Talk:Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin

Requested move

{{subst:movereq}}

Eureka, Wisconsin → Town of Eureka, Wisconsin — This page should be retitled to Town of Eureka, Wisconsin. See reference: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=154:3:3619208266072106::NO:3:P3_FID,P3_TITLE:1583176%2CTown%20of%20Eureka.

It doesn't have a zip code as does Eureka in Winnebago County. It is not a town/city/village that is located on a map as the TRUE Eureka is found. See reference: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=154:3:616868987935035::NO:3:P3_FID,P3_TITLE:1564708%2CEureka

Here are the GNIS search results for Eureka, Wisconsin: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=154:2:4330716965080315::NO:RP::

Note: Town of Eureka is designated Civil - A political division formed for administrative purposes (borough, county, incorporated place, municipio, parish, town, township). Distinct from Census and Populated Place. Class Code Description: Active Minor Civil Divisions. An active county subdivision that is not coextensive with an incorporated place.

Note: Eureka is designated Populated Place - Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes.

• Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin → Eureka, Wisconsin

Eurekanative (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things, looking at the situation:

1. I'm not clear that Town of Eureka is the formal styling for the town name, even on second references. It would be hard to demonstrate as, for example, I don't expect there to be a Town of Eureka High School. Accordingly, I disagree with the retitling.
2. Second, it's not clear that the Winnebago County community is the primary meaning of Eureka, Wisconsin. It's the lesser developed of the two articles, so it's not surprising that it has the secondary name.
3. The best approach might be to move the current Eureka, Wisconsin to Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin, leaving the Eureka, Wisconsin title as a disambiguation page, pointing to the two separate articles.

In any case, I think the move is controversial, and I think starting a move discussion on Talk:Eureka, Wisconsin would be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the OFFICIAL web page for Town of Eureka: http://townofeureka.org/ They distinguish their name to be Town of Eureka. Quote: "The Town is a quiet rural setting with no incorporated villages or cities within its boundaries." They have a Town Board, a Town Garage, hold Town meetings, and have a Town Hall. Their board minutes are titled: TOWN OF EUREKA Monthly Board Meeting. Their agendas are titled: TOWN OF EUREKA Monthly Board Meeting. This clearly demonstrates they are a "township" not a village or city easily identified on a road map. St. Croix Falls, WI 54024 is where their Town Hall and Town Garage are located.

Whereas, Eureka, Winnebago County is an unincorporated village within the Town of Rushford and easily identified on a road map. The Town of Rushford does not call itself Rushford. It calls itself Town of Rushford. That is what it is. Here is its website: http://townofrushford.org/ When addressing US Mail the address of the Winnebago County Eureka is: Eureka, WI 54934. There is an official Federal Post Office called Eureka Post Office in Winnebago County. There is the Eureka Dam, the Eureka Locks, the Eureka Mill, the Eureka Cemetery, etc.

There is a clear factual distinction between the two locations and they should be labeled appropriately. I don't see the controversy. There is ONE Eureka, Wisconsin and ONE Town of Eureka, Wisconsin.

Eurekanative (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

However, the Town of Eureka website refers to the "Eureka Farmer's Market," not the "Town of Eureka Farmer's Market." Based on that, I don't think it's clear that Town of Eureka is the name for all second references. Accordingly, it still appears to be Eureka for naming purposes. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The government of the community calls itself by its legal name, Town of Eureka. The Eureka Farmer's Market is not a government entity. When I look things up, I want to know the truthful facts. It shouldn't matter that one page has more content than another. The content should be correct, not on the second reference, but on the first. Is this Wikipedia concerned with more content versus truth? Here is the Wisconsin statute: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0060.pdf See: Subchapter II Legal Status; Organization 60.01 Legal status; general powers. (1) A town is a body corporate and politic, with those powers granted by law. A town shall be designated in all actions and proceedings by its name, as “Town of ....”. Eurekanative (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi-I notice this discussion about renaming the Eureka, Wisconsin article. This would be impractical in that all of the articles of the Wisconsin towns would be renamed also. This could affect other articles involving municipalities in other states. I agree with C. Fred the disambiguation is the best solution. Thank you-RFD (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that the focus of the Wikipedia is not on truthfulness and facts based on the law.

