Talk:La Pointe, Wisconsin

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge the articles. Billertl (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<discussion> I propose that La Pointe (township), Wisconsin be merged into La Pointe, Wisconsin. One article is about the township, and the other is about the unincorporated community that is located in the township.

I believe that La Pointe (township), Wisconsin is an unnecessary article, because La Pointe, Wisconsin clearly addresses both topics (the township, as well as the unincorporated community). La Pointe, Wisconsin even has it's own section about the unincorporated community, making the separate article about the community unnecessary. If a merger happens, it might be a good idea to expand the section about the community somewhat, and I'm willing to help with this.

The La Pointe, Wisconsin article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of La Pointe (township), Wisconsin will not cause any problems as far as article size, or undue weight.

Content on Wikipedia should not be redundant. And having unnecessary articles, like La Pointe (township), Wisconsin can sometimes be confusing to readers. Billertl (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Having a separate article on the community is neither unnecessary nor redundant. In Wisconsin and most other states, communities have separate articles from the county subdivisions they lie in. There is good reason for this; including all of the information on the community, including the maps and statistical data in the infobox, would take up too much space in the town article. This is especially true for longer articles on communities. The community of La Pointe's article may not be very long now, but it can be expanded, especially if someone can find the history of the community. This would result in most of the town's article being about the community, which shouldn't be the case when the community takes up a small area on the west side of one island in the town.

Besides, having articles which cover similar topics is not necessarily bad. Consider that the town of La Pointe includes all but four islands of the Apostle Islands, but the town and the islands have separate articles because they ideally should focus on different things. All of the islands within the Apostle Islands also have articles, as does the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, which includes all of the islands except Madeline Island. The topics of the articles may overlap, but they nonetheless all exist and cover the different aspects of each area. The community and the town are the same way; the community's article should discuss a small, developed area on one part of Madeline Island, whereas the town's article should discuss town government (though it doesn't yet) and the geography, history, etc. of all 18 islands which make up the town.

If anything, merging the articles is likely to be more confusing to readers rather than less. Many readers are already confused by Wisconsin's town system, especially when communities share the same name as a town, since "town" refers to a municipality rather than a county subdivision in most other states. I've seen quite a few editors think the town and community are the same place before when they share a name. Merging communities into town articles will probably lead even more readers to think the town is the same as the community rather than the equivalent of a township. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed In the past, there was problems merging some of the Wisconsin town articles with other Wisconsin articles involving cities and villages of the same name. By merging the LaPointe community article with that of the the LaPointe town article will only confused the reader more. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Favor I'm of the opinion that merging the articles will make things a lot less confusing. I live near La Pointe, and spend time there with local residents I know. Several of my friends (who know I'm a Wikipedia editor) have commented to me about how they find the two separate articles confusing. But unfortunately, the people who oppose the merger out-number my vote to proceed with merging. So, at this time I'll close the discussion, and not proceed with my plan to combine the articles. I thought there would be more support for this, but I guess I was wrong. I still think separate articles are confusing and redundant. Billertl (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

La Pointe, Wisconsin

Billertl moved the La Pointe (community), Wisconsin article to the La Pointe (township), Wisconsin. Billertl did so without consulting the community. The La Pointe comunitity and town articles should remained separate as they deal with two different entities. And in Wisconsin there are no townships just towns- see Political subdivisions of Wisconsin. Billertl made a mistake refering to the town of La Pointe, Wisconsin as a "township." The Wisconsin Constitution Article IV, section 23 makes reference to "town government" not township government. One would think the issue of merging Wisconsin towns articles with Wisconsin cities, villages even unincorporated communities articles has ended but this morning this has not the case. Billertl should had respected the consensus of the community when it was suggested merging the La Pointe town and unincorporated community article in 2011. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billertl moved the La Pointe (town), Wisconsin article to La Pointe (township), Wisconsin. I stand correct and my apologies to Billertl for this inaccurant comment. I still reverted the La Pointe (town), Wisconsin article for Wisconsin has no townships just towns. Please make any comments before any changes are made. In Wisconsin town is the constitutional, legal term used not township. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting me about the terms "Township" and "town". I confused the terms, and I stand corrected.

I was not attempting to merge the articles about the town and the community. This was proposed once before, as you can see from the talk pages. I would never merge something without the consensus of the community.

What I did was clarify both articles. The content of the article Lapointe, Wisconsin has always been written in a tone that mostly reflected the tone and style for an article that would be about the community. And that is the article many people go to for information about the community.

The other article, which was "technically" supposed to be about the community was the article titled La Pointe (community), Wisconsin. This article seemed more technical in nature. So I thought it would be more fitting to have a better fitting title, which would more accurately represent what the article was mostly about, which is the reason why I moved the article. I understand I made a mistake by using the wrong term - "township", but I appreciate you correcting it to the term "town".

This is the only thing I was attempting to do. I never merged anything without permission, I was only trying to make a clarification by moving the one article. I believe both articles are better now.

Thank you for your concern, and thanks for all your hard work on Wikipedia. Billertl (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad intro

The sentence "La Pointe is an unincorporated community in the town of La Pointe, Ashland County, Wisconsin, United States." fundamentally fails to communicate to the vast majority of Wikipedia's readership. It assumes the reader is familiar with Wisconsin's idiosyncratic legal definition of "town", which for 99+% of the readership is a false assumption. It thus misleads and fails as an introductory sentence for this article. It's also a false statement because the community of La Pointe is in fact part of an incorporated entity. That entity just happens to include additional uninhabited territory, which is not that unusual for sub-county and municipal entities. If you're going to persist in the conceit that the legal entity is separate and distinct from the community it was meant to serve and govern, then at least make a decently communicative introductory sentence. My own opinion is that a separate article for the legal entity is unnecessary and confusing and ought to be merged. If it was merged, then you wouldn't have a problem writing a decent introductory sentence because you wouldn't be trying to use inappropriate legal jargon. Why does Wikipedia care what Wisconsin's legal definition of "town" is in the first place? Wikipedia's job is to communicate. The purpose of legal definitions is to obfuscate. Since you seem pretty committed to doing the wrong thing and not merging the articles, I suggest as an introductory sentence for this article "La Pointe is a community in Ashland County, Wisconsin, United States." or "This article is about La Pointe, a resort community on Madeline Island in Ashland County, Wisconsin, United States." Further on you can explain about the town of La Point being legally distinct from the community (if, in fact, that is the case), but leave aside such legal fictions and difficulties in the introductory sentence. Dlw20070716 (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on La Pointe, 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/20070829061319/http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/parks/specific/bigbay/ to http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/parks/specific/bigbay

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on La Pointe, 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Lapointe, Wisconain" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lapointe, Wisconain. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 26#Lapointe, Wisconain until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]