Talk:Green Bay, Wisconsin

Template:GreenBayPackersProject

Photos

How come no pictures of lambeau field? Or maybe mention that Schneider National is HQ'd out of there. Just seems relevant.

Anyone have any photos of the city to add to the article? HollyAm 17:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What kind of pics would work well? While I don't get up there real often (living in Chicago area now), I could possibly get some shots of the city. Jachim69 03:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I threw in a pic of Heritage Hill State Park in the History section, but that's pretty much the only pic I have of Green Bay. -Nick 04:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, anyone know how to get the extra row & column out of the infobox? -Nick 04:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Tomer^talk 00:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, man! :) -Nick 00:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

np. :-) Tomer^talk 00:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Recent National News

Should mention be made of the recent arrests of two East High students who were plotting a Columbine-like attack [1] 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 would oppose such mention since Wikipedia is WP:NOT Wikinews, and I tend to think articles already have a presentist bias. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a good point. --Caen 13:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nick Mortensen

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.

24.208.27.103 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Aaron 6.25.2007

Great Wisconsin Fire

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)

Peshtigo Fire, nevermind. Sorry. IvoShandor 08:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Preble, Wisconsin

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)

Notable residents section.

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.

Thoughts? Carbondate (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

== 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. 82.41.26.17 (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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)

• Green Bay → Green Bay (disambiguation)

• 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. Powers ^T 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 a subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for its most common name, then its title should be that name, period, regardless of what some specific guideline says in contradiction to WP:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

  • 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. Powers ^T 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)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLE. Policy should generally take precedence over guidelines. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The WP:TITLE policy explicitly allows for more specific guidelines to take precedence. Powers ^T 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)
• Oppose Per WP:NCGN#United States. This is the wrong forum to propose a change in the guidelines. --Mhockey (talk) 15:04, 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. [2][3]--Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues here:

1. 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.
2. 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 Beback  talk  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... 65.94.46.54 (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)