If there is to be a disambiguous solution, then possibly a compromise of C.Fred's suggestion is appropriate. I would not argue with having the Eureka, Wisconsin article point to two separate articles with nothing else on that page. I would still, however, argue that those two linking articles be titled properly... Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin and Town of Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin. All references to Eureka in the Polk County article need to be accurately changed to Town of Eureka. To have anything less is unsatisfactory.

Most townships are adjacent to cities with the same name in Wisconsin. Town of Neenah is adjacent to Neenah. Town of Oshkosh is adjacent to Oshkosh, etc. To most people in those locations, there isn't much need to show differentiation. In this case, however, Eureka and Town of Eureka are hundreds of miles apart. My friends look up Eureka, Wisconsin on Wikipedia and think I live near the Minnesota border, when I actually live on the east side of Wisconsin closer to Lake Michigan. Thank you! Eurekanative (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Pardon a 3rd party butting in here, but I think I see part of the problem. A Wisconsin "Town" is roughly equivalent to what is known as a Township (United States) elsewhere. However I fail to find any Wisconsin "Town" articles titled in the manner of "Town of Foo" (Foo being a generic name). I did find a few articles where a town shared the same name as another municipality, and these were titled Brookfield (town), Wisconsin, Germantown, Washington County, Wisconsin, Winter (town), Wisconsin, etc, with the "(town)" disambiguator being used where the 2 entities coexisted in the same location (with either the town or city/village containing the other), and the "__,Foo County, __" disambiguator used where the 2 entities were geographically separated. In this case, with the (Wikipedia) precedents noted above, the obvious solution to me would be exactly as described by C.Fred above, by "(moving) the current Eureka, Wisconsin to Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin, leaving the Eureka, Wisconsin title as a disambiguation page, pointing to the two separate articles." I also feel this discussion should be moved to the articles talk page, instead of continuing to being discussed in "back channels" here. WuhWuzDat 05:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for moving this conversation. It's confusing, however, that comments within this discussion are being deleted.

In a deleted comment, Skinsmoke said, "Wouldn't a town have precedence over an unincorporated community in those naming conventions when determining the primary meaning of the name, suggesting that no change is necessary?" The answer to that is NO. Wikipedia's guidelines say to follow AP naming conventions. AP naming conventions use the GNIS database as their resource when citing names, designating "census designated places" priority. Again see: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=154:2:4330716965080315::NO:RP Google also uses those same conventions. These 2 locations are nearly 5 hours driving distance apart. See: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Eureka,+Wi&daddr=St.+Croix+Falls,+WI&hl=en&geocode=FUp0nwIdzWG0-indlj9oN1kBiDHjRz1suEAgVg%3BFWjutAIdV3F6-imBMQ8CuJqyUjG8B8fgo5LXrw&mra=ls&sll=44.229457,-86.506348&sspn=5.895801,14.27124&ie=UTF8&ll=44.933696,-91.279907&spn=2.912571,7.13562&z=8

These are 2 very distinct locations, with distinct names. Each place deserves to be respected as such. The people that live in the Town of Eureka don't address their mail Eureka, Wisconsin. They are a rural township. They use St. Croix Falls, Osceola, or other nearby city/town post office to which they are zoned as their Federal address.

Eureka, Wisconsin article should represent Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin primarily (a census designated place). If there is to be a disambiguating hatnote, that hatnote should be for the Town of Eureka, Polk County. Come on people! Stop the confusion! I wanted to add data to the Eureka, Wisconsin article. It's a small town but not insignificant as Wikipedia would have it be. It's rich with history and important to the people that reside in it.

Common sense dictates that my argument is correct. Pull out your Atlas and look up Eureka, Wisconsin. Do a Zip Code search for Eureka, Wisconsin. Google map Eureka, Wisconsin. All of those primary sources of information will lead you to Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin.

Wikipedia's title page calls itself the free "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit.

Definitions of encyclopedia on the Web:

• a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty

Why not empower everyone with the correct knowledge and keep it special, as these 2 communities are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurekanative (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 17:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In your previous comment, you said,

I wanted to add data to the Eureka, Wisconsin article.

So do it! Add data about the community in Polk County to the article currently titled Eureka, Wisconsin. Or add data about the community in Winnebago County to Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin. Nobody's stopping you from adding the data. If anything, adding some good data backed up by reliable sources could boost your argument that the Winnebago County community is the primary target. But since there seems to be some dispute about whether and to what the articles should be moved, they're staying put, for at least a week. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I had to revert the good faith edit of Eurekanative. There are no townships in Wisconsin just towns. This is constitutionally defined within the Wisconsin constitution. Also such a change would have to be extended to other articles about Wisconsin towns. I also want to restate my comment that User: C. Fred is correct about the use of diisambiguation for Eureka, Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I support the notion that the title "Eureka, Wisconsin" should be given to the community in Winnebago County. The primary reason is that the USPS does recognize Eureka, WI as an address and that refers to the Winnebago community, not the town in Polk County. As postal addresses skew other sources heavily towards that particular usage, most references outside Wikipedia actually refer to the Winnebago community rather than the Polk town. It does seem that many of the edits to the town article are indeed confused about which is which. Move the community (which also happens to be a CDP) to the base name and move the town to some other name as this is the most common usage. --Polaron | Talk 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Revised move proposal

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: Already done Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Eureka, Wisconsin → Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin — Move this page to a disambiguated title, then turn Eureka, Wisconsin from a redirect into a disambiguation page

While I agree with the principle of Eurekanative's move proposal, I have two major concerns with it, that this revised proposal corrects. The first is that, per WP:PLACE, the preferred disambiguator in US place names is the county where the community is located. Further, the established convention is that the legal status of the community is not part of the article title. This is for the ease of the reader/searcher, primarily: Falls Church, Virginia, is easier to find than Independent city of Falls Church, Virginia; Cary, North Carolina is easier to find than buried in a list of "Town of"s as Town of Cary, North Carolina.

Second, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states that "Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other." Looking at the articles, I don't think the case can be made that one article or the other is much more likely to be the intended target. Accordingly, the preferred procedure is to have a disambiguation page listing the commonly-named targets. Accordingly, I would put a disambiguation page up in the place of this article, pointing to both it and Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin.

I debated about making this move boldly, but I think some discussion is in order because it's a counter-proposal to the one above. However, if Eurekanative and RFD agree with this proposal, I may go ahead and move the pages early. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Then this proposal means creating a two-way disambiguation page? No vote as yet. Andrewa (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because I feel that's a better solution than trying to pick one as the primary topic. —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Borderline... Google [1] [2] more than 2:1 in favour of the Polk county locality, which is unsurprising as it has ten times the population. Still no vote from me. Andrewa (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with C. Fred's idea. You can also do this: Eureka (town), Polk County, Wisconsin which is the name convention and has been use in many Wisconsin town articles. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's nonstandard per WP:PLACE and would only be necessary if there was more than one Eureka in Polk County with an article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If a disambiguation page is the only way Wikipedia will resolve this issue, then so be it. I don't like it but it's better than the current article arrangement. I however, have to insist that

1. Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin be listed first on the disambiguation page. This location is known by one name only, Eureka.
2. "Town of Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin" or "Eureka(township), Polk County, Wisconsin" be the name of the article for Eureka, Polk County. Town of Eureka is a geographic division of Polk County not an incorporated city, town or village.

What is most "common" for the Town of Eureka, Polk County community?

