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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
I am strongly oppose to the merger of the articles of the town and village of Pound. They are 2 separate, independent municipalities. This issue have been debated on the Madison, Janesville, and most recently the Sun Prairie, Wisconsin talkpages. If the merger does take place, we will see inaccurate demographic, poputation statistics. I respectfully oppose the merger of the 2 articles. Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa - how exactly, are you seeing inaccurate demographic and population statistics? - Hexhand (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose – the town of Pound and the village of Pound are two separate, distinct entities. —Salmar(talk) 01:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - they're seperate geographic and legal entities; the fact that they are easily confused is an argument for keeping the distinction here, not for merging their articles. Merenta (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could simply denote each within the same article though the csimple use of a subsection or two. - Hexhand (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no more than one sentence of information that applies to both articles. There would have to be two separate Geography sections and two Demographics sections. What's the point? -Freekee (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brevity? Conciseness? Seriously, are the two Pounds located at a further proximity than next to (or on top of) each other? The geography doesn't appear to be vastly different, nor do the demographics. subections for the city and town seem to put all the pertinent info in one place. Quite conveniently, too, I think. - Hexhand (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The combined article is still twice as long as either separate one. Why don't you go to the source? Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. -Freekee (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the presumption be that the merging wouldn't simply consist of lumping the two together? Of course, a merging would remove duplicate info and meld together those sections that are similar, like demographics, etc. While we are articulating the benefits of separating articles that have been merged or proposed for merging, let's not discount the idea of similarly articulate arguments in favor of merging. It does everyone a disservice. - Hexhand (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
