User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →


Got your message about all my Category:New Zealand edits. Please don't just roll back all my changes; just delete the NZ category from articles as appropriate. I have done other edits besides the categories... thanks, Rob 12 Oct 2004


Hi! Do you think it's possible to determine if France is the most visited country in the world? Another user insists on inserting this, but statistics may vary. Marcus2 19:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm in no position to be able to say whether or not it is possible to determine if France or any other country is the most visited country in the world. However, I would insist that any such assertion has to be attributed to a credible source. And if there are other source that differ, then I suppose that either A) all would have to be included or B) all would be excluded (especially if there is wide disparity between the sources). olderwiser 19:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why should they be together??

They are 3 different highways that all happen to have the same name. Any real reason for them to all be on one article?? (A real reason would be if they are related, a not-so-real reason would be if they all have one name.) 01:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  1. They are all I-475.
  2. There is not all that much to say about each one individually to warrant separate articles.
  3. The parenethically disambiguated names look bad in the category listing.
  4. Nearly all of the other three digit interstates are done this way.

olderwiser 01:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You've heard about expanding articles, haven't you?? Why can't you try to expand them rather than merging them?? 01:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's something to be said for consistency. I didn't see anything worth expanding and thought they were much better off in one article. olderwiser 01:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Azalia, MI

My fault. Seems that the elevation I found was the average elevation for Azalia's zip code, 48110. I have removed it because of the inaccuracy. Take care. MattSal 20:32, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


Uh, why did you revert me? →Raul654 02:32, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration request filed

Changing talk page comments is one thing, but altering votes on VfD is quite another. I've filed an arbitration request - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 2 for details. Thanks. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Is there more than one Shanagolden in Wisconsin? RickK 22:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I'm renaming all the towns in Wisconsin, which are secondary subdivisions of counties, so that they all use a consistent form. Previously some were named variously as
  • Townname (town), Wisconsin
  • Townname (town), Countyname, Wisconsin
  • Townname, Wisconsin
  • Townname, Countyname, Wisconsin
  • And even Townname Town, Wisconsin (where "Town" was not part of the name of the town)
And I may be overlooking a few as well. olderwiser 22:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're just doing towns? Not cities? RickK 23:00, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

That's correct. Cities and villages are an entirely different type of municipality than Towns. There is only one village with the same name as a city (Superior, Wisconsin and Superior (village), Wisconsin. There are numerous cases of multiple towns with the same name and of towns that have the same name as a city or village. The city or village is almost always more well known than any town with the same name. My goal is to rename the towns to consistently include the county name so that 1) the city and village can occupy the undisambiguated name and 2) the list of towns will inCategory:Towns in Wisconsin will not appear like a hodge-podge. olderwiser 23:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK, thanks. RickK 04:31, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Great Lakes

Moved to Talk: Great Lakes

More about Rex

I don't know whether you still have much interest in the Rex071404 arbitration. The committee is now considering the following as one of its proposed findings of fact: "The compaining witnesses in this matter, because of their numerical majority, felt that Rex071404 did not represent a point of view which had a magnitude of importance equal to theirs, despite its societal significance." I got pretty cheesed off at this. The short of it is that we're being unjustly criticized, without even being told that there was a complaint against us. The long of it is here, here and here. It's produced a pretty typical exchange between Rex on one side and Gamaliel and me on the other. I mention all this only because the ArbCom is considering a proposed finding that, IMO, reflects badly on you, so I thought you ought to know about it in case you want to get involved. If you have more will power than I do and can resist the temptation to keep wasting time on this stuff, more power to you! JamesMLane 09:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They are asserting that you felt a certain way. Only you know how you feel, and they have no right to speculate as to your feelings, and esp. not to arbitrarily assert a characterization of them against your will. I would simply say something like "I do not feel this way.", in addition to any other comment you wish to offer, if indeed, this is not the way you feel. Also, I don't think your feelings are relevant to the case, and they should not be part of the judgement. The case concerns actions, not speculations of feelings or motives. Kevin Baas | talk 21:06, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Patriot Day a legal holiday?