• They commonly see a Entering the Town of Eureka sign when entering on the roadway. (not Eureka, WI sign)
• Town hall meetings are held in St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin. (not Eureka, WI)
• The town garage is in St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin. (not Eureka, WI)
• They visit their website, TownOfEureka.org, titled Eureka Township-Polk County. (not Eureka, WI)
• It is common and lawful in Wisconsin to call townships " Town of ...". (not Eureka, WI)
• Polk County polling place for Town of Eureka is in St. Croix, Falls. (not Eureka, WI)
• Office of the Town Clerk is in Centuria, Wisconsin. (not Eureka, WI)
• GNIS recognizes its name to be Town of Eureka. It is classified, Civil, distinct from Census and Populated Place. An Active Minor Civil Division. An active county subdivision that is not coextensive with an incorporated place. (not Eureka, WI)

I know I'm belaboring my point, but the distinctions need to be made. It would be rational(disambiguous) to believe that the Polk County geographic division is called Town of Eureka based on factual history, federal and state laws, published articles, local visuals and landmarks, GNIS data, AP conventions, etc. Students doing research for history classes, historians, or everyday people should be given factual information in each article. It would be a shame if educators could not rely on the information provided by the Wikipedia.

Another point: There is also a Eureka Center, Wisconsin with the zip code of 54024. It is located within the Town of Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin. It doesn't have a Wiki article yet. If it did, it should be listed on the disambiguation page also. This example, to me, represents a realistic situation where disambiguation would be necessary. Here we have similarly named communities in the same county, one being geographically located within the other. Eurekanative (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• I Support the move from Eureka, Wisconsin to Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin but Oppose the creation of a disambiguation page. We don't normaly create disambig pages for only two articles. Eureka, Wisconsin should likely redirect toEureka, Polk County, Wisconsin with both pages containing hat notes.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support this solution, noting that an article at Eureka Center would still not require creation of a DAB page. Andrewa (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

{{subst:Talkback|Eurekanative}} Category:Towns_in_Wisconsin uses 2 different methods to name towns in Wisconsin. (Towns being subdivisions of counties.)

1. name, county, state, i.e. Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin - used when multiple counties have "towns" with the same name
2. name(town), state, i.e. Eureka(town), Wisconsin - used when a city, village, or census designated place has the same name

Category:Census-designated places in Wisconsin uses 2 different methods to name census designated places in Wisconsin.

1. name, state, i.e. Eureka, Wisconsin
2. name(CDP), i.e. Eureka(CDP), Wisconsin

The Polk County Eureka is a town. It's title should be moved one of these names:

1. Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin
2. Eureka(town), Wisconsin - This meets the Wikipedia naming method in this situation.

The Winnebago County Eureka is a census designated place with an official federally recognized name. It is NOT a town. It is NOT a subdivision of a county. It is a community with the Town of Rushford. It's title should be moved one of these names:

1. Eureka, Wisconsin
2. Eureka(CDP), Wisconsin

Eurekanative (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Wouldn't it be more logical to have the word order Eureka, Wisconsin (Polk County)? "Eureka, Wisconsin" is the term you are trying to disambiguate and disambiguation terms are generally to the right of the term being disambiguated. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, WP:PLACE is explicit that when disambiguation is needed, it should be in the form of municipality, county, state, so Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin is the arrangement that is specified in the naming guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Polk County Eureka needs a "town" designator. Town of Eureka, Wisconsin follows the naming convention required of towns by Wisconsin Statutes but that is a discussion for Category:Towns_in_Wisconsin. What is at issue here is that one is a "town" and one is a "census designated place". For now, their titles should be moved to conform to Wikipedia's present conventions. I have not found another Town of Eureka in any county other than Polk. So following Wikipedia's naming system, it should be moved to Eureka(town), Wisconsin. Winnebago County should be dropped from the other Eureka. Eurekanative (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It needs a "town" designator? That implies that the town is an utterly inseparable part of the name, like Salt Lake City, Utah. I've yet to see anything that refers to the "town of Town of Eureka" or anything else that implies it's an integral part of the name. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What I meant as a town designator for the Polk County Eureka:

