This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wisconsin High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Rivers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Minnesota Start‑class High‑importance 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 Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Needs section on history of waterway. (Began 11/4/2005)

Needs section on Noteable Bridges

Hi (to anyone still here after 3 years!) - I'll take a hack at starting this section, and expanding the History section. Pfc598 ( talk) 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Needs section on activities (canoeing, fishing, camping, boating, sightseeing)

Not sure what the protocol is, or at least the standard, on providing so many names in alternate languages. I like it and find it very interesting personally, but we don't give the names in other languages for the United States in the article about the United States. I don't want to delete it, but it certainly is something worth talking about. Any thoughts out there in Wikiville? the dharma bum 02:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I think the inclusion of Native names for geographic features of the Americas is relevant and informative to the history and context of these features and their regions, as is the inclusion of variant names assigned by early European explorers (i.e., there were French names for various features in the upper midwest, some of which were kept, some of which were translated to English, and some of which were discarded). Malepheasant 03:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I thought some more about it after I posed the question last night and pretty much came to the same conclusion, especially based on the historical insights the names provide. Thanks for the thoughts. -- the dharma bum 15:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm concerned that an unpublished source should not be used here, these are unverified claims and also probably could be considered unfair to the marinas. Discuss? -- Dskluz 06:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It's a question of verifablity. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Because this source is unpublished, other editors and readers cannot verfify this information has been published by a reliable source, as is required for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is therefore not a verified source. I don't question the truth of this, but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. As I said, by Wikipedia standards this is not a verifiable source. --- Dskluz 16:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Would like to add a small section (one-two sentences) about the St Croix River Association, just not sure where/how to add it. Thoughts? Archivist100 ( talk) 19:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Based on the breadth of their focus, I would think about creating a new section entitled something like "Conservation efforts". Most of the last two paragraphs in the "Geography and hydrography" section (starting with The St. Croix River was one of the original eight rivers to have...) could be moved there as well. It's designation as a Wild and Scenic River is mentioned, but there's no explanation of why or the people who made it possible. Mentioning the SCRA would be a start. Minnecologies ^{t, c} 19:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I added a "Conservation efforts" section and a paragraph on the St. Croix River Association. Archivist100 ( talk) 22:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

If the construction of an interstate bridge imperils the state of the lower reaches of the river, surely it should be possible to cite some proof of this. AHMartin ( talk) 15:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Is it pronounced in the French manner, or in some other way? Sylvain1972 ( talk) 20:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply