Template talk:Lake County, Illinois
 | Illinois Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Chicago Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Zion Township[edit]
Zion Township does indeed appear on the census map:
It is listed on the official Lake County website, which also states that there are 18 townships, not 17:
http://www.co.lake.il.us/government/township.asp
It appears on city-data.com:
http://www.city-data.com/township/Zion-Lake-IL.html
It has its own website:
Based on all of this, it seems clear that the township does indeed exist. Omnedon (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it no doubt exists as a township, but it is also co-extensive with the city. According to the township general info page, it is one of 20 townships in Illinois that are co-terminus. The township administration and duties are separate from that of the city, but unless there is some substantive matter of significance unique to the township as distinct from the city, I suggest the township page should redirect to the city page and the matter of being co-terminus discussed there. older ≠ wiser 14:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The simple fact that the city and the township share the same borders does not necessarily diminish the significance of the township. As you say, a township typically serves a different role for its residents than a city; and in addition, the city and the township have separate websites, which I think is significant. For consistency's sake, it makes sense to have an article for this bona fide township, just as we do for all the others in the county, and in other counties in Illinois, and in Indiana, and so on. Omnedon (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the only thing to be said about the township is that it exists, I don't see why there should be separate article. Redirects are quite common for such situations. OTOH, if there is indeed something distinctive about the township apart from the city, then perhaps. older ≠ wiser 15:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see no reason not to have the article. Simply sharing borders doesn't negate an item's significance: after all, we have an article for Marion County despite Indianapolis being coextensive; for Union Township despite Shadeland; etc. Given that the other townships have articles, it would seem inconsistent and confusing to the reader if one was deliberately skipped, particularly when (judging by all the sources) it's as official and legitimate a township as the rest. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 16:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, whatever. As it stands now, there is nothing in the township article that couldn't be exhaustively covered in a short paragraph in the city article. But this would hardly be the first case of needless redundancy on Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 16:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The simple fact that the city and the township share the same borders does not necessarily diminish the significance of the township. As you say, a township typically serves a different role for its residents than a city; and in addition, the city and the township have separate websites, which I think is significant. For consistency's sake, it makes sense to have an article for this bona fide township, just as we do for all the others in the county, and in other counties in Illinois, and in Indiana, and so on. Omnedon (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ghost towns and other former communities RfC[edit]
I tried adding a former communities and ghost towns section to this template with Half Day, Illinois included but was reverted. Half Day was a small, independent town for about 100 years, but was annexed by a large neighboring town in the 1990s and is now a neighborhood of that town. I believe that ghost towns and other former settled places should be included in these county templates. The article about Half Day covers some of its history as a town and this is why I think it qualifies to be included in a new section of the template for ghost towns and other formerly independent settlements. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- But a ghost town is one which is completely abandoned. In a ghost town, structures may still exist, but no one lives there. With a former settlement, there may be nothing left at all. In the case of Half Day, as you state it, the town wasn't abandoned at all -- rather, it became part of the larger town and lost its own identity as a separate settlement in the process, but was still remembered and the name was still used to describe that area within the larger town. By no means is it a ghost town or a former settlement. Neighborhoods within cities are not typically listed on a navigation template for many reasons; for one thing, such a neighborhood is typically not defined in a legal sense and its borders (and very existence) may be subjective. In addition, large cities may have many, many such neighborhoods; the usefulness of a navigation template would be harmed by an attempt to include all of them. The navigation template is there to make it easier for people to navigate from one article to another, not to be an exhaustive list. Omnedon (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's a former town, so it really is a "former settlement" with settlement = town. The argument isn't really over whether or not people live there but sovereignty. It seems to me that excluding it just because it later became a neighborhood within another town totally ignores the fact that it was a town for the vast majority of its existence. The "town" of Half Day no longer exists, hence it is a former settlement. The neighborhood of the same name only came into existence when the town ceased to be. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- People still live there, so it is not a former settlement. It went from being an unincorporated settlement to being a neighborhood within a larger settlement, presumably as the population and borders of the larger settlement grew. The word "former" implies that it has ceased to exist, but it hasn't; its status has simply changed. I would add that no one has contested the creation of the article itself; the issue is whether or not it belongs on this navigational template, and as a neighborhood of a larger city, I don't believe it does. Omnedon (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- No. The town ceased to exist when it was annexed, both literally and legally. A neighborhood is not the same as a town. It is "former", just as if the entire town had been razed, then the land had been absorbed by another community who then built structures on it and happened to refer to the neighborhood by the same name as the old town which had ceased to exist. It belongs in the template as such. If the language of "former settlement" needs to be revised to be more descriptive then so be it, but it's no reason to disinclude it.Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- This template (and the 3,000+ others like it) is meant to reflect the current state of things. For this reason, we list ghost towns and other former communities IF there's no community in existence in their place. In this case, there's a municipality where Half Day was, so for the purposes of county navigational boxes it's considered a neighborhood, and neighborhoods aren't included. If the site had never been annexed, or if the site had been annexed but somehow it was un-annexed, we would include it without question, but given its current status as part of a municipality, it doesn't belong on this template. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not "just as if the town had been razed" in any sense. It was an unincorporated town before. It was then absorbed into the larger town, which is not at all the same thing as becoming a ghost town (which is a town that is abandoned). Half Day is not an abandoned town, or a former settlement, or a ghost town. It is presently a neighborhood within Vernon Hills and as such doesn't belong in the navigational template for the county. Vernon Hills does. Omnedon (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- The TOWN doesn't exist anymore, therefore it's nonexistent. The neighborhood does not = the town. The only status the TOWN has is "gone". It legally ceased to exist in 1993. I'd really like to hear from people other than the ones who I already know disagree with me. I thought starting an RfC would get some uninvolved people to come and join the discussion? :-( Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- According to the article, Half Day was never a town; the article says that it was always unincorporated. Even if that's incorrect, it doesn't matter for template purposes; communities such as the former borough of College Hill, Pennsylvania don't go on their county templates. As for the RFC, it might; people who look at the RFC list are aware of it, but who knows whether they'll find it interesting enough to come and participate. I just looked through the list of history and geography RFCs, but none of them did I find interesting enough to join. Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- The TOWN doesn't exist anymore, therefore it's nonexistent. The neighborhood does not = the town. The only status the TOWN has is "gone". It legally ceased to exist in 1993. I'd really like to hear from people other than the ones who I already know disagree with me. I thought starting an RfC would get some uninvolved people to come and join the discussion? :-( Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not "just as if the town had been razed" in any sense. It was an unincorporated town before. It was then absorbed into the larger town, which is not at all the same thing as becoming a ghost town (which is a town that is abandoned). Half Day is not an abandoned town, or a former settlement, or a ghost town. It is presently a neighborhood within Vernon Hills and as such doesn't belong in the navigational template for the county. Vernon Hills does. Omnedon (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- This template (and the 3,000+ others like it) is meant to reflect the current state of things. For this reason, we list ghost towns and other former communities IF there's no community in existence in their place. In this case, there's a municipality where Half Day was, so for the purposes of county navigational boxes it's considered a neighborhood, and neighborhoods aren't included. If the site had never been annexed, or if the site had been annexed but somehow it was un-annexed, we would include it without question, but given its current status as part of a municipality, it doesn't belong on this template. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- No. The town ceased to exist when it was annexed, both literally and legally. A neighborhood is not the same as a town. It is "former", just as if the entire town had been razed, then the land had been absorbed by another community who then built structures on it and happened to refer to the neighborhood by the same name as the old town which had ceased to exist. It belongs in the template as such. If the language of "former settlement" needs to be revised to be more descriptive then so be it, but it's no reason to disinclude it.Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- People still live there, so it is not a former settlement. It went from being an unincorporated settlement to being a neighborhood within a larger settlement, presumably as the population and borders of the larger settlement grew. The word "former" implies that it has ceased to exist, but it hasn't; its status has simply changed. I would add that no one has contested the creation of the article itself; the issue is whether or not it belongs on this navigational template, and as a neighborhood of a larger city, I don't believe it does. Omnedon (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's a former town, so it really is a "former settlement" with settlement = town. The argument isn't really over whether or not people live there but sovereignty. It seems to me that excluding it just because it later became a neighborhood within another town totally ignores the fact that it was a town for the vast majority of its existence. The "town" of Half Day no longer exists, hence it is a former settlement. The neighborhood of the same name only came into existence when the town ceased to be. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Let's start again. By definition, a ghost town is a town which has been completely abandoned and which remains so -- in other words, no one lives there any more. How does that term apply to Half Day? The town wasn't abandoned or razed or destroyed; it was absorbed. It ceased to be an unincorporated town, simply because it fell within the city limits of Vernon Hills due to an administrative act; but there were people living there before, during and after, so your application of the term "former" is a technicality, not a physical reality. Omnedon (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not classifying it as a ghost town though, I'm classifying it as a former settlement. It IS a former "something", because it went from an independent settlement to a part of an incorporated town. I used to live nearby, it had signs out on the main roads entering with the name "Half Day" on them until 1993. Any kind of settlement is really defined by its legal status, not by the fact that it contains structures and people. Population may coincide with the legal status of a settlement and help determine what it's called, but it doesn't define the existence or nonexistence, legally. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- You mentioned ghost towns earlier here, so that's why I was using the term. In any case, I'm not sure an unincorporated town has any real legal status, though I might be mistaken. It's a place with a name where people live. It is defined by that, not by some legality. This one became part of Vernon Hills. It's not a former town or a former settlement; a settlement is a place where people live, and that never changed. How are you differentiating a "former settlement" from a "ghost town"? Omnedon (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- A ghost town is a settlement wherein the people either move away or die, leaving the settlement uninhabited (like old abandoned gold rush towns, for example). A Former Settlement is a place whose status has changed from that of an independent settlement to that of a dependency. An unincorporated settlement does have legal status: while services such as fire, police, streets and sanitation may be provided by either the state, a township or by an agreement with a neighboring community, the US Post Office recognizes unincorporated communities. For example, prior to 1993, mail addressed to someone living in the former independent settlement of Half Day would have been addressed as "John Doe, 111 Random Street, Half Day, Illinois, 60069". After Half Day ceased to exist as an independent settlement, mail was then addressed as "John Doe, 111 Random Street, Vernon Hills, Illinois, 60069". The former town (or I guess "hamlet" is what the newspapers called it) had legally recognized status, whereas the neighborhood is just another part of Vernon Hills now. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- That the post office recognizes an address in an unincorporated town doesn't mean the town has some sort of legal status. It's simply a recognized place name for addressing purposes. How is that "legal"? As for your definition of "former settlement", I'd disagree. In any case, the area where the neighborhood of Half Day is located is still a settlement, because people still live there; the fact that the area was annexed by Vernon Hills doesn't mean that it ceased to be a settlement, so it can't be "former". It's now a neighborhood, because you can't have a town within a city. Focusing on the issue at hand, though, which is whether or not Half Day should appear in the navigational template -- it should not, as it is simply a neighborhood within Vernon Hills. Omnedon (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why you believe that we should treat Half Day differently from all other neighborhoods in the country. Large cities nationwide have annexed lots of small, formerly independent communities, but we don't include them in county templates; why should Half Day be any different? Why should we treat it differently from (let's say) Allegheny, Pennsylvania, which had about 130,000 residents a few years before it was annexed by Pittsburgh? Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- That the post office recognizes an address in an unincorporated town doesn't mean the town has some sort of legal status. It's simply a recognized place name for addressing purposes. How is that "legal"? As for your definition of "former settlement", I'd disagree. In any case, the area where the neighborhood of Half Day is located is still a settlement, because people still live there; the fact that the area was annexed by Vernon Hills doesn't mean that it ceased to be a settlement, so it can't be "former". It's now a neighborhood, because you can't have a town within a city. Focusing on the issue at hand, though, which is whether or not Half Day should appear in the navigational template -- it should not, as it is simply a neighborhood within Vernon Hills. Omnedon (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- A ghost town is a settlement wherein the people either move away or die, leaving the settlement uninhabited (like old abandoned gold rush towns, for example). A Former Settlement is a place whose status has changed from that of an independent settlement to that of a dependency. An unincorporated settlement does have legal status: while services such as fire, police, streets and sanitation may be provided by either the state, a township or by an agreement with a neighboring community, the US Post Office recognizes unincorporated communities. For example, prior to 1993, mail addressed to someone living in the former independent settlement of Half Day would have been addressed as "John Doe, 111 Random Street, Half Day, Illinois, 60069". After Half Day ceased to exist as an independent settlement, mail was then addressed as "John Doe, 111 Random Street, Vernon Hills, Illinois, 60069". The former town (or I guess "hamlet" is what the newspapers called it) had legally recognized status, whereas the neighborhood is just another part of Vernon Hills now. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- You mentioned ghost towns earlier here, so that's why I was using the term. In any case, I'm not sure an unincorporated town has any real legal status, though I might be mistaken. It's a place with a name where people live. It is defined by that, not by some legality. This one became part of Vernon Hills. It's not a former town or a former settlement; a settlement is a place where people live, and that never changed. How are you differentiating a "former settlement" from a "ghost town"? Omnedon (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not classifying it as a ghost town though, I'm classifying it as a former settlement. It IS a former "something", because it went from an independent settlement to a part of an incorporated town. I used to live nearby, it had signs out on the main roads entering with the name "Half Day" on them until 1993. Any kind of settlement is really defined by its legal status, not by the fact that it contains structures and people. Population may coincide with the legal status of a settlement and help determine what it's called, but it doesn't define the existence or nonexistence, legally. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)