• Eureka (town), Polk County, Wisconsin (as suggested by RFD)
• Eureka (town), Wisconsin (Category:Towns_in_Wisconsin) Eurekanative (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Disambiguation by county seems more appropriate. Inserting parenthesis disambiguation in the middle of the name is awkward, to say the least. Quoting from WP:PLACE (recognizing there is still some naming debate going on there) "Those places that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina)." Seems pretty clear direction to me.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Common use and widely accepted name

In WP:Place, When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. Widely accepted by the article writers or widely accepted by the population of the geographic place?

In Wisconsin, in modern and historic context, it is widely accepted that “towns” are called “Town of name”. Outside of Wisconsin in the U.S., “Town of name” is also the widely accepted name. I’ve previously cited several local, state and federal sources including GNIS, local municipality web site, Wisconsin Statutes, and historic literature. Here is a January 14, 2011 Chicago Tribune, AP, article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-deadcows-wisconsi,0,588933.story. Town of Stockton, Wisconsin is clearly identified.

It is common to use "Town of ..." in everyday conversation to refer to a location. Here in Winnebago County, there is Neenah and Town of Neenah, Menasha and Town of Menasha, Oshkosh and Town of Oshkosh. The Town of Clayton is outside of Neenah. Town of Clayton's postal address is Neenah, WI. If a local person asks another local person from the Town of Clayton where they live and they will tell them they live in the Town of Clayton. If they live in the Town of Menasha, they will say Town of Menasha. They are separate and distinct. Outside of Wisconsin, if someone from Tennessee asked the Town of Clayton resident where he was from, he would say Neenah, Wisconsin because Neenah can be found on a map. He would NOT say Clayton because Clayton is a city in totally different region of the state.

Joe Shmoe lives at 555 Oakwood Avenue, Neenah, WI 54956. A fire destroys his home. The local newspaper, The Post Crescent, will report that a home was destroyed in the Town of Clayton. Everyone here will know where that is. That is it's "widely accepted name".

The sources I’ve referenced clearly identify that the common name of towns in Wisconsin is “Town of name”.

I actually find it aggressive of Wikipedia to arbitrarily rename Wisconsin towns. I don’t see any neutrality. Widely accepted modern and historic use of the common name “Town of name” is precise and disambiguates on its own.

• Eureka, Wisconsin
• Town of Eureka, Wisconsin

Isn’t that “easier” than having to add the county name and/or (town)? It will eventually happen that multiple counties have a town that shares a name. That is when the county should be added to disambiguate. Using Clayton and Town of Clayton as examples:

• Clayton, Wisconsin
• Town of Clayton, Polk County, Wisconsin
• Town of Clayton, Winnebago, Wisconsin

Eurekanative (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Create articles named "Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin" and "Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin" and have a disambiguation page to link both of them. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of towns, villages, and cities with the same names in Wisconsin as it is extremely common for a town and a city/village/unincorporated community to have the same name within its borders. I photographed the community in Winnebago county just a few months ago so I am knowledgeable about this situation. "Town of name" breaks the very well-established naming convention which has shown widespread consensus for many years and I have very strong opposition to that suggestion. For example, how else could we deal with Freedom, Wisconsin with four governmental units with the same name? "Town of name" is not specific enough. Otherwise someone else can track down the thousands of renames needed to break a system that is working well. I can't imagine how long it would take to completely redo a system this complex and I know it's not worth the time investment of probably hundreds of hours of manual labor. This situation and another similar one has been consistently coming up over the past 5 years by people who don't understand the difference between towns, villages, and cities in Wisconsin. (Not saying that Eurkanative doesn't understand this situation). I have created a thread at WikiProject Wisconsin to get the Wisconsin Wikipedians into this discussion as our group is very familiar with these situations. Royalbroil 05:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to volunteer time to rename articles.