Hiya.. I wondered about that myself, but then I thought, "self, you're not American, you wouldn't know if it was a legal holiday or not, just format the table entry properly and let someone else worry about it." So I did. :-) —Stormie 00:49, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Treaty of Ghent

I saw you removed the treaty text from the article, because it belongs to Wikisource. Is this text already in the wikisource ? If yes, under what name ? I'll make a link to it. Lvr 14:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is in wikisource already or not, I don't go there often. All I know is that Wikipedia is not intended to be a repository for source documents. The text is easily available from the article's history or from any number of external sources if you want to place it in wikisource (if it is not already there). olderwiser 15:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wisconsin Towns and Villages

I stumbled randomly (literally) onto the page for Star Prairie (town), Wisconsin and I decided to switch it around with Star Prairie (village), Wisconsin, because the town is more populous than the village. Now that I have looked at it a little more, it looks like this may have been a mistake. It appears that the "town" in Wisconsin local government is something like the "town" of New England governments, i.e. more like the "township" in most states. I am additionally confused, however, because a website I found says that towns cover all the area of Wisconsin which is not part of a city or a village, but the Wikipedia article says that Star Priarie Village is partly located inside Star Prairie Town. Do you have any information which can clarify this? If my second thought is right, then I will move the village back to Star Priarie, Wisconsin. While we're at it, doesn't the disambiguation Star Prairie (town), Wisconsin look weird? Shouldn't the context parenthesis go at the end of the title? Do you know if this naming convention has been discussed? - Nat Krause 11:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More directly to the point than the below ramblings:
  1. Because towns were initially defined as geographical areas, many times cities and villages are located within a town (even though they may be politically independent). For larger cities, the location relative to nearby towns is mostly irrelevent (unless they share names). For small cities and villages, the surrounding towns are generally a much larger area and the relative locations of the entities are somewhat more significant.
  2. Yes, the village should be at Star Prairie, Wisconsin while I would move the town to Star Prairie, St. Croix County, Wisconsin (although you can leave it as is for now--I'll get to St. Croix County eventually).
  3. Yes, the disambiguation form of "Star Prairie (town), Wisconsin" does look odd, but thanks to Rambot, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of such article names. Despite the oddity, the form is at least familiar enough to those of us working through the Rambot articles--I would not advocate changing the disambiguation format at this point--especially since I am in the process of modifying all the Wisconsin towns to eliminate "(town)" in the title (see below).
Yes, the situation is rather confusing, to say the least. I think towns in Wisconsin are similar to towns in New England (although I'm not that familiar with the NE situation) and with Townships in Michigan and other midwestern states (which I am more familiar with). Basically way back when these states were unpopulated, the states set up counties to facilitate settlement (initially to provide some order for land sales and secondarily for governance). In many cases the counties were nothing more than lines drawn on a map until enough people moved in to organize a county government. It is much the same for towns and townships. Counties were subdivided into a number of towns/townships, usually of approximately equal area. These were first of all simply a system for land management. Only after sufficient people moved into an area would a town/township government be organized (it may be of interest to note that even today many towns/townships are technically unorganized, in that governmental functions are handled directly by the county--yet the Census Bureau still uses the divisions for statistical reporting and hence Rambot created articles for them which may give the impression that there is some organized government--unfortunately, I haven't found any resource that provides information about which towns/townships are organized and which are not). But I digress.
Back to your query, Cities and Villages are an entirely different form of local government, in which residents of a specific area incorporate to form the municipality. That is, counties and towns/townships are defined by the the legislature while cities and villages are largely self-determined entities. Cities are independent of the towns/townships they may lie within, while Villages may continue to receive some services from the township, but may also be just as independent as cities. In any case, there are often cities or villages with the same name as the town/township they are located in. The city or village is almost always the primary locality, even when the town may be more populous--the city or village will have a much greater population density. The town's population is usually spread across a larger area than the city or village.
So anyhow, what I have been doing is ALWAYS use the unqualified name for the city or village. So it would be the village of Star Prairie, Wisconsin while the town would be at Star Prairie, St. Croix County, Wisconsin. I have been adding the county to all Wisconsin town names because 1) they are in fact subdivision of the county and 2) there are often many towns with the same name while there is only one case where a village has the same name as a city. So the logic is that if it has the county name in it, it is a town and if it does not, then it is a city or village. Hope that helps. olderwiser 12:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I notice you have been doing a lot of moves of towns in Wisconsin, such as Seif, Wisconsin to Seif, Clark County, Wisoncsin. I read what you wrote above, but it is normal to only do this where there are two towns of the same name in the state. Basicly most people don't care what county a town is in, and doing this for all towns in the US would double the number of articles on those towns (there are tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of them). If we don't do them for all towns, then we are going to have different naming conventions for different states, which will be worse. DJ Clayworth 14:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how it would double the number of articles. Redirects, yes, but what is the problem with that? My main rationale for doing so is twofold--1) towns are in fact subdivisions of the county they are in. Unlike cities or villages a town's boundaries never cross county boundaries. 2) consistency (and this is what started me on this) the Category:Towns in Wisconsin was a hodge-podge of various naming conventions such as
