Talk:Milwaukee/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

We clearly need a separate article for music in Milwaukee similar to the one created for the neighborhoods in Milwaukee. The section has been plagued by numerous edits by people who want their favorite type of music featured and has caused it to become completely choppy. A separate article would not only allow those who want to feature a certian type of music to do so, but would reduce the length of the main article.--Illwauk 10:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree.. perhaps the section could be broken out and combined with the piece from Music of Wisconsin#Milwaukee to Music of Milwaukee. Both sources could then give the usual short summaries with a 'Main article' tag. 72.131.44.247 02:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I just moved the entire music section to Music of Milwaukee to help shorten the main article. --Illwauk 16:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The infobox appears to indicate that Milwaukee exists solely within Milwaukee County. I think this is inaccurate, as from my understanding there are small (albethey "insignificant", cannot be classified as "irrelevant") extensions of the City into both Washington (a small "intrusion" into Germantown), and Waukesha (a small "intrusion" into Menomonee Falls) counties. Should not both counties be included, therefore, in the infobox? Tomer^talk 07:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I could see if we were talking about the Statue of Liberty and whether or not it was actually in New York or New Jersey, but nothing of any kind of significance is in those areas. All it would accomplish is confusing readers of the article who aren't familiar with the area. --Illwauk 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the infobox would be the best place to mention that. For all practical purposes, Milwaukee is in Milwaukee County; however, a small note might be added to the geography section. (See "Only In Milwaukee County" discussion above.) -Nick^talk 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing either of you have said bears any importance with respect to the issue. The fact of the matter is that Milwaukee protrudes into two neighboring counties. The extent to which either of those protrusions might be regarded as significant or otherwise, is completely irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia where simple matters of fact are presented, not filtered according to editors' perceptions of relevance are included. The infobox should state that the city extends into both Washington and Waukesha counties, and the relative unimportance of those extensions can be discussed in the geography section. Nick's suggestion turns the function of the infobox on its head, and Illwauk's statement reads like a paean in favor of WP:OR in contravention of WP:NPOV. Tomer^talk 08:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It should note all counties in the infobox, like with Atlanta, Georgia. Not a dog 03:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion to leave the extra counties out of the infobox and mention them in the full article was a suggestion designed to facilitate readability. Yes, it is an oversimplification to say that Milwaukee is in Milwaukee county. It is true that Milwaukee exists within three counties, but (according to my calculations using the city of Milwaukee GIS website) 99.987% of Milwaukee is in Milwaukee county, 0.024% is in Washington county, and 0.099% is in Waukesha county. The mere statement that "Milwaukee exists in three counties" is likely to mislead readers, and my above comments simply asked to hold off on that info until it can be presented in more detail in the geography section. But that is just my opinion, and what I would do if I were writing an encyclopedia article. (An alternative would be to place a footnote in the infobox.) That being said, go ahead and list all three counties in the infobox. -Nick^talk 06:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nick and Illwauk. The fact that bits of Milwaukee extend beyond the borders of Milwaukee County is nothing but a footnote. Illwauk says it would confuse people who aren’t familiar with the area; I add that it will confuse people who are familiar with the area, too. The two other counties don’t need to be mentioned in the infobox. At most, use a footnote. If it’s going to be mentioned any more prominently than that, then we should be able to see the Washington and Waukesha territory on the map that accompanies the article. If that area is so small that it can’t appear on the map, then that’s a sign that it’s not important to mention.

This is different from the Atlanta article. The city of Atlanta has non-trivial presence in Dekalb County. It operates schools there, for instance.

Tomer, you’re arguing that facts should be included in this article no matter how significant they are. Relevance is of utmost importance. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles aren’t just piles of facts. They have to be filtered through editors. That’s what the editors are for.

So far, Milwaukee’s three-county membership is nothing but trivia. Putting it in the infobox elevates that information’s status far more than it warrants. --Rob Kennedy 07:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That Mwaki extends into two neighboring counties is neither "irrelevant" nor does it fall under the rubric of "indiscriminate information". "Elevates...more than it warrants"? That's your POV, which is indefensible grounds upon which to base an editing decision on WP. Tomer^talk 02:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is POV, it seems to be the POV of a good majority of people who edit this article. I'd say that the line from "POV" to "accepted fact" was crossed awhile ago. People in the city definetly don't consider themselves to be a part of those counties and vice versa (the way people in Waukesha Co. talk about Milwaukee, you'd think it was the 8th gate to hell!). As I said before, the only thing including those counties would accomplish is confusion, confusion and more confusion... which is counter-productive to the goal of wikipedia. --Illwauk 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your say-so is not convincing me that including the other two counties into which Milwaukee extends "[will] only ... accomplish ... confusion, confusion and more confusion...". If anything is going to create confusion, it's going to be how Wikipedia can think of itself as a serious encyclopedia when it whimsically neglects to mention simple matters of fact. Creating confusion is certainly counter-productive to the goal[s] of WP, but I'm beginning to suspect that the only people who think including reality in the article is going to create "confusion", are people who, for whatever reason, simply don't like reality. If you don't want Milwaukee in neighboring counties, Wikipedia isn't the place to take up your activism, however...such activity should be reserved for City Hall. If you're that concerned about "confusion" (an utterly ludicrous "concern", IMHO), the place to clear up confusion is by means of footnotes. For the record, regarding the "Majority POV should rule" argument you seem to be forwarding, such a statement belies your stated concern about "the goal of wikipedia"... Regards, Tomer^talk 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking for information on Black-White segregation and found this:

