is perfect for that, as it is a very well known, highly acclaimed park in town (I'd say the best, but some would say 2nd best behind Gibson Park!) for not only it's unique view, but also for its recreational activities. All things said I would have to agree that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_over_the_Falls.jpg photo seems the most appropriate replacement to me. An argument could definitely be made for any of the other landmarks I mentioned above, but I feel like they are all one tier down in importance on the list of local landmarks, while struggling to show the city as broadly as this photo does. I worry about having something too narrow and not fully representative as a "welcome" photo on our city's Wikipedia page. For a small town of 500-5000 people that might be fine, as they typically only have a single well known landmark like a covered bridge, or courthouse, but our city is over 60,000 people and we have a broad array of landmarks. Although, none are as notable as the Flag on Flag Hill as everyone calls it here. Thank you for your time! -Mary 131.53.128.129

LOL, non-wikipedia editors from Malmstrom AFB or anywhere else don't end up in wiki talk sections "by accident". • SbmeirowTalk • 21:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why is there a trashy photo of Great Falls on the main page? Isn't there a more beautiful picture of the city we can use other than this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.53.128.130 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hate the photo of the speed limit sign. Any of the others would be better than that. My first choice would be Central Ave, as it gives some idea of what the center of the city looks like. Courthouse photo is not ideal as it's just one building with no surrounding context. I don't like the photo of the flag, even if you cropped out the flag and the two slobs. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think everyone hates the photo of the speed limit sign, except for john from Idegon who seems to constantly revert community edits made to improve that image back to the terrible photo of the highway. Clearly he has a vendetta against this city and wants to promote an inaccurate image. While any pic would be better than that one the Central Ave pic is extremely old and outdated and not representative of Central Ave's vibrancy or the city today. Plus nobody here views Central Ave as a landmark or symbol of the city. I'm not sure it's fit for the main photo as there are far better landmarks that are much more symbolic of this city. Either a good skyline view, a collage of the many notable landmarks, or a large well known and well regarded landmark such as The Flag and Overlook Park, The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Station, THE GREAT FALLS (Imagine that..), Giant Springs, The Paris Gibson Mueseum of Art, Gibson Park, etc should be shown. Agreed that the county courthouse building is also not ideal as it's not representative of the city and provides no additional context. There's multiple comments (Notably from citizens of the city..) on here in support of the Overlook Park skyline/flag photo. Logically that should be the first choice. If for whatever reason it's left unused then a new photo of the skyline and the city as a whole should be used, or a collage created with up to date photos. Nearly every photo on here that's currently used is extremely outdated. If new photos need to be taken and uploaded then I will do that..But not if all that work will be for nothing thanks to zealous editors like John from Idegon who seem content to undo the community changes and keep this page in the 1960s. All of the following photo's are good choices that we should consider; (I'll post links shortly) Villian88 (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Other photo in lede[edit]

File:Downtown Great Falls Montana.jpg Sbmeirow suggested adding a link to the other photo under discussion, so it's above. I'd suggest limiting discussion in the above section to the infobox photo only, as that is all two of four editors there have mentioned. John from Idegon (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine by me. I added the comment because of plural use of photo in "I'm currently updating the photos on this page". I'll remove that comment to prevent confusion. • SbmeirowTalk • 02:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]