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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Bay Packers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Green Bay Packers 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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
As for what pic would work: as somebody who doesn't know the place at all, I find the photos already provided really help with the surroundings, but don't tell me much about what the centre looks like. Is there a central business or municipal center? TheGrappler 09:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Three photos is enough, I removed the photo request. I will take a photo of the city center sometime when I'm there (I live 1 hour away). Royalbroil 01:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
A number of the photos here are out of date. GnomeWorks (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Should mention be made of the recent arrests of two East High students who were plotting a Columbine-like attack  at the school? There is a section discussing the Greybuffalo murder, and given the national media attention of this incident, there might be reason to bring it up in the article. Ideas? --Caen 15:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not see the merit of including Nick Mortensen under the "Famous Residents" heading.
His placement seems like a baseless attempt to garner interest for his comedy routine. I suspect his addition was as a promotional tool by either him or a representative. At any rate, it doesn't make sense to include him, as he currently is neither significant to the culture of Green Bay nor does he hold any viable promise to transform into anything significant (or so it seems).
Forgive the venom -- it's a personal peeve of mine when locals try to use Wikipedia as a self-serving platform.
I deleted him. If there are any objections, please feel free to offer evidence to the contrary.
I keep coming across references to the Great Wisconsin Fire of 1871 which killed over 600 people and left 1.25 million acres burned. Apparently it started near Green Bay, does anyone know anything about this. I cannot seem to find anything on wiki about it. IvoShandor 08:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I started an article about Preble, Wisconsin which is now part of Green Bay. I am still not sure of the main streets or major landmarks in the Preble neighborhood in Green Bay. If there are any photos of the Preble neighborhood would someone please add them to the Preble, Wisconsin article?Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it unreasonable to expect Green Bay's "notable residents" to be notable outside of Green Bay? A lot of these types of lists can become unwieldy as people begin to add their friends or relatives to them. I don't want to arbitrarily start deleting people off the list until we can come to some kind of consensus on a standard for inclusion, but it does appear to need some trimming.
==Not in Green Bay==The article mentions several places which not in Green Bay. I will delete them.--Wickifrank (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I cleaned it up a bit by categorizing the residents, but I have serious doubts about how many should be on that list. I'll try to go through and clean it up some more later. --Carbondate (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
usually Ive seen the criteria that if the person is notable enough for a wikipedia page, they are notable enough to be included in these lists. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Green Bay, Wisconsin → Green Bay — Green Bay, Wisconsin, is the most well-known Green Bay. (just like Detroit, Minneapolis, or Milwaukee pages) Also, the Green Bay, Wisconsin, page receives more traffic than the other Green Bay has ever received--moving the city page to "Green Bay" would further enhance our readers' Wikipedia experience! Krauseaj (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose renaming Green Bay, Wisconsin per WP:PLACES. United States incorporated communities always have the state in their titles unless they are one of a few very well known cities like Pittsburgh or San Francisco. Green Bay is very well known, but it is not one of the exceptions approved by long-standing consensus. Support renaming the disambiguation page; Green Bay should redirect here. PowersT 03:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Support. The consensus at WP:PLACES to disambiguate all U.S. cities, except those on the AP list, even if they are the primary topic for their base name (as Green Bay is), is out-of-date and contradicts the general criteria spelled out at WP:TITLE#Deciding_on_an_article_title. Simply put, Green Bay, Wisconsin is more precise than necessary. From names of royalty like Elizabeth II to names of cities in Australia and the Philippines, the convention to "pre-disambiguate" has been falling out of favor. Unlike a few years ago, pre-disambiguation of U.S. city names is now a rare exception (check out WP:PLACES to see how few other countries still pre-disambiguate city names).