http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=17340

It's extremely telling/interesting to me that Greater Milwaukee can be one of the most segregated if not THE most) segregated metro area, yet when you look at the city by itself it doesn't even crack the top 10. I don't have internet access from home, but I would hope that someone could find the information on the census website (where the poster claims to have found it) because this DEFINETLY needs to be noted in the article. --Illwauk 20:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been thinking about what you've said here, and I'm just not sure how it should be phrased in the article. It's already noted in the article that we have a "hyper-segregated" city (and it's sourced), so I'm not quite positive how adding another sentence about it would change anything. We'll have to do some more research and figure out how it should go in. Cheers, PaddyM 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope the changes I made clarify things. --Orange Mike 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Your claim that after "white flight" things are different is unverified and uncited. Not a dog 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cites provided --Orange Mike 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Illwauk recently removed this image and replaced it with this one. I much prefer the former, since it is composed better, more aesthetic, better color, etc. Any consensus on reverting back to that image? Not a dog 22:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Cheers, PaddyM 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. --Orange Mike 01:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just added it back as the infobox pic since it shows the same basic things as the one that used to be there (Lake Michigan, First Wisconsin, Calatrava, etc.). The problem with lakefront pics is that it makes it look like Milwaukee has only one decent sized building (you'd never know that 100 E Wisconsin is MIL's second tallest when viewed from the lake). Although I believe that a lakefront pic is appropriate for the infobox, other pics in the article should show the city from different angles. I changed the lakefront pic with the park east pic because not only does it show downtown from another perspective (whereas the old one showed it from the same perspective), but it's one of the few pictures that does all of the taller buildings justice. On another note... was shouting out my name really necessary? --Illwauk 15:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "shouting out" your name. I simply mentioned your name since you're familiar here (as oppsoed to a random edit by some anonymous IP).Not a dog 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of mentioning who did it nor do I see how the familiarity of the people making edits should have make it any more/less relevant. Beside, anyone who makes regular edits to this article could find out that I made the edits if they really felt it that necessary. Essentially what you did (whether you meant to or not) is say "Let's get a consensus to tell Illwauk that his edit sucks!" --Illwauk 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith and relax a bit; no one is out to get ya. Not a dog 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In its current location, the Park East pic is fine, although in a perfect universe I'd like something similar shot from a low aerial vantage point. Thanks for the work you put into this. --Orange Mike 18:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually find the new image too bleak and amateur. I think the article will be better without it. Miaers 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think encyclopedia articles are the place for collections full of shiny, photoshopped images either. Exceptions can be made for infobox pics, but the rest of the article should feature pictures with as little touching-up as possible. Besides, I don't think it's bleak at all. It's one of the few pictures that shows that Milwaukee has more than one tall building. --Illwauk 20:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no photoshopping or touching-up here. I don't see many skyscrapers in your picture except a total mess. Miaers 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to get your eyes checked if you can't see the three buildings that CLEARLY stand out above the rest of the city. You can also see parts of the iconic City Hall and the Chase Tower. Besides, as its been pointed out, YOU are the only one who has a problem with the picture. --Illwauk 21:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to know that you are trying to replace the photo I uploaded for the geography section. A picture with the city and the river is perfect for this section. Please stop. Miaers 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that simply uploading something give you some kind of guarantee that it'll be featured? Besides, if you want a picture of "the river" to be fatured (there is more than one river in Milwaukee), there are much better ones than the one you're uploading. Because pictures from the lake don't show the entire skyline, one which does should be featured in other parts of the article --Illwauk 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a relevant quality picture. Anyway since you placed your photo for the pollution issue, I'll stop arguing. But pollution should be the issue during the early days of Milwaukee, not present. Miaers 21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever man. You're clearly dilusional and I'm done wasting my time trying to find the alleged lack of skyscrapers, pollution and talking leprechauns that you apparently see in that picture. And BTW, SustainLane ranks Milwaukee the 10th best city for green economy... so much for polution being such a big problem. I still think your picture isn't nearly as great as you seem to think it is, but sometimes you just gotta let the baby have its bottle. --Illwauk 22:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Man, I'll say there are only 3 tall buildings in your photo. Your picture is almost a dirty mess. If you want to show the green city part of Milwaukee, I think you are not uploading an appropriate picture. Also please don't make personal attacks. Miaers 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, you're the king of personal attacks, plus you like to violate WP:3R on a daily basis. When you're the only person who things something, a consensus does not exist. Please stop attacking every edit other people make for your own opinions. Cheers, PaddyM 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. In what way, I personallly attacked Illwauk? He is the one keep deleting the photo I uploaded. He is violating the 3 R. Jesus, some people are really delusional. Miaers 23:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please pause to regain perspective, folks, regarding the purpose of ARTICLE talk pages... Tomer^talk 01:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This image suits much better for the present Milwaukee section than this one. Why was it replaced? If there is no diagreements, I will have them switched. Miaers 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There are disagreements. You hate that image, but there is no justification for driving it off the article to suit your aesthetic preferences. Leave it alone already! --Orange Mike 23:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever man, you'd be having the same hissyfit no matter where that picture was placed. You're just upset that a few users wanted it to replace the pic you've aparently developed an emotional attachement to. Besides, what is the point of having two pictures in the article that show the same basic thing? Yes I agree, pictures featuring the lakefront, the calatrava and the tallest building are a better reflection of present-day Milwaukee... that's why there's one in the infobox. Stop acting like the Park East picture is the bane of Milwaukee's existence when you're clearly the only person here who doesn't think it belongs anywhere in the article. --Illwauk 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Illwauk, I think Image:11057411 8d37e9dc35.jpg fits much better for the green city of Milwaukee and its efforts on improvements. It is not a lake front photo. If you don't mind, I would like to have it replace the picture you recently uploaded. Miaers 04:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