  • Townname (town), Wisconsin
  • Townname (town), Countyname, Wisconsin
  • Townname, Wisconsin
  • Townname, Countyname, Wisconsin
  • And even Townname Town, Wisconsin (where "Town" was not part of the name of the town)
I felt that was rather confusing, besides being quite messy. You write "most people don't care what county a town is in" and I'd argue that most people really don't care about most towns at all--they are minor civil divisions and with a few exceptions are entirely unnotable. Towns are in fact inextricably linked to the county they are within. As for other states, I don't see any problem with handling it on a case by case basis since the actual status of towns varies considerably from state to state. olderwiser 14:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I understand the desire to bring uniformity in naming. But "Mytown, State" is really well-understood even outside the US. In the rest of Wikipedia this seems to be the norm, except when there is an ambiguity. So we would write "Mytown, Acounty, State" and "Mytown, Bcounty, State" if there are two of the same name, and write "Myplace (town), State" and "Myplace (county), State" where there is a town and county of the same name. DJ Clayworth 15:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Um, actually in no case that I am aware of would you ever use "Myplace (county), State", even where there are cities, villages or towns with the same name. It is always "Countyname County, State". My point is that (at least in Wisconsin), towns are a secondary division of the county. In general, most people are largely unaware of their existence. The way in which Rambot generated these articles from U.S. Census data has, IMO, given the towns inordinate prominence. They are an entirely different type of municipality from cities and villages with extremely limited powers of governance. They are quite simply divisions of a county and my naming scheme reflects that. In cases where there is no ambiguity, Myplace, State will redirect to Myplace, County, State and there is no problem. In cases where there is a city/village with the same name, Myplace, State will go to the city/village because that is what most people will be looking for (try the postal service zip code lookup--in ever case I tried, and I've tried quite a few, Myplace, State will list the zip code for the city/village and not the town). Where there is ambiguity, there are notes indicating the existence of the other entity. In cases where there are multiple towns with the same name, the disambiguation is at Myplace, State (or at Myplace (town), State, if there is a city/village with the same name) and again notes to indicate the existence of the other entities. olderwiser 15:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I will change back the Star Prairie entries, or at least, the entry for the village actually, I can't move the village back to Star Prairie, Wisconsin, but at least I changed the redirect. I'm not sure about your plan of having the towns all at Townname, Countyname, Wisconsin. It seems like that will produce some ambiguity in situations where there is a town and a village of the same name both in the same county. I don't see what's wrong with Townname Town, Countyname, Wisconsin. One doesn't write Madison City, Wisconsin, but one does write Dane County, Wisconsin or Jefferson Township, Illinois and since Wisconsin towns are more like counties than like cities, Star Prairie Town, Wisconsin sounds right to me. - Nat Krause 14:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That would be reasonable, except most of the towns refer to themselves as "Town of Townname" rather than "Townname Town" and I understand that generally reflects local usage as well (although, confusingly, some also refer to them as townships). As for the cases where there is a city/village with same name as a town in the same county--in most cases, people will be looking for the city/village, which will have the unqualified name and I am adding notes to both the city/village and town articles pointing out the existence of the other entity. I mean, for many people, having "(town)" or "(city)" or "(village)" in the title really doesn't help all that much since many people, even in the U.S., are oblivious to the distinctions between cities, towns, and villages. They're likely to be looking for a locality named X and don't particularly care whether it is a city, village or town. The only place I'm not too happy with the arrangement at this time is with how the list appears in the County Category, where the cities, villages and towns comingle. I'm thinking that it may be useful to place the towns in a subcategory of the county, something like Category:Towns in Adams County, Wisconsin.
Hmmm, in formal situations, to take an Illinois example, Cook County refers to itself as "County of Cook", but we still have the wikipedia article at Cook County, Illinois. Of course, that does reflect everyday usage, which you also brought up. Town of Star Prairie, St. Croix County, Wisconsin, maybe? Not that it's important. And you're right that, in an ideal world, the county entries would separate out towns from cities and villages. - Nat Krause 17:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Although naming the articles "Town of X" would solve some problems, it'd probably make sorted lists (especially the automatically sorted categories) kind of ugly. I'm still not sure about creating subcategories for towns under the county, since that would involve some redundancy--I'd still want every town to also appear in Category:Towns in Wisconsin and the county subcategories should probably also be included in that category, resulting in recursion, which some people really dislike in categories. FWIW, I am slowly sorting out the cities, villages and towns as listed on the county articles. For example, see Clark County, Wisconsin or any of the counties starting with A or B. olderwiser 17:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spring Arbor, Michigan

As a life-long resident of Spring Arbor, I have an accurate understanding as to what the community is. I have been attempting to compile the history of the community, but every time I make the corrections my work is reverted to the previous inaccurate articles. Spring Arbor is a township and the downtown area along M-60 is a downtown development area as established by township ordinance. This area was never a community in itself, nor does it resemble a village. It is designated as a CDP by the Census bureau for statistical purposes, but the boundaries do not match the DDA and do not include all of Spring Arbor.

