Talk:Milwaukee/Archive 1

message: This article lists the city as the 22nd largest in the U.S., while the Wisconsin article lists it as the 19th, is this an error? Is it by population or by size? Clavette 19:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Question 

message: Is the average July temperature really 79 F as this article says? Even the cited source doesn't say this. I would think the average July temperature is 70.9 F http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?City=Milwaukee or at least something significantly lower than 79 RealFerrari 17:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe 79 was supposed to be the average high temp, not the average mean temp. Either way, it looks incorrect: Here are the monthly averages from Weather.com. -Nicktalk 18:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperature 

message: I question the accuracy of the 2005 population estimate of 592,765. As much as I wish this were the case, as far as I know the Census has not come out with a 2005 estimate for municipalities yet. If it came from a source other than the census, I think we should question the authenticity of that report, as they are often inaccurate and not official.
Don't worry, I am pretty sure they have come out with one. And sign your name with four tildes. The Person Who Is Strange 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Concerns 

message: I recently made three edits that were reverted without explanation: 1) "bubbler" is used in Milwaukee, but also in various other locations (Read the article on Bubblers), and therefore it is not "rarely heard anywhere else." 2) ATM's is incorrect punctuation--it should be ATMs (see Strunk & White) 3) This is an encyclopedia article. Some song played by some guy in Chicago that parodies a local saying (ainahey) is not appropriate. And, by the way, I've never heard anyone in Milwaukee say "ainahey."  -Nick 19:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the points above... although I've never heard anyone say "ainahey," I did talk to someone who said it was more common back in the day. A brief mention of the phrase (as the edit stands) should be sufficient. 72.131.44.247 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "explanation" for deleting was sarcastic and condescending. My silence in reverting it was every bit as appropriate as your "explanation". But since it's your pet page, I'll leave it be, ainahey. Wahkeenah 00:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize--I didn't mean to seem condescending. I was a bit upset that some edits I made were just reverted without any explanation. Nick 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 10-4. Wahkeenah 01:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edit

message: I am currently working on a reportage on german emmigrants for a local newspaper in the "Westerwald" area. I am looking for information on immigrants to Milwaukee. A whole village named "Sespenrod" near Heilberscheid went in 1853 to the USA.
Since i am quite new to genealogy i am happy for any kind of information, e.g. contacts in Milwaukee. I am looking for descendants in particular, that might have diaries/photographs or other kind of memories on their roots.
Thanks for your help, you can contact me at bastian@abwesend.de
Okay, this was a pretty sad entry. I added some information about the economy and the local cultural attractions, including summerfest and the museum (yes, yes, fellow Milwaukee people, I realize that "culture" is a relative term).  I moved the section on the interstate highways to geography, and deleted the section on the street layout being "the same as Chicago" since it did not seem relevant to any topic, and clicking on it went to a blank page.  Whoever put that in is more than welcome to return it to its old place, but should at least describe the layouts of Milwaukee's streets and compare it to Chicago's.  This article could still use more info, especially on the city itself, its architecture (Cream City Brick, the Allen Bradley Tower, etc.), and its history. --Goodoldpolonius 02:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: German roots

message: It seems that we're now adding descriptions of all the various neighborhoods to the article. I don't know what the standard is for other articles for major cities, but perhaps it would be better to create separate articles for each neighborhood and include the descriptive text in each of those. --mtz206 19:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
:If the neighborhood merits a seperate article, then they should be created.  But right now, it just seems like the descriptions are limited to two to three sentences, tops; not something that really needs to be broken out yet, in my opinion.  See: Houston, Texas#Metropolitan area.  But if you feel bold enough to create articles with more information in them, please, by all means do so.  --BaronLarf 20:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
::When I rewrote this section earlier today, I was mostly aiming at just reducing the inane remarks and somewhat-racist overtones the previous version had to it... though don't think the neighborhoods need anything more than the one or two sentence descriptions some of them have attached at all (if even *that* much). Anthony Dean 00:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
:::Yes, and thank you for making the changes you did. I meant to say "good job" on your user talk page, but it fell through the cracks.  --BaronLarf 01:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
::::You're welcome. :-) Anthony Dean 03:01, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
:::I feel that both Neighborhoods and Notable denizens should be moved off to their own sub-pages (might reduce the racially charged profiling), and more focus placed on History and Geography. Admittedly, I don't have the time right now to research for those sections. —Anonymous user 24.211.7.42
::::I've moved the Notable denizens to List of Milwaukeeans. Neighborhoods coule be moved, too, but I don't see how moving them would stop the racist language.  Cheers.--BaronLarf June 30, 2005 03:17 (UTC)
You already have an article about the neighborhoods: here.--Ben414 14:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighborhoods 

message: Hi all. I was recently interviewed by Katie (User:Milmag, see her comment at the top) at Milwaukee Magazine, and Wikipedia will soon be the topic of an article in that magazine. Milwaukee Magazine has a fairly large readership, so it'd be cool if we could improve Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Wisconsin by the time the article goes to print. Katie said, "As of now it's slated to run in the City Guide, which hits newsstands in late May and stays through the summer. But I'm pushing for more space, which means it might end up in the regular June issue of the magazine." So we have a little time, but let's get to work! Cheers, all. --Fang Aili 21:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia in [[Milwaukee Magazine]] 