See... I know you're trying to be congenial given all the flack you've (correctly) gotten in here lately, but it doesn't matter if you ask me if you're just gonna replace the photo before I even get a chance to answer. I made a concession to you and moved my photo as to not replace yours thinking that would stop your whining, but I stand corrected. You obviously don't want the photo here (probably for no other reason than a few editors wanted it to replace yours) and you're hell bent on running it off the article. You couldn't possibly be more transparent. Now excuse me while I revert the image back to the one that NO ONE BUT YOU has a problem with. --Illwauk 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The quality of your photo was questioned at the very beginning of this discussion. Image:11057411 8d37e9dc35.jpg is much better looking than Image:Milw skyline west.jpg. And I haven't seen any objections about it. Miaers 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only are you COMPLETELY misconstruing those comments to suit your agenda (people thought the lakefront pic that is now in the infobox looked better, not that there was anything wrong with the Park East pic). And 5 minutes is hardly long enough to claim that you "haven't heard any objections." Seriously dude... you are not gonna die a slow and painful death because the Park East pic is in the article... get a hobby! --Illwauk 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You, Miaers, and only you, keep dumping on that picture. Nobody else in this entire discussion has a problem with it but you. ^You are not the center of the universe; ^you are not the sole judge of what is "correct" in Milwaukee-based articles. You are annoying me and every other editor who tries to do anything Milwaukee or UW-M related, with your multiple reverts and autocratic attitude. Your disrespect of Illwaukis particularly blatant and annoying. --Orange Mike 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think those who try to improve the article quality in Wikipedia and edit in a civil way should always be respected.  :) Miaers 22:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Education photo

The last thing I wanted to do was get into the middle of this, but now I really need to point something out. In the education section, when someone replaced a UWM photo with a Marquette photo, the edit was reverted, and the edit summary said "rv POV" as if placing an MU photo promotes a POV. I restored the MU photo because it actually showed a building, and not just a statue in front of a building. Then, the same editor who feels that replacing a photo constitutes a NPOV violation did the exact same thing he/she was so opposed to: the MU photo was replaced with a copyrighted UWM photo. That is explicitly against wikipedia image guidelines. Both photos served a purpose, but the non-copyrighted image is always preferred on Wikipedia (in fact, the copyrighted image will likely be deleted by one of the image bots). If you are going to start some sort of edit war please at least stay within the rules. -Nick^talk 23:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The POV is about the sequence of these two schools not the photo. Image:Chapman Hall.jpg is creative commons attribution now. There is no copyright problem. Miaers 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So simply listing Marquette ahead of UWM when Marquette comes first alphabetically is POV? --Illwauk 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So, just so I'm clear in the future: as long as UWM is considered the best school in the history of man, its NPOV. Oh, well it all makes sense now. Also, Miaers is the only person editing wikipedia who is able to edit the Milwaukee article, as it seems that the rest of us are incapable of making appropriate edits. OK, it all makes sense now. And, you violated 3R again yesterday, but since you're allowed to do that, nevermind. Cheers, PaddyM 12:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the Golda Meir library (UWM) photo with the Raynor library (Marquette) photo for a couple of reasons.

