Talk:Wausaukee, Wisconsin

Population discrepancy

Look, I'm not generally one to argue, but the statistics on this page are extremely wrong.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Wausaukee-Wisconsin.html THESE are the correct statistics

Whoever put these up has a terrible source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.21.164.216 (talk • contribs).

Actually I don't believe your source, and I have reverted it. Check out the 2000 census for the Town of Wausaukee, and you'll find the exact number (1197) that you had changed this article to. Also, the 1990 census found on an official Wisconsin highway map was 656. I'm sure the village didn't double from 1990 to 2000. I bet the city-data source used the town's population instead of the villages. Royalbroil 04:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Wausaukee, Wisconsin → Wausaukee – Dab with only two entries. Move this to that and leave the hatnote. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:USPLACE, the name of the state should always be part of the article name for U.S. places; it's not there for disambiguation purposes. I wouldn't object to redirecting Wausaukee to this article, but the article itself shouldn't be moved (and I would definitely object to relitigating the merits of USPLACE here, since those discussions have gotten so heated there was once a moratorium on the subject). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:USPLACE calls for the state to be appended consistently to our articles on US places, but the nominator gives no rationale for why this place should be exempted from the guideline (or even that he's familiar with it). As a perennial proposal raised without any of the prerequisites, I suggest an immediate closure. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Huwmanbeing: I am familiar with the back-and-forth about naming American places--I've been involved with renaming dozens of "Indianapolis"/"Indianapolis, Indiana" categories. An easy way to bypass all of this is also to refer to WP:2DABS and see if there is a primary topic. If neither place is primary, then the dab should remain, certainly. (For what it's worth, I'd like to point out that I fixed your link above.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • As I said above, there's an easier way to deal with the 2DABS problem; just redirect Wausaukee here. I don't see why that wouldn't solve that problem without reopening the USPLACE dispute. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I should have been explicit: yes, that would also be a solution, tho I am personally opposed to the idea of redirecting to unnecessary disambiguation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:USPLACE. The "town" (which is really a township) is irrelevant as a topic for Wausaukee, so that can redirect here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Opposed per WP:USPLACE-the name of the state is always part of the articles for U.S. places-thank you-RFD (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.