• One major problem with the current naming convention is inconsistency. In the current system, "town" articles are to be titled either TownName, County, State OR TownName (town), State. I've already explained that Winnebago County Eureka is NOT a "town" and Polk County Eureka IS a "town". To be consistent with the current system the articles should be titled "Eureka, Wisconsin" and "Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin". A hatnote on Eureka, Wisconsin pointing to Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin seems appropriate. Eurekanative (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not the current naming convent. And I knew that we were talking about a town versus and unincorporated community. How about we use the word municipality to encompass city, village, unincorporated community, or town. The convent is municipality name, State. If that's not unique, then it's either a) municipality, county, wisconsin or b) municipality (municipality type), Wisconsin if a) is not unique. For example Oshkosh, Wisconsin and Oshkosh (town), Wisconsin. Precedence is given for city & village over towns. Towns and unincorporated communities are given equal precedence. So I'm commenting that both the town & community should be given equal precedence which is why there should be a disambiguation page at Eureka, Wisconsin. I definite agree with you that the town should not be give precedence over the community. Royalbroil 13:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm also willing to agree that the town should not get precedence over the community. Looking at the two articles, it would be easy to argue that it should get precedence: Eureka,Winnebago is incorporated; Eureka,Polk is not. E,W has a population over ten times the population of E,P. However, I'm willing to accept that the average reader might not be looking for one over the other on a consistent basis. That's why I'm proposing the disambiguation page: then, anybody who goes to Eureka, Wisconsin will get to choose. If you mean the town in western Wisconsin, go here. If you mean the community in eastern/central Wisconsin, go here instead. That's more helpful to the reader than winding up on the page of one when they thought they were going to the other. —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose; per WP:TWODABS the bar for determining a primary topic between two possible articles is much much lower than it is when there are more than two options. As such, the incorporated community seems to be marginally more widely sought than the unincorporated one, and so it should stay at the base name. It's silly to have a disambiguation page for two items unless both items are absolutely indistinguishable in notability and importance. Powers ^T 17:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin is an unincorporated comunity within the town of Rushford, Winnebago County, Wisconsin. The town of Eureka in Polk County is one of many Wisconsin towns whose existence is mandated by the Wisconsin Constitution. See Wisconsin Constitution Aticle IV, section 23 and Article XI, section 3. Thank you-RFD (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What bearing does that have on my recommendation? Powers ^T 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The terms incorporated communities and unincorporated communities are being used interchangeably in this discussion and that is causing confusion. Also I wanted to bring up the constitutional references to Wisconsin towns in case someone needs to look this up. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take into consideration other commonly used look-up services such as National Association of Realtors at realtor.com. Consider the national weather service at weather.com. Consider the US Post Office. Consider map services such as Mapquest.com. Plan a trip at AAA.com. Enter Eureka, WI as search criteria. Looking up Eureka, Wisconsin will bring you to the one in Winnebago. The most widely accepted use of Eureka, WI refers to the one in Winnebago County. Please consider that more than the average reader references Wikipedia. Other look-up sites frequently quote Wikipedia data. The starting point is the zip code. 54934 zip code refers to Eureka, Wisconsin which is in Winnebago County. At present, incorrect data about Winnebago County Eureka is being published across the internet. The end result of all of this discussion should be providing accurate information to the intended target. Primary focus should be given to Winnebago County Eureka. If the final consensus is a disambiguation page, please list Winnebago County Eureka first. Eurekanative (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Eurekanative that the unincorporated community should be listed higher than the town. For background to people not from Wisconsin, the Political subdivisions of Wisconsin is a MUST read. LtPower's comment doesn't make sense in this context. A town is not the same as a city or village. It's the rural land in a separate government unit outside of the cities and villages. Towns are not incorporated. Unincorporated communities are governed by the town that their in. However, unincorporated communities like the one in Winnebago County sometimes have their own zip code. I generally consider unincorporated communities to be equally or maybe slightly more important that towns. A reader is probably more likely to be searching for the community than the town. There are plenty of disambiguation pages for 2 uses and Wikipedia:Disambiguation says that's what should be done with no clear primary topic. Royalbroil 05:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected; townships are incorporated in New York; I didn't realize they were unincorporated in Wisconsin. Nonetheless, I still say a disambiguation page is unnecessary; one article or the other should be primary. Powers ^T 12:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For the reader's ease of use on disambiguation pages, I suggest the zip code be listed behind the article name. It's another way of clearly identifying one from the other. It certainly will help prevent mixing information of multiple locations by those that republish Wikipedia data on their sites. Eurekanative (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• We haven't reached a consensus and edits are being made. Changing the name to Eureka(CDP)is totally contrary to Wikipedia's ease of use. That just confuses it more than it is already. It's been stated repeatedly that Wikipedia doesn't necessarily use "official names". Facebook Wikipedia has Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin categorized as "Interest".  ????? It is impossible to make Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin my hometown or current city on Facebook. Facebook Eureka, Wisconsin refers to Polk County and has it categorized as a "City". It is not a city. Eurekanative (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