If your intent is to overturn a long-standing naming convention, I hope you don't mind if I alert the good folks who watch WP:PLACES. That is not the sort of thing that should occur locally in isolation without wide consensus. PowersT 13:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:IAR does not require wide consensus. Most change in Wikipedia typically occurs bottom-up, not top-down. The naming guidelines specific to particular sets of articles largely reflect, rather than dictate, what is occurring at the individual article level. Any objection based on the claim that the naming guideline has to change first is unfounded, because it creates a chicken-egg conundrum if nothing else. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The WP:TITLE policy explicitly allows for more specific guidelines to take precedence. PowersT 15:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
But the "consistency" criteria favors such guidelines when they comply with the other criteria, like making titles be only as precise as necessary for disambiguation, which this guideline does not. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Mhockey, of course it's the right forum. Those guidelines ultimately reflect what occurs here; they don't dictate it. The guideline cannot change unless proposals like this are shown to have consensus support. Objecting to proposals like this on the grounds that the guideline has to change first is nonsensical. Do you have any other reason to object? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no view on whether this is the primary topic. I do have a view that guidelines should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. WP:GUIDES tells us that "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I agree that guidelines are descriptive (of best practice), not prescriptive, but they describe consensus, and if you disagree with that consensus, the guideline needs to be challenged, not the application of the guideline to one example. Your argument would call for move debates on zillions of U.S. places, instead of one debate on the guideline. And I do not think that this is the right forum for a debate on WP:GUIDES either. --Mhockey (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Zillions? Consensus changes. The last time this was seriously discussed, a couple of years a go, consensus was to not predisambiguate cities on the AP list. That change went very smoothly and created no new problems. As far as I can tell the only effect was that people stopped requesting that those articles be renamed. Proposals like this one for Green Bay were made pretty frequently for them until that change, which is typical for articles predisambiguated per some guideline.
What if we added to that list, in addition to cities on the AP list, cities that are state capitals and cities with NFL and/or MBL teams? I mean, this article should be at Green Bay rather than Green Bay, Wisconsin for the same reason it's the "Green Bay Packers" and not the "Green Bay, Wisconsin Packers". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Note-there is the town of Green Bay (town), Wisconsin which a few miles away from the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin and is a separate municipality. There would be confusion if the move takes place. On that basis I would opposed the move. In Douglas County would have 3 separate municipality named: Superior, Wisconsin: village, town, village. This is similiar here. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC) You also have 2 Pewaukee, Wisconsin municipalities:city&village=RFD (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
RFD, I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the city does not meet primary topic criteria because of the nearby town? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
You have 2 municipalities in Wisconsin named Green Bay: city and town. On that basis the change should not be made. It would add to the confusion. Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how referring to the city as Green Bay, Wisconsin is less ambiguous with a town named Green Bay in Wisconsin than would be Green Bay. That is, both seem equally ambiguous with respect to indicating whether they are referring to the city or town. If you were arguing that this article should be moved to Green Bay (city), Wisconsin, or something like that, at least that would make sense.
I'm sure that anyone who has heard of the town is also aware of the city, and how the city is much better known than is the town. This is precisely the situation which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC addresses. Are you familiar with the concept? By the way, the city gets about 35 times as many views per month as does the town. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
There are two issues here:
Oppose move to Green Bay per WP:PLACES, a guideline which often mandates unnecessary disambiguation but which also saves a lot of headaches. Unless this case is radically different from other US places, the decision to modify the guideline should not be made here.