Before 1858, a Village of Spring Arbour had been planned along what is now Hammond and Cross roads, however the Free Will Baptists moved to what is now Hillsdale College and the development fell apart. There are no buildings remaining in this area, but there is a small park next to my first house that was established in 1992. Sadly, most of the historical buildings in Spring Arbor have either burned or have been torn down.

The property owned by the college included several hundred acres of farmland and in 1887 the Free Methodists bought this property and established a seminary along M-60. The seminary eventually became a High School, then a Junior College, then a College and three years ago a University. The area around what is now the University began to develop as Spring Arbor transformed from a farm community to a mixture of suburban and rural residents. However, this development did not occur until the early 1960s and many of the housing developments were not centred in a single area of the township, which is why they are scattered at various points in the township.

The downtown area along M-60, however is unique in that it is the only area that had grown with a grocery store, post office, three restaurants, two banks and other commercial areas. Last year a small shopping centre was built just east of the area designated by the Census bureau as a CDP as have several new housing developments.

The DDA does not include most of the housing developments but does include the university and its housing, the commercial establishments along M-60, continuing along to Emerson Road. a second Development Area known as "King's Point" exists between Moscow Road eastward to the town line.

Now, hopefully some of the confusion about my corrections to articles will allow me to continue adding information about the community without interference from users who do not come from Spring Arbor and who do not have the basic knowledge necessary to contribute to the articles.

Townships, Charter Townships and CDPs

I plan on putting the township information at Spring Arbor Township, Michigan. What I am attempting to do (when it is complete) is put all information about Spring Arbor at "Spring Arbor, Michigan" The demographics and geographical information for the township and the CDP will be placed on their respective pages with direct links from Spring Arbor, Michigan.

Spring Arbor is a community, not a CDP. The CDP is a statistical designation, and the information associated with it should be appropriately posted at the page for the CDP, with a link from Spring Arbor, Michigan.

Please do not make changes to my articles while I am attempting to compile as much information about my community as possible. After I will have completed the information, I'll be sure to make a posting on your talk page so that you can make the necessary adjustments for standardization.

Inasmuch as I appreciate you taking the time to establish articles about the various communities in Michigan, I noticed that you do not actually write anything about the communities, but instead merely post the CDPs as the community itself with the Census information. As a life-long resident of Spring Arbor, and an active participant in community life and local government, I can accurately state that the CDP was created by request of the township for statistical purposes to track growth in the area immediately surrounding what is now the University. If you would like to verify this information, a copy of the request is on record in the Spring Arbor Archives and I'm sure the Census also has a copy.

Again, I appreciate your contributions, but to assume that CDPs are separate communities without accurately researching why they were established will mislead readers of the articles. The CDP information belongs on Wikipedia and I have created a page for that information: "Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP)." "Spring Arbor, Michigan" will have a direct link to the CDP article in the demographics section. I will also add a Spring Arbor, Michigan (disambiguation) page to clarify the differences between each article.

As for the difference between Townships and Charter Townships, I would ask that you please read the official names of those municipalities, their legal framework, origin of authority, et cetera. Charter Townships are incorporated units of government organized under the Charter Township Act of 1947, unlike Townships which are not incorporated but are instead organized under statute. contains all of the Michigan Compiled Laws and it is available free of charge to anyone. Chapters 41 and 42 are the two sections governing the two units of government.


Thanks for making the wording in Village and Political subdivisions of New York State more precise. I can see how the previous wording, for whch I think I may be at least partly responsible, might lead to confusion and misinformation.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 12:57, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I agree about local governments. I am fascinated by articles on local govermnet areas in England, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what the heck they've done. As I side note, being a native of Westchester County, New York (but in Brooklyn now), I am taking it upon myself to fix a screw-up by the bot wherein many hamlets/communities/CDPs have been incorrectly designated as towns. I think this happened through New York state.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 13:27, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)


Good catch on the missing s on the museum's name. I am afraid I have to admit I started the worng spelling a year and a half ago. And I had a museum brochure sitting on my computer desk the whole time. Oops. Rmhermen 13:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Great Miami as a Boundary