CDP (Census-designated Place) has no bearing. Please see What is a Census-Designated Place? for a clear explanation. Determining that a location should be treated as a Census-designated place does not confer any legal status, with the term being used primarily for the convenience of the Census. CDP refers to an Unincorporated Community, a populated (community) place. In the broad sense, "city" refers to the populated place, community. Facebook is another prime example of why the article for Winnebago County Eureka should be Eureka, Wisconsin with a hatnote to Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin. Eurekanative (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment One thing that the naming conventions are very clear on is that zip codes should not be used as a disambiguator in any circumstances. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2011 (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.

Keeping the articles as they are

I think the articles should be keep as is. There is only one town named Eureka in the Wisconsin. One question: how many unincorporated communities in Wisconsin named Eureka? What has if they showed up. My opinion: the article about the town of Eureka, Wisconsin in Polk County, Wisconsin should be kept as Eureka, Wisconsin and the unincorporated community of Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin should kept as such. There is too much confusion, etc. with this. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Keeping it as it is, continues to spread misinformation. Keeping it as it is, causes data from both locations to be mixed together by sites referencing Wikipedia. There is one Eureka, WI (unincorporated community, populated place, Winnebago County) and one Town Of Eureka (county division, rural area, Polk County). Eureka, Wisconsin is the alternate name, nickname for Town of Eureka, Polk County. They are located 5 hours apart geographically.

I assert that the Winnebago County Eureka is the primary topic. Is it verifiable? (Wikipedia requirement) All article content requires verifiable published data. The title should also. Is it the most widely recognized (not just locally) by reliable sources? Wikipedia says to use Google Books hits to help determine the primary topic.

Winnebago County Eureka's published and recognized name is Eureka, Wisconsin. It has been since 1850. It has a federally recognized name. It has a federal zip code which makes its name Eureka, Wisconsin 54934. There are 51000 hits for Eureka, Wisconsin on Google Books. The results are vastly for the Winnebago County Eureka. You can manipulate those search results to Eureka Winnebago Wisconsin or Eureka Polk Wisconsin or Town of Eureka Wisconsin. In the end, the vast results will refer to Eureka, Wisconsin as the one in Winnebago County. It is printed as Eureka, WI (county name excluded). Eureka, Polk County is mostly printed Eureka, Polk, WI (county name included). GNIS recognizes Eureka, WI. AP naming conventions recognizes Eureka, WI. The IRS recognizes Eureka, WI. US Dept of Transportation recognizes. Eureka, WI. The Department of Natural Resources recognizes Eureka, WI. State Board of Education recognizes Eureka, WI. History and geography teachers will not appreciate a report that states Eureka, WI is located in Polk County. I've already listed other numerous verifiable and reliable sources. Eureka, WI goes by no other name. There is no confusion.