Neutral on whether the city is the primary topic for "Green Bay". The football team and the bay may be serious competition. If others want to redirect Green Bay to the city, fine with me. — AjaxSmack 19:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Ajax, do you agree that moving the U.S. cities which are on the AP list to their base names did not create any headaches? If so, why do you imagine that moving U.S. cities which are the unique use or primary topic of their base name to their base name would create headaches? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose No good reason for circumventing the naming convention. Will Bebacktalk 21:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I've made a proposal to a change in the U.S. city guideline that would make this discussion moot, except with determining whether this use is the primary topic for its name. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment I would say the hydrologic feature that the human settlement derives its name from is also likely... 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to Oppose. Outside of the US, the body of water is at least a likely as the city or the football team -- for most people in the US, Green Bay is simply shorthand for the Packers. older ≠ wiser 14:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the Packers being a competitive primary topic with the city; I can't imagine anyone expecting to type "Green Bay" and get the Packers article. PowersT 15:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Why not? News and broadcasts often refer to the team as simply Green Bay rather than the Packers. older ≠ wiser 17:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Only when the context is already established. That's not the case in an encyclopedia and I believe most people would understand that and not expect to find a sports team using using nothing more than the city's name. PowersT 19:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I expect that for quite a lot of people a city is first and foremost a location for a sports team and might easily expect to find the sports team by entering the city name. older ≠ wiser 19:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe people who don't know what an encyclopedia is... PowersT 21:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
@ B2C, no of course not. If SF were a modestly-sized city with not much else going on of note beyond the football team, then perhaps. @ LtPowers, Wikipedia serves all readers, even those whose interests and abilities are disdained by snobs and elitists. older ≠ wiser 01:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
If you're implying that I hold a disdain for football, you're sorely mistaken. But I still find it hard to believe even the most devoted football fan would be seriously surprised to see the city pop up after a search for "Green Bay". PowersT 12:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation is about helping readers get to the article they're looking for. If a significant proportion of people are likely to enter "Green Bay" looking for either the football team or the body of water, which I think is true, then the term is ambiguous and there is no primary topic. older ≠ wiser 13:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
We agree on everything except how likely that scenario is. PowersT 14:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't believe the city is prominent enough that this move would ease navigation for the reader.--Cúchullaint/c 14:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for consistency with other Wisconsin cities and clarity for the reader. Jonathunder (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - U.S. cities are supposed to have the state name unless they are large enough to not require the state name per the AP Stylebook. In addition, Green Bay is ambiguous as it also refers to the bay. Dough4872 02:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The current name is fine and is consistent with the naming convention for US cities. Will Bebacktalk 09:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Just made a few edits to the page. One is worth mentioning here. The page had said, "A small trading post...was established by Nicolet at this location in 1634, making Green Bay the 13th oldest permanent settlement in America." I know that Green Bay is a surprising early settlement, especially given its location, but saying 13th seemed worth checking. The page List of North American cities by year of foundation is not very reliable by any means, but it is useful for getting a sense of this kind of thing. By its ranking, Green Bay is far from 13th. Of course that page has some obvious problems (like listing Boston twice). However, it serves to point out the need for a more specific context for making claims like this. Obviously, there were many many Native American settlements long before, so the claim needs to say something like "non-indigenous". Then there is the ambiguity of what "America" means. I'm guessing in this case it means the territory that is now the United States. There's also some cases where "permanent" and "date founded" are open to debate, like Pensacola, Florida. Anyway, it looked like the date was referenced but the claim of "13th oldest" was not, so I changed it to "one of the oldest". Ideally, claims like this should be referenced, especially since there is no simple way for us Wikipedians to invent an objective way to make rankings like this. Even saying "one of the oldest permanent settlements in America" still needs some clarification over what "America" means, and a mention of "non-indigenous", or words to that effect. Pfly (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The article says that locals say "The Bay of Green Bay" to refer to the adjacent part of lake Michigan. I live in Green Bay (the city) and people overwhelmingly say 'The Bay' to refer to the water. "The bay of Green Bay" may be more prevalent in scholarly articles but it is not in common use with 'locals'. People may use 'the Bay of Green Bay' in a technical report on the fishery, but a local would always say 'I went fishing on the bay'.
I think 'the bay' should be directly substituted or the anecdote about local naming should be omitted entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I think perhaps the editor above misunderstands. Yes, the locals do say "the bay" in most of their local interactions, as it's the only "bay" to be considered; it's quite common throughout the English-speaking world to use a generic term instead of the proper noun if no confusion is likely. But when talking to others (visitors, on the phone to non-locals), on such occasions when we who are not from the area would refer to the body of water as "Green Bay", they say, "the Bay of Green Bay". And as one who was quite struck by this upon first exposure, I think it should stay. (Indeed, they feel strongly enough about it that it has been the subject of some debate over at Green Bay (Lake Michigan), as you can see here. Indeed, that article was originally called Bay of Green Bay. HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
As another Green Bay resident, I think it should stand as "bay of Green Bay". I agree with the above editor's comments. JaykeBird (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The Green Bay Police Department is not notable independent of the city itself. Its article is not likely to become substantial. Recommend merging with city article. -- Mesconsing (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the article, I agree with this change. The article has barely enough information to be considered an article, and can easily be added into this one. JaykeBird (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
By the same reasoning, Green Bay Metro may be considered for merger as well. Both are departments within the City of Green Bay government. Rauglothgor (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)