22:
177:
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.
81:
71:
53:
231:
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
176:
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
166:
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
191:
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 ... This is true of other similar
143:
It 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
393:
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
148:
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
421:"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.
187:, 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
183:
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
462:
467:
249:
105:
232:
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.
94:
58:
167:
than for excluding it from this template (and by "incorporating", I certainly do NOT mean letting the greedy City annex it...:-P)
33:
312:
267:
363:
322:
287:
277:
257:
193:
342:
301:
272:
282:
358:
352:
347:
337:
332:
317:
307:
327:
292:
262:
39:
441:
408:
384:
210:
431:
376:
200:
104:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
422:
233:
178:
398:
439:
208:
171:
161:
154:
297:
86:
150:
252:. Depending on the outcome, this discussion will end up affecting all of the following:
196:) ... Would you be more content with "surrounding communities" or "~ municipalities"?
456:
436:
428:
381:
373:
205:
197:
168:
158:
405:
76:
100:
98:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of
184:
70:
52:
188:
250:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject
Wisconsin#Metropolitan templates
15:
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
8:
372:I hope I didn't miss any in there... :-p
47:
49:
192:templates as well (see, for example,
114:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Wisconsin
92:This template is within the scope of
21:
19:
7:
364:Template:Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin
38:It is of interest to the following
248:I've solicited further comment at
194:Template talk:Manitowoc, Wisconsin
14:
463:Template-Class Wisconsin articles
343:Template:Stevens Point, Wisconsin
300:(which should prolly be moved to
468:NA-importance Wisconsin articles
79:
69:
51:
20:
273:Template:Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
313:Template:Marshfield, Wisconsin
283:Template:Janesville, Wisconsin
268:Template:Eau Claire, Wisconsin
117:Template:WikiProject Wisconsin
1:
385:21:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
338:Template:Sheboygan, Wisconsin
323:Template:Milwaukee, Wisconsin
318:Template:Menomonie, Wisconsin
308:Template:Manitowoc, Wisconsin
288:Template:La Crosse, Wisconsin
278:Template:Green Bay, Wisconsin
211:02:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
108:and see a list of open tasks.
442:18:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
409:19:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
348:Template:Superior, Wisconsin
258:Template:Appleton, Wisconsin
173:02:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
404:. Either way works for me.
328:Template:Oshkosh, Wisconsin
302:Template:Madison, Wisconsin
293:Template:Kenosha, Wisconsin
163:02:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
484:
359:Template:Wausau, Wisconsin
353:Template:Duluth, Minnesota
333:Template:Racine, Wisconsin
263:Template:Beloit, Wisconsin
155:the Wisconsin WikiProject
151:signing up for an account
64:
46:
95:WikiProject Wisconsin
153:and joining us at
120:Wisconsin articles
34:content assessment
136:
135:
132:
131:
128:
127:
475:
434:
403:
397:
379:
298:Template:Madison
203:
122:
121:
118:
115:
112:
89:
87:Wisconsin portal
84:
83:
82:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
483:
482:
478:
477:
476:
474:
473:
472:
453:
452:
432:
401:
395:
377:
201:
141:
119:
116:
113:
110:
109:
85:
80:
78:
12:
11:
5:
481:
479:
471:
470:
465:
455:
454:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
414:
413:
412:
411:
388:
387:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
361:
356:
345:
340:
335:
330:
325:
320:
315:
310:
305:
295:
290:
285:
280:
275:
270:
265:
260:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
140:
137:
134:
133:
130:
129:
126:
125:
123:
106:the discussion
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
480:
469:
466:
464:
461:
460:
458:
443:
440:
438:
435:
430:
427:Any better?
426:
425:
424:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
410:
407:
400:
392:
391:
390:
389:
386:
383:
380:
375:
371:
365:
362:
360:
357:
355:
354:
349:
346:
344:
341:
339:
336:
334:
331:
329:
326:
324:
321:
319:
316:
314:
311:
309:
306:
303:
299:
296:
294:
291:
289:
286:
284:
281:
279:
276:
274:
271:
269:
266:
264:
261:
259:
256:
255:
254:
253:
251:
247:
246:
235:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
212:
209:
207:
204:
199:
195:
190:
186:
182:
181:
180:
175:
174:
172:
170:
165:
164:
162:
160:
156:
152:
147:
146:
145:
138:
124:
107:
103:
102:
97:
96:
88:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
350:
144:misleading.
142:
99:
93:
40:WikiProjects
29:
423:Dhmachine31
399:Chicagoland
234:Dhmachine31
179:Dhmachine31
157:. Cheers,
457:Categories
111:Wisconsin
101:Wisconsin
59:Wisconsin
139:Suburbs?
30:template
406:HollyAm
351:a.k.a.
185:suburb
36:scale.
189:exurb
169:Tomer
159:Tomer
28:This
429:Tom
374:Tom
198:Tom
459::
402:}}
396:{{
437:r
433:e
382:r
378:e
304:)
206:r
202:e
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