Eureka, WI may be just a small speck on the map with little population to some. However, it's location along the Fox River, the steamboat industry, bridge building, dam building, Indian treaties, flour milling industry, gravel industry, agriculture industry, horticulture industry, dairy industry, lumber industry and more make it the most widely published and recognized of the 2 locations. I've just begun to add information to the article.

Eureka, Polk County is important, too. I'm not trying to take away from them. Eureka, Polk County has a larger population because of land mass. Is that the primary purpose of naming an article? It is the lesser recognized and lesser published of the 2 locations. Organizations, governments and publishers all over the U.S. recognize Eureka, WI. Why doesn't Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is based on fact not popularity or personal claim. It might be popular for Polk County to refer to themselves as Eureka but that is not how they are factually recognized. They might even be a more popular community. Who knows? It doesn't matter. Thus, the articles should be titled Eureka, Wisconsin and Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin. To do anything different is pure bias and misinformation in its purest form. Eurekanative (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Montgomery County, Georgia is not Atlanta, Georgia, correct?

So (a town, a county division) is not Eureka, Wisconsin.

Leaving the article, as it is presently, is like putting Montgomery County information in the Atlanta article. Eurekanative (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if there were a city/community in Montgomery County named Atlanta (Georgia does not, to my recollection, use towns/townships like Wisconsin does). And in that case, it would be blatantly clear that the community in Montgomery County is not the primary usage.

At this point, I'm starting to wonder if we should leave the current status quo (Eureka, Wisconsin for the Polk County entry, Eureka (CDP), Wisconsin for the Winnebago County entry) and push this up to WP:WikiProject Wisconsin to get input from there. However, looking at the article titles (not the piped display text!) in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wisconsin#Towns vs. cities in Wisconsin, I think it's fair to say there isn't established consensus on how to name town articles. —C.Fred (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We were discussing disambiguation. It cannot be left as it is. One of Wikipedia's prime policies is "do no harm". Secondary references to Eureka, WI are being populated with misinformation because of the current naming of these articles. Information of the 2 locations is being mixed. There is harm being done. So create a disambiguation page as was previously suggested. Title them Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin and Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin. Put them in alphabetical order. Don't add the zip code if it's forbidden. Disambiguate them. That is fair in this situation. This is an exceptional situation. Eurekanative (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how Wikipedia can be responsible if downstream users can't be bothered to check that the article they're quoting is the one they think it is. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is not to bother the user. Wikipedia isn't responsible. It is , however, still the source of the information. It should bother the editors. It stands to reason that Wikipedia might want to present the information in a clearer manner for the benefit of everyone. It all starts with one small seed and weeds are everywhere.

I'd like to wait to push the discussion to WP:WikiProject Wisconsin for now (if it's my decision to make). I'd like to take some time to ask some questions and then put together an organized proposal to be considered. Eurekanative (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Per Nyttend comment on my talk page I change the town of Eureka to Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin and the unincorporated community of Eureka to Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin. Disamb page not needed since both entities are different counties. This is boldest on my part-Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is neutral and shows no favoritism. I think its wrong to not have a disambiguation page at Eureka, Wisconsin because neither option should have precedence over the other. I don't care if disambiguation can be accomplished without one, I think it shouldn't be done. Royalbroil 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the disambiguation, and I have boldly turned the redirect into a dab page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Eureka Center, Wisconsin

An article about Eureka Center, Wisconsin in the town of Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin was started. Hopeful, this is going to clarified things. I believe User:Eurekanative brought up Eureka Center, Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked the Wisconsin Dictionary of History-Wisconsin Historical Society and there were no Eureka, Wisconsin listings other then the town, unincorporated community annd Eureka Center, Wisconsin. I also check the DeLorme Wisconsin Gazetter and Atlas also. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eureka, Polk County, Wisconsin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)