Talk:Spring Arbor, Michigan

Question on a ancient French name of Spring Arbor

An user claiming being an inhabitant of Spring Arbor, Michigan, pretend on the wikipedia in french that this place has got a French name during the French colonial Louisiana : Charmille-des-Sources. But this user has edited this page (Spring Arbor, Michigan) without write this information down.

My question is : is the French name a historic fact ?

(Debate in french : fr: 82.123.204.30 11:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Michigan was never part of the Louisiana territory, nor was it a possession of France after the British gained control of Québec/Canada (to which Michigan's territory belonged at the time). The origins of the name of the town come from the name of an aboriginal village in the Potawatomi language, Wap-kaziik, meaning water springs which are very common in the area. During the time when the area was under French control, it was translated into French as "Charmille-des-Sources," which in English is best translated "Spring Arbour/Arbor." Arbor refers to an area of trees, and Spring referring to the water springs commonly found in the area. Michigan was ceded to the United States, with much of the area maintaining heritage during the French colonial times, the British colonial times and finally its succession into the United States. Spring Arbour was the official translation during the times of the British and, with the developmental changes in spelling in America, especially that developed by Noah Webster, the spelling changed from Arbour to Arbor. Today the official English spelling is Spring Arbor, but the official names are still on record in the historical records of the township, in all official documents and maps dating back to the earliest known European settlement in the area.

So, why do you put this intels into the french article and not here in the english one ?

Duplicate

This is a redundant entry as the article Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP) already is present. --Criticalthinker 05:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and there's useful information in both. I'd merge them, but I'm not sure which is the preferred title. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Either would be acceptable, but someone needs to merge them. I'm not, but someone needs to. I don't know enough about the community. Did you remove the deletion tag? --Criticalthinker 03:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This somewhat unususual split and naming of articles was done by User talk:Mdkarazim. He seems to edit somewhat infrequently now, but I'd suggest dropping a link on his talk page to ask his input, in case he missed this. Here's links to some previous discussions I had with him after I had tried to re-merge the content that he had split apart: [1] and [2] I think the gist of it was that the existing Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP) and Spring Arbor Township, Michigan articles were both little more than demographic stubs and neither adequately represented "Spring Arbor". Personally, I don't especially care that much any more. older ≠ wiser 23:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP) is a Census Designated Place used for statistical purposes only by the census, though, while not official municipalities do get listed on wikipedia. Spring Arbor Township should be titled that, as it is an official municipality. --Criticalthinker 00:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a life-long resident of Spring Arbor. I separated the two based on the advice of bkonrad a while back. "Spring Arbor" is a community that covers not just the CDP that the Census has designated for the area immediately surrounding the University; it is a community that covers a much larger area not included in the CDP. For example: I live in Spring Arbor, but I do not live in the Spring Arbor CDP. Additionally, the Township (municipality), while the only municipal government for Spring Arbor, is not the community itself. Neither is the Township (territorial). It does cover a 36 sq mile area, but that is significantly larger than that of the CDP's area. I separated the township and CDP from the actual community article because they are both equally descriptive of the community demographics, but neither is more descriptive than the other.

