Talk:Waukesha, Wisconsin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Wikipedians in Wisconsin may be able to help!

The census bureau has two sets of statistics for this city. In one case it labels it as a "city" with 64,825 people, and in another entry it is labeled as a "town" with 8,596 people. I can't make heads or tails of this and many others like it. Maybe someone else knows more about this? -- Ram-Man

I grew up in the Town of Waukesha, and went to school in the City of Waukesha, that's why I went to the trouble of doing my best Rambot imitation here. The City had a population of around 56,000 when I lived there; I think that was the 1990 census number, 1980 might've been 52,000 or so. This is just from what I remember on the city limits signs. Anyway, that's the City then. The Town is one of those square townships we have so many of around here, on and around the south side of the City, except this one isn't really square because it's had chunks chewed out of it (annexed, if you prefer) by the City. It's more rural, of course, so that would be the 8,596 population.

Perhaps the best way to deal with it would be making Waukesha, Wisconsin a disambiguation page, with pointers to separate articles at City of Waukesha, Wisconsin and Town of Waukesha, Wisconsin, or Waukesha City, Wisconsin and Waukesha Town, Wisconsin (or perhaps Waukesha Township, Wisconsin?), and add in Waukesha County, Wisconsin, just to be on the safe side. The former (City of, Town of) way of putting it sounds much more natural to me, as a former native, but wouldn't alphabetize as nicely (if there's ever any need of alphabetizing it; well, I guess there is the Waukesha County, Wisconsin article, after all).

Funny thing though; I downloaded the census info (places2k.txt) myself and went through it, and only found these numbers for the city. Where does the Town of Waukesha info come from, and the demographic details? -- John Owens 04:31 31 May 2003 (UTC)

When I downloaded the raw census data, I downloaded all sorts of it. It just happened to include both places. I did a *lot* of post-processing of the data and sorted through it. I simply didn't make the articles that had duplicate names because I didn't know how to disambiguate them. You have been very helpful in explaining it, but other states like New York have similar issues. I don't know what to tell you though. The data is on their website and ftp site. You just have to find it somehow I guess! -- Ram-Man

[edit] Town of Waukesha/City of Waukesha article meger

(Agree) They are practically the same thing. The only people who care are people who live in the Town. CaptainAmerica 02:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree because they are not the same thing: for one, the Town of Waukesha page shows a population of 8,596 while the City of Waukesha shows a population of 64,825. Another reason I disagree is that we have a Wikipedia article for each of the other 1200+ towns in Wisconsin, and unless we want to merge all 1200 of them into city or village articles, I suggest we keep the Town of Waukesha article where it is for consistency with the others. HollyAm 02:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree- they are seperate things - it's that simple. They are easily confused, which makes it more important that they are each represented seperately, not less so. I will support a merger of these two articles when the City annexes the remaining parts of the Town, making the Town nonexistent. Until then, there is no rational reason why they should be merged, and a great many as to why they should remain seperate. Merenta 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree per Merenta. I am going to remove the merge tag. It would be useful to get a map image that would show the relationship of the town to the city, and some of the history of how they come to exist side by side like that. Thatcher131 01:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There really isn't anything specific to Waukesha here; see Brookfield (town), Wisconsin vsBrookfield, Wisconsin or Pewaukee, Wisconsin vs. Pewaukee (village), Wisconsin or Eagle, Wisconsin vs Eagle (town), Wisconsin. There are a great many more such examples. There might be an article here somewhere in all of this, but its place probably isn't here. Merenta 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Todd Lincoln

After Lincoln's assassination, Mary Todd Lincoln spent time at the resort town of Waukesha. A historian from the City of Waukesha needs to flush out these details. Jeff Carr 22:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Hamm Brothers

Several people have added the Hamm brothers, Olympic Gold Medal gymnasts, as "Notable Natives" here - but those additions are incorrect. The Hamms live in the Town of Waukesha, and are listed as "Notable Natives" there. They were born in the City but have never lived there. Merenta 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Valid point. My questions is what do we regard as "native?" Does it imply birthplace or residence at time of birthplace. Maybe we could qualify on both pages that they were born in one and lived in another. I'm not quite sure what I feel about this. --Shawn 20:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's also a valid point. A good dictionary will tell you that either usage is correct, at least in the broadest sense of the term. Still, I think the most important aspect of "nativeness" is how the person himself sees it - Les Paul is definitely a Waukesha native, although he hasn't lived in Wisconsin for decades - just ask him and that's what he'll say. Someone who was born in a city and never lived there is unlikely to make a claim to being a native there. AFAIK the Hamms don't and have never claimed to be natives of the City of Waukesha, but I haven't heard them say that - so maybe it's not really all that wrong to make that claim here. Still, it raises questions such as of how many places one can really be a native. Merenta 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Their offical Team USA olympic bios list their hometown has Waukesha... I can't find the link, I'll put it here when I find it. However, the current way (with them listed on both) is satisfactory for me. -- CaptainAmerica 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I finally verified this whole mess - the Hamms were born in Washburn, Wisconsin (ref:http://www.hammtwins.com) and are definitely from the Town of Waukesha, not here, (ref: http://www2.jsonline.com/news/wauk/sep00/walkcol30092900a.asp ). They live in Ohio now because they're going to college there. However, they went to a City of Waukesha high school, so I've adjusted the references to them here and on the Town page. Merenta 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles about the Hamm twins still have them as being born in Waukesha not Washburn.Thank you RFD 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waukesha's name: The Sha

One editor had requested a citation for Waukesha's name- the teenagers calling Waukesha:The Sha. I found a definition in the Urban Dictionary and put it in as a citation. Now, a different editor said the citation came from an unreliable source the Urban Dictionary. I did a google search and was unable to come up with a source to replace that which was deleted. The definition from the Urban Dictionary was the best source concerning Waukesha's name:The Sha. I put the citation back in but left it as an external link rather as a citation. Any suggestions/comments?Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This goes deeply into the deletionist versus inclusionist debate. My read of WP:V says that if it can't be verified by reliable, independent sources, it should be removed, and that the burden of proof is on the one adding or restoring the material. It also describes what constitutes a verifiable, independent source. Although I'm not the editor you mentioned who said that Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source, I agree with him. I have no doubt of the truthfulness of the statement in question, but many editors are adamant about removing statements that don't meet WP:V. I'm inclusionist enough that it doesn't bother me personally, though. Merenta (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of vandalism, I am flexible when it comes to adding sources. I lead towards the inclusionist view point. If anything the Urban Dictionary link about The Sha can be move to the external links section. The Urban Dictionary does meet a need with many definitions and it is in a book format. Thanks-RFD (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)