-The Marquette photo showed an actual building.

-Marquette's campus is located in the heart of the city while UWM is tucked away into a corner that is literally across the street from the suburbs.

-Since neither UWM or MU is all that concerned with serving the Milwaukee community (most of MU's students come from Illinois whereas most of UWM's come from Northern WI), I figured it would be better to feature Marquette since it has more national visibility (other than the Sweet 16 run a couple years ago, when has UWM ever brough national attention to Milwaukee?).

As far as my allegiances... I was a student at UWM, but I grew up watching MU hoops. If anything I stonger ties to UWM, but IMO, there's nothing on UWM's campus that's really worth featuring. Marquette at least has the Raynor and Joan of Arc Chapel. --Illwauk 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how the library in Marquette is better than Golda Meir Library and it really doesn't matter whether there is a building or not, as long as it can represent the School. Besides the current photo is a building now. Both of these two schools are located within Milwaukee Metro. No one would consider that matters. Marquett is generally known as a small private Master degree college. Using a large public reserach institution here is more appropriate. And the UWM photo has been here for "centuries". By the way, UWM was nationally ranked as a top 10 for its close ties with and contribution to Milwaukee.Miaers 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Marquette is a doctoral-granting research university, in the same category as UWM and UW-Madison. And, according to US News, MU is ranked 81st in the country, and UWM is ranked "fourth tier" (well below MU). As I said above, I have no connection to either school, but MU is the more nationally-respected school in Milwaukee. But, since there are only two major Universities in Milwaukee, why not feature pictures of them both? -Nick^talk 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of rankings. Using different standard, people have different rankings. Nobody considers Marquett as a research institution. Miaers 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So decide... do rankings matter or not? Or does the answer depend on whether or not the ranking lends credibility to your POV? --Illwauk 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In term of dominance of Education in Milwaukee, UWM is a much larger University than Marquett. Individual college and programs in UWM are ranked way better than Marquett. Miaers 22:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Marquette's journalism and dentistry programs are some of the best in the country while UWM's pretty much only known for its architecture program. And you're absolutley insane if you think larger student enrollment translates into better education. --Illwauk 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dude, I think you need to cool off. You don't know these two schools well. The ranking you said is not even mentioned in Marquett's article. I saw Marquette's ranking before. As I remenber, none of its programs is among top 20. Most of them are just mediocre ranking, no better than not ranked. Miaers 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to provide a link to this mystery source? --Illwauk 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Marquette used to put all its ranking at its website. Not any more. Miaers 23:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I managed to find Marquette rankings on its website. There is no that kind of ranking you mentioned. I think I need to modify my words b/c Marquette's nursing-midwifery was 13th (2004), dispute resolution program 11th (2007) and physical therapy 16th (2005). But its rankings are just not impressive. Miaers 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea, because being ranked Top 20 out of literally hundreds of colleges in the US is completely insignificant /sarcasm. --Illwauk 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That are only 3 individual programs. Other Marquett programs are mediocrely ranked. Marquette doesn't even have a single school or college ranked among top 50, while UW-Milwaukee has several schools in the top 20. Miaers 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Some basic internet searching shows that Marquette ranks 81st in the country according to US News. UWM remains unranked overall (using that same source). Checking the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel shows that, again, MU ranks higher as a doctoral-granting institution than UWM. So, Miaers, I'm not sure what your point is, but in this case, it seems that you are barking up the wrong tree. Cheers, PaddyM 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with PaddyM is that s/he always repeats others. Why don't you repeat my previous reponse one more time. Miaers 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"she"? As you've been told before, Irish called Paddy are Patricks, not Patricias. Let's see some civility here, especially so close to the blessed Saint's own day! --Orange Mike 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Park East Skyline Photo

Can we all agree that this photo has a place SOMEWHERE in the article? I ask because no matter where I place it, Miaers not only seems to think it has absolutely no business even seeing the light of day, but that every other editor agrees with him (which is awfully strange since a good number of editors seem to be directly opposed to nearly every edit he makes). I think that since most of the city's taller buildings can barely be seen from the lake that a photo that shows the full skyline should be somewhere in the article. I also believe that the cityscape section is a good place for it seeing as how it shows an actual cityscape. --Illwauk 16:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And one last thing. Miaers, Milwaukee has more than one significant river. So please learn how to appropriately label your photos that are taken from "the river," thanks. --Illwauk 16:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Illwauk, your photo is probably the worst skyline photo ever. Besides, the cityscape section does't need a skyline photo anyway. Please stopy replacing the existing photo with yours. Miaers 16:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The current photo from across the river with the nice grass and iamges of downtown is much better than the one with the highways and snow in the foreground. Please stick with this one. Not a dog 22:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny photo