Thanks for defining the Treaty of Greenville Line. I have this stuff in one of my commonplace books, but didn't have it at hand. Glad to know you did.
Ohio history, especially regarding southwestern Ohio, is one of my interests and if I can help you out, please let me know. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 20:10, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


All due credit goes to one Charles C. Royce. Good times: Indian land cessions in the United States, comp. by Charles C. Royce, with introduction by Cyrus Thomas: Map image gallery + USGenWeb Digital Archives Map Project: Indian Land Cessions in the United States

Valid point about category for CDP 03:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC): Thanks for the message. What I think is really needed is a per-state category for artificially-defined communities which exist only for census purposes. That's a significantly smaller subset of all places that the Census Bureau calls a CDP. For example, West Side Highway, Washington, and Garden Home-Whitford, Oregon, to name just two.


Thanks for noticing my error on removing the link--I looked at the link, then the URL, then the link THREE TIMES just to be sure. Arrgh. Must have been too late to be editing anything. --NathanHawking 20:53, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)


The type of spelling officially recognised in China is that of British English, no doubt stemming from the fact that Britain ran Hong Kong for a hundred years. I don't believe that though is pertinent (is it?) Nicholas 22:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Only if China were primarily an English-speaking country. In this case, I think the relevant guidelines are to be internally consistent within the article and to respect the original author's preference. Not that I really care all that much, but I did notice that some of the other space programme articles were originally spelled as "program" and were later renamed. Seems those snuck in under the radar of anyone who cared at the time. olderwiser 22:21, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

ersatz obscurantist?

What exactly did I say that was less than clear for you? I will admit to being intentionally vague at times, but only out of concern for NPOV, and to maintain a focus on the article, rather than the POV's of individual editors. I have to say I think you either caught me in an off moment, or perhaps you have a particularly unusual way of interpreting others, because I've never been described in such a way. Usually the problem others have with me is due to their reading too much into what I'm saying, or simply being offended by what I have said, or who I am (or who they think I am). This obscurantist stuff strikes me as significantly off the mark, and I'd love to clear things up if at all possible. Sam [Spade] 22:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My reply can be found here. P.s. I think older does = wiser, at least in the case on an individual. For example, a random 30yr old may well be wiser than a random 50yr old, but the same individual will necessarilly be wiser at age 50 than at age 30, outside of extreme brain trauma, mental ailment, etc.. I know I'm wiser now than I was 10 yrs ago! Cheers, Sam [Spade] 12:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Peacock/weasel terms

Both have notices to the effect that they are disputed at the end of the article (or at least they did as of yesterday), and both have extensive discussion and voting on their respective talk pages. Kwertii 21:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They used to be at the top, but the pro-weasel/peacock term contingent insisted on moving them to the bottom, and I didn't feel like arguing about it. Please feel free to move them back to the top - I think they ought to be there, too. Kwertii 02:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hi, Bkonrad. I'm up for adminship again, in case you want to vote. Warmest regards, [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:01, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

North American Man-Boy Love Association

Would you please sanction user:Corax who abuses Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association to fill it with propaganda about the harmlessness of child abuse, accuses me of sexual hysteria, and asks me to see a therapist. Get-back-world-respect 13:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fort de Chartres

Fort de Chartres is a location as well as a structure. C.f. Fort Randall, South Dakota, which I originally entered without the state but someone else later moved to its current name. There is at least one other article with a link to Fort de Chartres, Illinois, and the combination of these two is what made me change the link.

I am visiting Fort de Chartres this weekend and will be taking some pictures and hope to have time to write an article for it soon thereafter. --Kbh3rd 21:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Visited, photographed, and wrote. See Fort de Chartres and feel free to improve. I may change the picture. --Kbh3rd 12:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nick Biddle

I did the disambig changes for Nicholas Biddle (had always planned to, but thanks for the reminder). We could argue about what "more notable" means. Certainly few in the Navy care about a banker, but I suspect the same can be said for the financial world caring about a naval officer. Regards. Jinian 17:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing WP:RfC

The deletion was definitely inadvertant; in fact, I'm still not sure how it happened -- I know I hit the wrong button at the wrong time, while a save was already in progress, but how that worked out to saving the version I wanted, and then saving over it a page with massive deletions to sections I didn't even touch -- I have no idea.

I tried to fix it myself but had no luck, it kept telling me that the version I was trying to go back to couldn't be found in the database. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Toledo War issues

See Talk:Toledo War

Fort Miami

Thanks for cleaning it up Jeff Knaggs 14:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)