Also note that the Spring Arbor, Michigan post office does not cover only the CDP...it goes further beyond this area. The CDP is not Spring Arbor, rather a portion of Spring Arbor designated for statistical purposes for the area immediately surrounding the Unviersity, which is why I separated the CDP statistical information with a distinct link to it from the Spring Arbor, Michigan article. Spring Arbor Township, Michigan provides the statistical information for the township; Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP) provides the statistical information for the CDP; Spring Arbor, Michigan provides the general community information, with the links to the two articles related to the statistical information. I feel that because the article links the viewer directly to the appropriate article (i.e. to the CDP article or the Township article), there is no confusion present that would justify merging the CDP information (but not the Township information) with the general community information. However, I believe it is very misleading and innaccurate to merge the CDP information into the Spring Arbor, Michigan article as being "the" statistical information for the community. Therefore, I object to the change. mdkarazim 16:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally have no opinion, given the information above (which ought to be clearly stated in both articles). I do not think a merge would be out of order, so long as it explained the differences. But a merge is by no means mandatory here. There is significant overlap, and a reader might benefit from all the information being covered (and distinguished) in one place. I really think most readers would be interested in all the information if they're interested in any specific designation--an article could easily have separate sections for the township/CDP/community. But if there's strong opposition to this, I don't have a problem with the merge request being removed. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to merging the three articles together. The only objection that I have is merging only the CDP data into the community article as if the CDP were by itself the community, but leaving the township statistics separate. If the desire to merge the information for both the CDP and the Township statistics carries, then I have no objection. However, the only thing that I prefer is that the demographics state "Demographics for the Spring Arbor, Michigan CDP" for the demographics relating to the CDP, and have another section that reads "Democraphics for Spring Arbor Township, Michigan" for the township demographics. mdkarazim 17:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I made edits to include the population statistics for the CDP, the Post Office area and the Township. There are also links to the more detailed information regarding the CDP and the Township, but not the Post Office. I feel that these changes include the desired CDP information in the community, but also provide clarity to what the CDP is in relation to the community. In order to prevent confusion, I also provided the Post Office area population and the Township population, and clarified the relation between these and the community. I would like to link to a page that provides the census statistics for the 49283 ZIP Code, but I am not sure that one exists. I would like to know what the "standard" naming would be for that article. Any help? mdkarazim 21:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't create a separate article for a ZIP code. You can list the overall population in the article. I don't see that there is any need to provide any more detailed statistics (as with the demographic breakdown for CDPs and municipalities). older ≠ wiser 23:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you at all. I only brought it up in order to give the same statistics for the ZIP Code the same status as the CDP and Township statistics have. Aside from that, is there anything you'd recommend that be changed with regards to the changes I made today? mdkarazim 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this has gotten way out of my hands, and now I'm more confused. I'm still very strongly of the opinion that the only two articles that need to exist are the township and the CDP page. There is no need for a page explaining the difference between the two, which is pretty much what this one is. Someone delete this. --Criticalthinker 09:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The CDP page is for the CDP. The Township page is for the township. The community page is for the community. I don't see how you can be confused. I'm open to anything you have to say, but please explain what is confusing so that I can understand what exactly is the problem. mdkarazim 03:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no longer confused. The fact is that Spring Arbor is far too small an area to have three pages on it. The community information could easily be put in its own section within the CDP or Township pages. We're not talking a major metropolitan area where something like this may be warranted to explain a great area. It would be great if you do that. Simply add whatever information is not present in either one of those to explain that there is a greater community. This is a compromise, as I'm not even sure that's warranted since every tiny village and township and the next would be having these pages. That would be like me, for instance, taking Meridian Charter Township, Michigan, and the CDP of Okemos, Michigan within its boundarines, and the then creating another page to describe the land within the township and maybe some lands outside of it. It's redudant and not needed for these small areas. --Criticalthinker 19:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with most of what you are saying. I understand what you mean by saying that Spring Arbor is a very small area, and therefore there's not enough justification to describe it in multiple articles. The part that I disagree with is the proposed change at hand. The proposed change is to merge the CDP information into the Spring Arbor, Michigan article. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is that the proposal is suggesting merging the Spring Arbor CDP information into the community information, but then leaving the township entirely separate. The idea is that having multiple pages for a small community is not justified. Based on this, then all three articles would be included in the Spring Arbor, Michigan article. You do not want the township information in the community article, which you have brought up multiple times. That by itself it not a problem. What is a problem is that If the article is about the CDP then the article name should be "Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP)" leaving the Spring Arbor, Michigan article to either not exist at all, or have links to the other articles so as to lead the reader to the appropriate information (such as disambiguation). Naming the article "Spring Arbor, Michigan" as referring to the CDP alone would be completely misleading. The name "Spring Arbor, Michigan" does not only describe the CDP; it describes the community as a whole. If the proposal were to remove the Spring Arbor, Michigan article and use only the Spring Arbor Township, Michigan and Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP) articles, that would be completely accurate. However, this is not what is being proposed. I have no problem having the CDP page include only the information for the CDP, and the township page include only the township. I do have a problem with placing CDP information in the "Spring Arbor, Michigan" article, but then leaving the township information in a separate article. If the goal is to provide the CDP information, then that is fine - put it in the Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP) article. I would not object to having only the Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP) and Spring Arbor Township, Michigan articles. Do you understand where I'm coming from on this?

Perhaps the issue is really about the naming of an article. A page about a CDP should include exactly that in the name: "Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP)" The CDP is in no way more Spring Arbor than is the township. I will continue to object to merging the CDP information into the Spring Arbor, Michigan article. However, if the Spring Arbor, Michigan article were more of a "disambiguation" page leading to the separate CDP and Township articles, then I see no problem in that.

I don't really understand why this is an issue at all. I separated the page a long time ago, and so far it has worked fine. I followed the naming scheme that was advised to me at that time. Considering the fact that this is not a paper encyclopedia, it's not necessary to cut back in order to save room. If the idea is to merge all Spring Arbor related material into one article due to the size of the community, then so be it - merge the Spring Arbor Township, Spring Arbor CDP, Spring Arbor (community), Spring Arbor University, etc articles all into one article. If this were done, the article would be completely cluttered. Spring Arbor University has its own article because it by itself is a significant enough topic to justify placing on its own. The Township demographics are justified in being separate. The CDP demographics are justified in being separate. The Community page itself does a fine job of describing the community, and leading the reader to the appropriate "sub topics" (CDP, Township, University, etc).

"If it ain't broken then don't fix it." The proposed changes are attempting to do exactly that. The articles work fine just as they are. mdkarazim 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It can not remain how it is. The township page needs to remain, for certain, as there is a page for every Michigan township sense they are legal municipal boundaries. But, there only needs to be one page on the CDP, and if you'd like, you can put the community info in. One of these needs to be deleted, and I will soon nominate one of these for deletion. --Criticalthinker 07:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)