Illwauk is now staging another photo replacing war now. This time replace Northwestern Mutual buildings with an airplane. I find it funny. Milwaukee doesn't manufacture airplanes and there is nothing wrong with the previous photo. Miaers 21:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm... Midwest Airlines is BASED OUT OF MILWAUKEE and is probably the company most closely associated with Milwaukee behind Miller and Harley. Not to mention that is has a greater presence both locally (Midwest Airlines Center ring a bell?) and nationally. Besides, airlines generally tend to have greater visibility than financial companies. --Illwauk 21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The airplane image Image:Midwest Airlines Boeing.jpg is protected by copyright and will be deleted. The point is moot. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Both of these two companies are headquartered in Milwaukee and have similar local and national fame. Miaers 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Illwauk, could you please make a discussion first, next time you want to replace a photo with something that you think is "perfect"? Miaers 21:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to cite where I claimed it was "perfect" or are you just doing what you always do any repeating lies hoping they become the truth. --Illwauk 21:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Or at least use an edit summary explaining why you're making the change. Adding a 2nd photo is one thing, but replacing another without explanation is less-than-preferred behavior. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was in the process of doing just that and when I tried to save it, I got the editing conflict message. And if you would pay attention to the entire situation, you'd know that Maiers has developed a pretty notorious reputation over the past couple of weeks for "less-than-preferred behavior." Of course, you've got an axe to grind with me for whatever reason, so I can't say I'm suprised. --Illwauk 21:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care right now about "the entire situation", and I don't have an ax to grind. The final analysis, however, is that the image of the plane you uploaded was improperly tagged by you and is actually protected by copyright, and has no fair use rationale for use here. The image will be deleted shortly. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that why you've been stalking my talk page at ridiculous levels? You're taking the "authority" you have for a VOLUNTEER position waaaaay too seriously. --Illwauk 22:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If the people spent half as much time adding content to the article instead of debating 3 or 4 photos, we'd have article that is more than just numbers and references. I mean really - Wikipedia is not always about presenting a city in the best light possible, but ultimately that is what this discussion has devolved into - Searching out the "best skyline" or the "most iconic sites". Am I the only one who remembers this article isn't a tourism pitch? If you want to debate appearances, presentation and astetics, there's Wikitravel. Go there and debate your hearts out

Probably not a popular thing to say around here, but true none the less.

BTW:If you want my personal opinion, all the photos I saw were rather nice. Make a collage or something and let this diePocketPick 03:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The history section of this article needs to be trimed. Most of the contents had been moved to History of Milwaukee. Miaers 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Like most of the "take it out of the full article" articles, this is information integral to the subject matter but too lengthy to be included in it. It doesn't belong in the "See Also" list. --Orange Mike 02:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet another, "take it to the full article" creation. The sports section had become way too bloated to remain in the main article. I kept the infobox with the current teams and the reference to Marquette and UWM hoops. I'm still working on the sports article, but I plan to add references to the number of amatuer sports clubs in Milwaukee (Bavarians soccer, Bombers footy, Marauders semi-pro football, etc.) that would've definetly overextended the section in the main article. --Illwauk 17:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaving this message here since this is where all the action is at: There are now two mostly redundant sports related articles for Milwaukee: Sports of Milwaukee (created 12:41, 14 March 2007) and Sports in Milwaukee (created 16:11, 22 February 2007). I have proposed the former be merged into the latter, since "Sports in XXX" seems to be the preferred naming convention (see Sports in Chicago or Sports in New York City). Feel free to chime in here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just now noticed the message above on this very topic. Regardless, the new article should be deleted and merged. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge compelted, and extraneous page deleted. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Having edited several city pages, I'm not sure this article really deserves the "long article" tag. Although Wikipedia says articles over 32K are "large," that only counts "readable prose" and not references, HTML markup, See Also and other page category/template stuff. The size listed on the "edit" page is the total size including all of that stuff. In addition, I've gone back several months in the history, and this article is actually getting continuously smaller. As it stands, the history section could stand to be trimmed a bit, but I think the rest of the article is fairly compact. Plus, Wikipedia has size guidelines saying that the 40-60K range (the article is currently 49K) represents a page that "might" need to be split up in the future. Many of the individual sections already have their own articles, so this is an issue of trimming, not splitting. And, to be honest, I think Wikipedia will need to revise their article size guidelines soon. Tables, photos and the new "ref" citation formats substantially contribute to the file size without contributing to the length of the text. Plus, most of the technical limitations to editing large articles have been overcome. -Nick^talk 06:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of sentences in the politics section have been (needlessly, IMO) tagged for citations.