message: We need a useable Flag of Milwaukee. The current one will probably be deleted soon. I searched the internet for a .gov source or something non-copyright, but found none. Can anyone help? --Fang Aili 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milwaukee flag needed  

message: I was bold and started using the meta:cite citation style recommended at Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. I'm using that as well as Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style to guide my citations. Asthma, a featured article, uses this citation style, so that can give you a feel for what it's like. Also, Seattle, Washington is a city that's a featured article, so that can give us some ideas of what a city featured article looks like. --Fang Aili 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: I've never been happy with the two paragraphs that address the music scene. Many of the bands/clubs/djs are not really known outside Milwaukee. I'm all for promoting local music, but I'm not sure that this article is the place. Perhaps we can trim this section way down and start a "Milwaukee Music" page? -Nicktalk 23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok to me, though it could use some cleaning up and elimination of redlinks. The couple (blue)links I clicked on looked like notable enough people. The Seattle page has pretty decent converage of its musical history. I don't know about The Rave, but The Pabst is definitely notable. Who/what specifically shouldn't be there, Nick? Thanks for your input! --Fang Aili 23:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick edit of the music section, mostly changing the writing style. It still needs a few more fixes, perhaps I'll get to them in a bit. Let me know if you approve. -Nicktalk 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Fewer red links and better written! --Fang Aili 17:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Music section

message: Is a tram (the Milwaukee Connector?) really in the "planning stages"? Has a decision been made to actually build such a system? It has been a few years since I lived in Milwaukee, but the last I remember this was still under great debate, and not quite "planned." If the gov't is actually building this, then it's fine. But if it is still debated whether it should even exist, I think a better phrasing would be something like "The construction of a commuter tram system is currently under consideration" --mtz206 15:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to their FAQ, yet another "study was launched in October, 2003" and "the system could be under construction by 2008 and completed by late 2009."  72.131.44.247 18:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tram? 

message: I've never heard it refered to as "Milwaukee–Waukesha–West Allis metropolitan area". It's always "the greater Milwaukee area". Thoughts? If anything, I think "Milwaukee–Waukesha–West Allis" is just too wordy. And Milwaukee is obviously the largest city in the area. --Fang Aili 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another point-- about 22,000 Google hits for "Milwaukee–Waukesha–West Allis"; 168,000 hits for "Greater Milwaukee Area". --Fang Aili 21:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milwaukee–Waukesha–West Allis? 

message: Just for historical interest (and grins and giggles) this is the original entry for Milwaukee. We've come a long way, haven't we? --Fang Aili 17:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious why you felt my GPL'd image of the MAM was a throwaway? I had made a point of filling that request for WikiProject Wisconsin. 72.131.44.247 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought the other image is closer-up and brighter. It's not mine; I found it on Commons. --Fang Aili 00:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.. only reaffirms why some people never bother to contribute anything substantial to the page. 72.131.44.247 00:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your comment. It looks like lots of people have been contributing substantially to this article lately. --Fang Aili 14:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original entry 

message: Is Milwaukee currently under a boil water advisory?  If so, that is news to me.  Maybe I just haven't checked the page in a while, but this seems a little outdated since the cryptosporidium outbreak was in '93.  Can anyone set me straight on this?PaddyM 02:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not. The crypto thing has been over for years and years. --Fang Aili  說嗎? 03:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boil Water Advisory

message: I removed the following paragraph from the "Race and Religion" section of the article:
:Crime disproportionately affects many of the city's racial minorites, as many tend to live in higher-crime, low-income neighborhoods characterized by robust gang activity and a strong drug trade. Other issues, such as an underperforming school district and accusations of racially motivated discrimination on the part of the police make race a perennially contentious issue in the city. For example, when Arthur Jones became the first African-American police chief of Milwaukee in 1996, there were accusations that he only received the job because of his race. However, Jones was fired from the department by the city council in 2003 after years of escalating crime. He sued the city for racial discrimination after his firing, but lost. His replacement, sparking another controversy, was white.
No matter what one's opinions are about the link between crime and race, they shouldn't be under the same heading in an encyclopedia article. There is the ongoing debate over the "crime" section, and if someone wants create a well-written non-inflammatory crime section, go ahead. Also, the anecdote about the police chief is unnecessary. These types of incidents happen all the time all over the country. -Nicktalk 04:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed --Shawn 06:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I talked it over with Nick, and we agreed that the information should be presented somewhere. I added much of it back in, hopefully with less POV. I didn't know where to put it, so I tacked it onto the end of the history section. Feel free to edit it, subdivide it, move it, whatever you feel is appropriate, I'm not emotionally attached to the section or anything. RyanGerbil10 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Crime info in the race section?

