Talk:Gary Doer

Untitled

Does anyone else think that this page is too long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillsberry (talk • contribs) 16:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

Howdy ya'll. Footnotes are fine, but isn't 290 of them a bit overdoing it? The footnote section take up over half the article length. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the only rule for footnotes is that there can be as many as there need to be for the article to be considered properly-referenced—we can't reduce the number of footnotes without removing actual article content too, because if a footnote goes then anything that's sourced to it has to go with it.

But I would also note that there are a significant number of footnotes that have a very large number of citations piled into a single reference tag, meaning that several of the footnotes are far longer and take up much more space than they actually need to. For example, this is footnote #232:

“ Paul Samyn, "Doer taking diversion fight to Washington", Winnipeg Free Press, 21 October 1999, A8; "Doer, Lathlin to lead delegation opposing Devil's Lake drainage outlet" [government press release], M2 Presswire, 22 October 1999; "Diversion struggle is uphill, Doer says", Winnipeg Free Press, 27 October 1999, A3; Paul Samyn, "Lobby effort scuttles N.D. diversion", Winnipeg Free Press, 23 November 1999, A3; "Doer rallies troops to fight Devils Lake diversion plans", Winnipeg Free Press, 25 November 1999, A3; James Brooke, "Manitoba, Awash in Its Own Water, Shuns North Dakota's", New York Times, 6 December 1999, p. 8; Douglas Nairne, "Province enlists lawyer to battle N.D.", Winnipeg Free Press, 12 January 2000, A4; Douglas Nairne, "In this corner, Doer and Ventura", Winnipeg Free Press, 14 January 2000, A3; Ruth Walker, "A rising Devils Lake is causing a flood of concerns", Christian Science Monitor, 6 March 2000, p. 7; Aldo Santin, "Politics stalling Devils Lake diversion funds", Winnipeg Free Press, 13 March 2000, A2; David Roberts, "Doer, governor weigh impact of diversion on Lake Winnipeg", Winnipeg Free Press, 4 April 2000, A7; "Doer travelling again to fight diversion plan", Winnipeg Free Press, 12 May 2000, A4; David Kuxhaus, "Devils Lake project still a threat: Doer", Winnipeg Free Press, 11 September 2000, A8; David Kuxhaus, "Would make it easier to build Devils Lake drainage outlet", Winnipeg Free Press, 22 January 2001, A7; Paul Samyn, "'Aggressive' fight needed to protect water: Doer to PM", Winnipeg Free Press, 2 March 2001, A3; "Doer aims to fight water diversion", Winnipeg Free Press, 11 August 2001, A4; "Manitoba leaders team up to fight N.D. water plans", Winnipeg Free Press, 12 October 2001, B3; "Premier, Tory chief fight N.D. diversions in D.C.", Winnipeg Free Press, 19 July 2002, A15; "Powell rams through N.D. pipeline", Winnipeg Free Press, 6 April 2002, A15; "Devils Lake report delay thrills Doer", Winnipeg Free Press, 15 August 2002, A11; Daniel Lett, "NDP takes diversion fight to U.S. court", Winnipeg Free Press, 23 October 2002, A3; Scott Edmonds, "Manitoba views new U.S. plan for flooded Devils Lake as mixed blessing", Canadian Press, 26 February 2003, 16:56; Mia Rabson, "Dike fight tactics denounced by Doer", Winnipeg Free Press, 13 March 2004, A3; Paul Egan, "Minnesota jumps into water fight Joins Manitoba in dispute with N.D. over diversion plan for Devils Lake", Winnipeg Free Press, 30 April 2004, A5; Paul Samyn, "Doer targets Devils Lake", Winnipeg Free Press, 29 November 2004, A1; Helen Fallding, "Devils Lake outlet nearly finished", Winnipeg Free Press, 15 January 2005, A1; Paul Samyn, "Doer to lead Capitol Hill blitz", Winnipeg Free Press, 2 April 2005, A8; Paul Samyn, "Devils Lake outlet unstoppable, officials fear", Winnipeg Free Press, 6 April 2005, A3; Paul Samyn, "Tough talk on Devils Lake Doer threatens U.S. with lawsuit", Winnipeg Free Press, 7 April 2005, A1; Chris Wattie, "U.S. senators reject 'Devils' compromise", National Post, 28 April 2005, A11; "Doer recruiting Great Lakes governors for Devils Lake fight", Winnipeg Free Press, 3 May 2005, A5; Mike DeSouza, "Great Lakes mayors unite against water diversion", National Post, 27 May 2005, A4; Paul Samyn, "Devils Lake 'attention' promised; Bush tells PM he's aware of diversion", Winnipeg Free Press, 2 June 2005, A12; Paul Samyn, "Doer gets ear of ambassador", Winnipeg Free Press, 8 July 2005, A7; Mia Rabson, "Doer set to retaliate over Devils Lake outlet", Winnipeg Free Press, 13 June 2007, A1. Doer himself wrote an editorial piece against the project in 2005. See Gary Doer, "The Devil to pay", National Post, 17 May 2005, A22. He had previously traveled to Washington, D.C. in a bid to put the project on hold. See "Doer heads to Washington to press beef farmers' case", Globe and Mail, 7 April 2004, A7. ”

Seriously. That's all just one footnote.

We rarely need to cite more than one source for anything—two or three would be okay, sparingly, but we never need a footnote to be this long. Trimming overdone citations like this would likely cut down the footprint significantly. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that footnote was intended as more of a conceptual joke than anything else. I thought it was legitimately important to note that the dispute played out over a period of several years, but I wouldn't object to some severe trimming in this instance. CJCurrie (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

More generally, I'll acknowledge that this article is probably overlong in some respects. I'm sure there are some aspects of Doer's premiership that aren't quite as significant in retrospect as they appeared at the time; I'll some adjustments to the page soon. CJCurrie (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)