"Because of the (Wisconsin 4th Congressional) district's loyalty to the Democratic Party, the Democratic primary for the seat is often considered more important than the general election."

and

"Although a Democratic stronghold, Milwaukee receives a fair amount of attention from the Republicans at the state and national levels during election years. This is due to Wisconsin's status as a pivot state and Milwaukee's relatively central location to the state's largest Republican strongholds such as Mequon, Waukesha and Brookfield."

To me, this seems like common knowledge to anyone who has an understanding of politics in the Milwaukee area. Not to mention the fact that since the current 4th district was created, Gwen Moore was elected and re-elected by at least 70% each time (as stated on her wiki page). Anyone else find the tags unnecessary? --Illwauk 00:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be easy to back up by a reference to the Almanac of American Politics or similar reference work(s). --Orange Mike 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead. I was able to provide cites because of it. It's amazing and sad how many republicans get trounced in Milwaukee elections and yet conservatives still refuse to admit that they only influence a minimal number of Milwaukeeans.--Illwauk 08:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Claims that a primary is "more important" than the GE needs to be cited and verified - that's hardly common knowledge. Further, stating Wisconsin is a "pivot state" might not always be true (it wasn't in 1984, for example). So I think that statement might need to be cut as an invalid generalization. Not a dog 07:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL, so let me get this straight...

...it doesn't matter that the Democrats have won the fourth district by AT LEAST 40% in every election since it was created.

...Wisconsin isn't a swing state because of a landslide from 23 years ago.

...It doesn't matter that Reagan won EVERY state in 1984 other than his opponents home state.

...it doesn't matter that the Repubicans haven't won Wisconsin since 1984.

I'm sorry Not a dog, but (no pun intended) you're CLEARLY barking up the wrong trees on this one. In fact, if Wisconsin isn't a pivot state (which would contradict just about every other article on pivot states and Wisconsin politics on wiki), then it's clearly a Democratic state. I don't know what your deal is, but I think you need to sit this one out. --Illwauk 07:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil. If Wisconsin is that clearly a pivotal state, then it should be easy to provide a citation. (although, if the repubs haven't won it since 1984, I'm not so sure characterizing it as a "pivot" is all that accurate). You could also easily change the sentence to say "its recent status as a pivot state" or something like that. See - there are plenty of ways to figure this out. You don't need to get all excited. Not a dog 08:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I know it seems odd to us as Milwaukeeans, Ilwauk, but every four years the Republicans do put a lot of money into Wisconsin, arguing each time that we are a swing state and could be marketed into the Republican camp. Now the fourth district, yeah: we are the quintessence of a safe, win-the-primary-and-you're-in, district, gerrymandered that way to make the fifth district more Republican-friendly; but Wisconsin as a whole is more marginal than the win-loss column would indicate. --Orange Mike 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I’m the one who requested the citations. Neither of those is common knowledge. I’m questioning the causality, and neither of the sources you added address that. For the first one, there are three claims:

1. The 4th district is loyal to the Democratic Party.
2. The primary is often considered more important than the general election.
3. The second claim is because of the first claim.

The closest your source comes to any of that is the statement that Gwen Moore’s seat was “hotly contested.” One election doesn’t make it “often,” and the Moore profile made no mention of the general election. Saying there’s loyalty suggests that the district would vote Democratic even when presented with a non-Democrat voters thought was a superior candidate.

The second section makes five claims:

1. Milwaukee is a Democratic stronghold.
2. Mequon, Waukesha, and Brookfield are Republican strongholds.
3. Wisconsin is a pivot state.
4. Milwaukee receives a fair amount of attention from the Republican Party in state and national elections.
5. Milwaukee’s proximity to the Republican strongholds, and Wisconsin’s status as a pivot state are the causes of the attention.

I don’t dispute the first three (although I’m not crazy about the term “stronghold”). What I’d like citations for are the level of attention from the Republicans — how much is a “fair amount,” and how does it compare to other places — and the causal relationship between the party preferences and the attention. I want a source that says why Milwaukee gets attention from Republicans. I’m not really sure what your source was meant to illustrate for that.

