Template talk:Eau Claire–Chippewa Falls
(Redirected from Template talk:Eau Claire, Wisconsin)
Latest comment: 18 years ago by TShilo12 in topic Suburbs?
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Suburbs?
editIt seems to me incorporated places vs. unincorporated places would be a much more fitting divide. Putting incorporated places of concentrated population such as Altoona and Lake Hallie on the same level as minor civil divisions with similar populations (but spread over vastly larger areas) is misleading.
- The template is not meant to be an article in its own right, but instead a quickly clickable guide to "suburban" municipalities. The organization is consistent with other templates for Wisconsin cities. That aside, please consider signing up for an account and joining us at the Wisconsin WikiProject. Cheers, Tomer TALK 02:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the Town of Washington has more people than either Lake Hallie or Altoona, and much of it is more concentrated than Lake Hallie is. That there are large portions of the eastern part of the Town that are farmland is more of an argument for incorporating the western parts of the Town than for excluding it from this template (and by "incorporating", I certainly do NOT mean letting the greedy City annex it...:-P) Tomer TALK 02:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Part of Washington is densely populated, yes. I think that you will see a move by the city of Eau Claire to annex that in time, but whether that will be successful or result in an incorporation similar to Lake Hallie, time will tell. As for the template, I think that means the organization of all the Wisconsin city templates should be discussed, as the current setup results in some very misleading information. The concept of a minor civil division as a "suburb" is dubious. By that definition, the city of Augusta should list the town of Bridge Creek as a suburb, an idea that - at least to me - is ridiculous. Then to expand that to give the appearance that these MCDs are on equal footing with incorporated places is very misleading. Dhmachine31
- I would argue against the inclusion of Brunswick and Wheaton long before Washington. Both tho, along with Washington, as I've said elsewhere previously, fit the description of suburb, whereas Bridge Creek does not fit the description vis à vis Augusta. A much stronger argument could be made for making a suburbs/environs template for Waupaca based on the definition of suburb or even of exurb than the one you've made, facetiously I assume. That said, perhaps it would be worthwhile considering a different term than "suburb" in the templates. Altoona and Chippewa are separate communities in their own right, whose "suburban" nature is rather recent [and somewhat limited by geography] ... This is true of other similar templates as well (see, for example, Template talk:Manitowoc, Wisconsin) ... Would you be more content with "surrounding communities" or "~ municipalities"? Tomer TALK 02:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Part of Washington is densely populated, yes. I think that you will see a move by the city of Eau Claire to annex that in time, but whether that will be successful or result in an incorporation similar to Lake Hallie, time will tell. As for the template, I think that means the organization of all the Wisconsin city templates should be discussed, as the current setup results in some very misleading information. The concept of a minor civil division as a "suburb" is dubious. By that definition, the city of Augusta should list the town of Bridge Creek as a suburb, an idea that - at least to me - is ridiculous. Then to expand that to give the appearance that these MCDs are on equal footing with incorporated places is very misleading. Dhmachine31
- Incidentally, the Town of Washington has more people than either Lake Hallie or Altoona, and much of it is more concentrated than Lake Hallie is. That there are large portions of the eastern part of the Town that are farmland is more of an argument for incorporating the western parts of the Town than for excluding it from this template (and by "incorporating", I certainly do NOT mean letting the greedy City annex it...:-P) Tomer TALK 02:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely. The issue here isn't so much the definition of "suburb" as it is clarifying that some of these municipalities function on a very different level than others that they are currently grouped with. "Surrounding communities" would be perfect, as far as I am concerned, because, as you point out, especially in the case of Chippewa Falls, the term "suburb" in itself is somewhat misleading as to what its role in the region truly is. Dhmachine31
- I've solicited further comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wisconsin#Metropolitan templates. Depending on the outcome, this discussion will end up affecting all of the following:
- Template:Appleton, Wisconsin
- Template:Beloit, Wisconsin
- Template:Eau Claire, Wisconsin
- Template:Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
- Template:Green Bay, Wisconsin
- Template:Janesville, Wisconsin
- Template:La Crosse, Wisconsin
- Template:Kenosha, Wisconsin
- Template:Madison (which should prolly be moved to Template:Madison, Wisconsin)
- Template:Manitowoc, Wisconsin
- Template:Marshfield, Wisconsin
- Template:Menomonie, Wisconsin
- Template:Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- Template:Oshkosh, Wisconsin
- Template:Racine, Wisconsin
- Template:Sheboygan, Wisconsin
- Template:Stevens Point, Wisconsin
- Template:Superior, Wisconsin a.k.a. Template:Duluth, Minnesota
- Template:Wausau, Wisconsin
- Template:Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin
- I hope I didn't miss any in there... :-p TomerTALK 21:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm for the change: I think changing "suburbs" to "surrounding communities" is a simple and effective solution. Another possibility is to spell out the differences; i.e. "nearby cities and villages=...", "nearby towns=..." and "counties=...", like at {{Chicagoland}}. Either way works for me. HollyAm 19:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Surrounding communities" for incorporated places, would be perfect. My opinion though is those should go on a separate level, and then unincorporated area MCDs on a level below, to distinguish the functional differences. Dhmachine31
- Any better? Tomertalk 18:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Surrounding communities" for incorporated places, would be perfect. My opinion though is those should go on a separate level, and then unincorporated area MCDs on a level below, to distinguish the functional differences. Dhmachine31