Talk:Town of Madison, Wisconsin

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

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

Merge[edit]

Please see this discussion: Talk:Madison, Wisconsin#Merge Proposal. —Salmar ^(talk) 19:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On retaining parts of the article on the Town of Madison, Wisconsin in Dane County[edit]

Whenever, the Town of Madison, Wisconsin ever goes out of existance in Dane County, Wisconsin, I respectfully ask my fellow Wikipedians to retain parts of the article about the Town of Madison, Wisconsin pertaining to the history of the town. The Town of Madison is one of the oldest towns in Wisconsin. I am keeping in mind these articles:

Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC) PS- I meant Bayside, Wisconsin not Bayview. Thanks-RFD (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be both absurd and ahistorical to remove the Town from histories just because it ceases to exist. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology for Towns[edit]

It is preposterous to think that an unincorporated community could provide extensive governmental services. Some of the services listed are uncommonly provided by towns, but within their powers. Unincorporated communities provide no governmental functions. Towns clearly are incorporated units of government. They sometimes provide services by contracting with other units of government, and given the disjointed nature of its remaining territory, that seems likely for the Town of Madison. Changing "unincorporated . . ." to "town" and eliminating the redundant "incorporated" from cities probably would do it. Topeka Sam (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what changes you think should be made in this article, or in how Wikipedia articles in general should discuss the peculiar Wisconsin institution of Towns. I think our current language is pretty clear, and don't really comprehend your objection. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think that generally these edits to the names of Wisconsin towns are unnecessary. The titles, first sentences, and "See also" templates do a pretty good job of disambiguating towns from neighboring villages/cities. But maybe we could also change the link for [[town]] to [[Administrative divisions of Wisconsin#Town|Town]], which would direct people unfamiliar with Wisconsin's towns to specific information about what "town" means in the state. That might be a good compromise to address some of @Topeka Sam:'s concerns. CoatGuy2 (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In most states, Wisconsin's towns would be known as townships. When I see Grant Township in Iowa called just Grant, and can find that it is a township in a footnote or in a separate article, then at least things will be consistent.

The only thing peculiar is Wisconsin's unique way of naming towns as, for instance, the Town of Dane. Probably too peculiar for your taste, but they live with it in Wisconsin. Topeka Sam (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Topeka Sam: Please stop making mass edits to Wisconsin's town articles until we have reached a WP:Consensus on how to proceed with the names of these articles' subjects. @Magnolia677: and @Materialscientist: have already pointed out that your edits might go against Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Essentially, we don't call Milwaukee the City of Milwaukee on all mentions, because that's not how most sources (and presumably most people) refer to it. If you want to make your case, please provide sources (more than one and not just local gov't websites) for a couple of towns in Wisconsin demonstrating that "Town of ______" is actually the commonly used name of these communities in Wisconsin.

Also, I find your footnotes explaining towns less helpful than the link to [[Administrative divisions of Wisconsin#Town|Town]] that I proposed as a compromise. Many or most readers in Wisconsin already know what a Wisconsin-specific town is and don't need an explanation. Readers outside the state can self-select into reading the article on "Administrative divisions of Wisconsin" to learn more. But your footnote could actually be more confusing because it just throws another unexplained term--township--at the reader and expects them to understand. I wouldn't have understood your footnote when I first moved to the U.S. and settled in Wisconsin, because I didn't know what townships were either. Linking to a straightforward definition in another article would have been more helpful for a reader like me. CoatGuy2 (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could say that a town is not an unincorporated community. Again. Does that help? Topeka Sam (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CoatGuy2 and Topeka Sam, I think this discussion should be taken to a broader arena than an article's talk page. Perhaps WT:WI? -- Dolotta (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My initial objective was to get a discussian. I have no problem halting my edits. There are 1,250 towns in Wisconsin, give or take, and I have maybe a hundred or two edited, so it's not at all like I am about to finish. BTW, I have stopped adding the footnote for the last week or two, but might have added just one or two.

I probably will continue to add websites and point out the fairly frequent errors in coordinates and the rare errors in redirects, but since the naming changes are on hold, I will not be finding many of those. Would the county websites be supporting evidence?

As an aside, I think that two sets of coordinaes for a 36 sq mi town, appearing nearly adjacent to one another, is excessive (as you have probably have already seen multiple times).

As this is leading to your discussion, my only real regret is the lost corrections to coordinates from revokes. Many of the deleteded coordinates were for CDPs or unincorporated communities. I'll repeat my assertion here that failure to call towns by their name leads to that sort of confusion.

Sorry, this mesage was to say the edits are on hold. I wandered off into making points for your discussion.

Tom (Sam is a nickname and Topeka Tom was taken) Topeka Sam (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity tonight I looked for those bad coordinates mentioned above. Look at my edits from tonight. They are disturbing, and prove beyond any doubt that towns, communities and CDPs should not be assigned the same name. The status quo being so vigorously defended has profound faults. Obviously even trusted contributors are being confused by those names. Topeka Sam (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wisconsin#Terminology around Wisconsin town articles to solicit more participation on this. Hopefully someone else might be able to point us in the direction of some useful sources. I tried to sum up what I see as the crux of the issue surrounding naming, but feel free to add anything if you feel I didn't represent your views in their entirety. CoatGuy2 (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]