I’m not saying that what you’ve written is false. I’m saying it’s uncited, and that needs to be fixed. --Rob Kennedy 16:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the latter section, so problem solved. The only reason I even added it to begin with is because not too many cities can claim to be visited by both major party candidates on election day. I figured I'd give the back-story of Wisconsin's pivot state status and proximity to the (highly-republican) suburbs so that someone wouldn't read it and go "Wait, if Milwaukee is a Democratic stonghold, then why was Bush visiting?" But I can do without it since I think Wisconsin is much more liberal than it gets credit for (and therefore not a pivot state). --Illwauk 07:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A few of the articles for the top 50 U.S. cities (most notably, New York City, Chicago and Philadelphia) as well as all of the major Canadian cities have been moved as to no longer include the state/provinces name in the title. I remember awhile ago hearing about an effort to make all major U.S. cities state-less in order to make them consistent with the major cities in other parts of the world. With that in mind, I think this article should be moved ASAP since it seems like a move is inevitable. --Illwauk 03:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You realize that if you do it, you're taking in on the obligation to fix the hundreds of current links to the "city, state" format so they don't go to a redirect page? --Orange Mike 03:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the principle, but as Orangemike said, there are 2335 pages that link to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I have the AWB, which would make things easier, but it would still have to be done one article at a time as I don't have bot status. -Nick^talk 05:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I should also mention that the proper article name is technically supposed to be CITY, STATE, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names). Maybe we should just leave it as is. -Nick^talk 05:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep as is per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#United_States Not a dog 19:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

All guidelines allow for exceptions, and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#United_States is no different. Currently exceptions include Chicago, Philadelphia and New York City. There is a discussion about moving several others, including Milwaukee. In fact, this page was moved a couple of days ago, and was just moved back to Milwaukee, Wisconsin without explanation. --Serge 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Serge, there's no consensus, either here or there, for this move. I see one "yes", one "if you do it, do the redirection work", one "agree in principle", and two "no, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#United_States. That doesn't look like consensus for or against the move to me, so the move shouldn't have been done.

There are no other Milwaukee cities in the world. This article should be named Milwaukee. If we need to get a bot to change all the redirects, then we should do it. Kingturtle (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's the old Town of Milwaukee; there's Milwaukie, Oregon; there's Milwaukee County. Consensus was never reached in support of such a move. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1) Having this article be named Milwaukee is supported by Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#United_States. 2) Milwaukee is most commonly used for the Wisconsin city. Kingturtle (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why just plain old Milwaukee already is a redirect to this article! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While the addition just reverted was rather sweeping, accusatory and one-sided, nonetheless the MMSD, Milorganite, cryptosporidium, etc. is part of the Milwaukee story. Anybody want to try to do something more impartial? --Orange Mike 17:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The article should be about the general fact of Milwaukee, not a single company. It is not necessary to include electrity, gas, etc. Miaers 18:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with OrangeMike - the sewer system is something like common knowledge around MKE and should probably be included in the article, especially since it has led to several disputes with Chicago regarding who is responsible for the worst of the mess. Also, it has cost the city millions to build and "maintain" over the years. We should definitely include the MMSD/Deep tunnel project in the article. Cheers, PaddyM 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a subsection of a Infrastructure section. Anyway, the Utilities subsection of the Infrastructure section in the Chicago article doesn't have such kind of info. Miaers 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think those information is more appropriate at the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District article. I can see the original contributor of this content has already moved the relevant information there. Miaers 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the media section to include all the TV stations in the Milwaukee market in otder to prevent an edit war with someone who wanted WVCY to be included. But I still question how significant most of the "other" stations are. I live in Riverwest and most of them never come in clear enough for me to watch them. I think WMLW is significant since it's Milwaukee's only true independent station and its popularity rivals at least a couple of the "major" stations. But the rest are just fringe stations that don't seem to have any significance beyond their core audiences. In other words, I think the section looked best before WVCY was added and all WVCY's presence really does is necessitate that all the stations need to be included. Then it simply becomes the article version of this (not sure what the "official" name for it is):

--129.89.246.140 08:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There are few enough stations in Milwaukee that I figure it does no harm. --Orange Mike 13:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the infobox photo back to the image that's been there for most of the year for a couple reasons. The photo that was used to replace it had to have been at least 5 years old, and therefore, didn't show the most prominent lakefront condo towers that would be present in a photo taken from that same spot today. It also didn't show the Calatrava which has been almost synonymous with our city's identity since it was built. Ideally, I'd like to see a skyline photo that included all of the above (and the First Wisconsin/US Bank Center, of course), but until then, I think the one that's there now is a much better fit. --Illwauk 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we get another photo of Miller Park from the front, since that's the stadium's best angle? Anyone got one?