message: Is it possible to crop that new image so the focal point is not a picnic table? --mtz206 (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I owe you a Sprecher. :) --mtz206 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to vote for the first one. It looks more urban. -Nicktalk 05:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice photos, but I vote for neither right now because they do not specify their source in the description. HollyAm 03:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. They look like scans, possibly from books? Until there is source info, these images may be deleted. -Nicktalk 04:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are quite grainy... looks like dark noise. People seemed to like the "Dozen Distinctive Destinations" night photo so I may try my hand at something similar. Sulfur 22:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I put the dozen distinctive destinations photo on the page a while ago; it credited the author, and was licensed as "copyrighted, fair use" as the photo was part of a press release. A wikipedia admin switched the photo in favor of one that was freely licensed. We can either get the author of that photo to release it under GFDL, or have someone take a similar photo. -Nicktalk 23:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever we do, we need to replace this one.  It's neither a terribly good photo nor an informative representation of the city.  --Chancemichaels 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well done. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice shot of the skyline, but the city's a little dark for me.  Good composition, doesn't show enough of the city.  But much, much closer.  --Chancemichaels 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I really like your photo, and it should certainly be put up on the page. I think some of the difference in "oomph" is just simple sharpening and color manipulation in photoshop. Here is your photo after a quick unsharp mask and a minor color correction (to remove some of the orange). If you play around enough, you should probably be able to recreate the purple color cast that the DDD photo has. (Here is the same photo in full res.) Nice job! -Nicktalk 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That helps... what filter/values did you use for the correction? I'll make the changes and update the file (same link) above. Sulfur 01:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that one.  It really captures the spirit of the city's architecture, and it's a well-composed photo to boot.  --Chancemichaels 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Since one of my contributions has (yet AGAIN) been deleted because my sources apparently weren't "legit" enough (probably becaise they were Black and/or hip-hop oriented, but that's another story), I've taken it upon myself to list TEN references or occurances to someone from Milwaukee (or at least claiming to be from here... this is cyberspace, so you never know) using "The 414."  This is probably gonna be annoying and piss some people off, but then, that's how I feel everytime one of my contributions gets deleted.
*http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=Mil+town
*http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=414
*http://groups.msn.com/4Deepinyaarea/thislistaboutu.msnw
*http://www.wordofsouth.com/myblock/showthread.php?t=35386
*http://www.blackplanet.com/gw/robinson88/canvas/view_canvas.html
*http://www.xanga.com/laydee_yang_gerl
*http://www.yourgrillz.com/rep-your-city/
*http://www.elantraxd.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-8175.html
*http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=9192915
*http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=13405663
:Please assume good faith. That reference was removed becuase all you provided as a single mention in the lyrics of a single song, which, IMO doesn't merit mention in an encyclopedia article (which I stated in the edit summary). Please don't try to ascribe racism on my (or others') editing actions. If these sources you provide above qualify under Wikipedia's reliable source policy, then I bet the mention of "414" will be kept in the article (but I don't have the time right now to check them myself if they fit with policy - perhaps someone else might).Not a dog 19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, thanks! You just made my case for my comment above that colloqialisms don't even belong in an encyclopedia. Delete them all!Not a dog 22:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I have to go through this much s*** just to have something I KNOW to be a common colloquailism added IN SPITE of all the proof I just found on google, then I agree.  Delete the whole thing. Illwauk 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the important thing to keep in mind is just cuz its on Google doesn't mean its appropriate for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has specific policies regarding reliable sources, etc. Not a dog 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were talking about any other section of the article I would agree.  But how are logs of informal conversation not reliable sources for a section that talks about words/phrases used in informal conversation? Illwauk 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The 414" 

message: I've suggested above that we need reliable sources for any colloquialism. I think others have suggested to remove them altogether (save for the city's nickname). Others are concerned with double-standards as to what is acceptable, and that the very nature of a colloquialism is that it doesn't have sources. All good points to bring up. 
Since we're having difficulty arriving at consensus, a reminder of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms might prove useful for this discussion. Particularly these passages:
:Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. 
:Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles. 
:An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.
Guidelines seem clear, IMO, that reliable sources are necessary for a neologism, and I think it is reasonable to extend the same logic to colloquialisms. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I feel compelled to point out that guidelines are NOT the same as rules.  But regardless, if we're going to insist that every colloquaism be backed up by a "reliable" source, then it shouldn't be here.  That leaves the door open for too much race/class bias. --Illwauk 07:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree - Others can be added later if/when proper references are found. 72.131.44.247 00:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a published reference for "Tyme Machine." I have seen these College Prowler books on the shelves at bookstores. It could also be used as a dual-reference for "bubbler" to save space, but I think the current link for that gives a more complete explanation. 72.131.44.247 02:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be all for that.  Perhaps a paragraph on the Culture section talking about how Milwaukeeans use a lot of east-coast diction for being as far west as we are.  For example, "bubbler" is prominent in New England, we're the only Great Lakes city that says "soda" and we refer to "subs" instead of "hoagies" or "heroes"(spelling?).  Though the latter might be harder to justify since the rise of Subway over the past 20 years has kind of taken some of the regionalism out of submarine sandwiches.  I dunno... that's just a thought, but I like the idea of blowing up the colloquaism section to disperse the info throughout the article. --129.89.100.77 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoiding neologisms