-manutdglory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manutdglory (talk • contribs) 05:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Orange Mike, It seems we have a disagreement. I will admit that the picture you prefer is a great picture. May I ask though, how do you think your photo represents the city better ? I believe my photo displays more of the skyline, which is always the highlight of a big city. Please respond. With respect,Dandog77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandog77 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dandog - the picture you would like to display doesn't effectively show the few major landmarks that are unique to Milwaukee. The one we have now seems to do a better job, especially by identifying the Calatrava and the US Bank building in the same shot. If you can find one that definitely shows the major landmarks, instead of an extreme wide-angle from the lake, post it on the talk page and we'll all discuss it; rather than you making unilateral changes. Cheers, PaddyM 16:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The other picture, while competent and well-composed, is dark, and the skyline shown is so generic that it could be used as a stock photo for any city with downtown near a large body of water. The preferred shot is very distinctly schöne Milwaukee, with the Calatrava and First Wisconsin/US Bank building both prominently visible. --Orange Mike 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This image is much preferred, and I'm hard-pressed to imagine a better image (both in content and aesthetics) that could be better). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer the current photo. However, I must disagree with Zim that there couldn't be a better picture. The new buildings along Kilbourn add to the skyline, and it seems like there could be some photo that includes those buildings. Also, lake-level, western-facing shots obscure the more inland buildings; to compensate for that, a photo taken from the lake would ideally be taken from 100-200 feet above the lake surface so that the other buildings could be seen. In general, I like shots that highlight the density of downtown, so I personally think the more buildings that are shown the better. -Nick^talk 02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nick.

-Dandog77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandog77 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems rather odd to me that the article does not have a section devoted to crime statistics in Milwaukee. New York City, Chicago, Indianapolis, etc each have such sections. 65.30.164.29 05:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest this? --> http://milwaukee.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

--24.229.97.22 20:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to add a crime section. Look at the history. But everytime somebody deletes it. You people who are deleting it are stupid. The Milwaukee page should have a crime section since every other city does. If you don't like what I wrote, change it, don't delete it. And I also don't know how to put sources into the cited pages at the bottom so could someone do that for me? --Lil' Rad 13:13, 30 January 2008

Lil Rad, it's not that the article shouldn't have a crime section, it's just that your section only talks about homicides, and, to be honest, is kind of disorganized and confusing--it seems to be just a bunch of random facts. If you would like to write a crime section, then I would suggest that you take a look at the crime sections in other city articles and re-write your section to be more comprehensive (what about other types of crime? where does milwaukee rank nationally? is crime on average rising or falling? where in the city is crime located? what programs are in place to reduce crime?). The reason your section keeps getting deleted is that the editors feel it is too little to work with, and should be re-written from scratch; so it is easier to just delete it until a new section is written. -Nick^talk 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article should have a crime section. However the one in it now is poorly written and very confusing which is why I deleted it, not because im stupid. Since your reason for adding this section is because every other city has one then perhaps you should take a look at the crime section in other cities articles to see what should be included in a good crime section.--ChesterMarcol (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at re-writing the crime section. It is still very brief, but it now contains general statistics on crime relative to the national average. The section still needs expanding, so if anyone wants to help out, have at it. -Nick^talk 01:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the population to reflect this article.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=683335 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.31.222 (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And did you change the reference to reflect that, or did you leave the old link to the Census unchanged? --Orange Mike 14:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why have Milwaukee redirect to Milwaukee, Wisconsin? Why not just move this article to Milwaukee? Kingturtle (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed this--see the above section "Milwaukee or Milwaukee, Wisconsin" -Nick^talk 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the inclusion of mention of some random cypher card, but it was reverted. To me, this seems extremely arbitrary. If we want to have a "In popular culture" (note the correct heading style), then there would be many more entries (and much more encyclopedic entries) than just this singular mention, but even that, to me, is problematic. I suggest this be removed, again, as arbitrary and unencyclopedic. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I hear there is a new skyscraper coming up in Milwaukee. But I just can't think of the name! Does Anyone no? Blue Laser (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Emporis.com (that keeps track of these things), there is a new 30-story building called the Moderne that has been approved, but hasn't yet started construction. In addition, there is the 21-story Breakwater building that is under construction, and the twin 20-story Park Lafayette buildings that are also under construction. -Nick^talk 03:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• thanx Blue Laser (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are hardly "skyscrapers" - a 30 story building is simply a high-rise. There were two new high-rises already completed right on the lake last year. Besides, none of those buildings are going up downtown. If there is a real skyscraper (at least 50 stories) going up downtown, it's news to me - but Milwaukee could really use one that's been built in the last 35 years - the US Bank Center is barely an official skyscraper. Manutdglory (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're completely, totally, 100% wrong, Manutdglory. A skyscraper is defined as such, "A skyscraper is a very tall, continuously habitable building. There is no official definition or a precise cutoff height above which a building may clearly be classified as a skyscraper. However, as per usual practice in most cities, the definition is used empirically, depending on the relative impact of the shape of a building to a city's overall skyline. Thus, depending on the average height of the rest of the buildings and/ or structures in a city, even a building of 80 meters height (approximately 262 ft) may be considered a skyscraper provided that it clearly stands out above its surrounding built environment and significantly changes the overall skyline of that particular city." ^[1]

By those standards, Milwaukee has several skyscrapers including the residential towers (Kilbourn and University Club towers) that recently came online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilian77 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)