User talk:Omnedon/2008

Township dabs
Thanks for your work with townships, but some of the disambiguation pages you've created are quite redundant. I've redirected Lake Township, Indiana and others you have just made to their respective general dab, in this case. Lake Township. I hope you can see why it is redundant and a redirect works fine without a new article. As such, I kindly request that you stop creating these individual dabs for each state. Thank you, Reywas92 Talk  18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Such lists have long been made for townships in other states, such as Ohio. The township articles for Indiana were created relatively recently; these disambiguation pages, listing the townships with the same name within the state, aid in the search process by having the name of the state in the name of the disambiguation page.  Omnedon (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I believe the Ohio ones should redirect as well. As the national dabs have the name of the state as section header, I don't see why the search process needs aiding, especially if the is a simple redirect.  You do see the major redundancy in having individual state dabs, though, don't you?  Cheers,  Reywas92 Talk  23:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that disambiguation within the state of like-named places serves a purpose -- for instance, someone trying to reach Washington Township, Michigan gets a disambiguation to help them reach the particular place they're seeking. I'm not sure how the user would be served by eliminating this assistance.  Also, bumping the person up to a broader, nation-wide disambig after they're already specified the state he wants doesn't seem user-friendly. Huwmanbeing &#9733; 01:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The assistance would not be eliminated, it is redirected. It seems perfectly user-friendly when it is redirected to Washington Township.  It'd still be at the national dab, but directly at the desired state.   Reywas92 Talk  03:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, after seeing that there are about a hundred Washington Townships, it is correct in having a state article there. I'd agree that we don't want ultra-long dab pages.  However, there are also much shorter ones, such as Lancaster Township.  With so few to list, there is no reason to split into individual state articles.   Reywas92 Talk  03:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but that still seems less user-friendly and flies in the face of established practice. For instance, if you want to reach Monroe, Indiana, WP prompts you to select which of the two Indiana communities of that name you want, which is convenient.  It does not send you back to the high-level Monroe disambig (although it could, because both communities are also linked there too).  This practice is widely used, and conforms to WP:D which suggests dabs in cases where "a single term can be associated with more than one topic".  Is the term "Lancaster Township" associated with more than one article?  Yes, so disambiguate.  Is "Lancaster Township, Indiana" associated with more than one article?  Again, yes, so disambiguate.  Huwmanbeing &#9733; 13:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts, Huwmanbeing. I do feel that these disambiguation pages serve a useful purpose.  You have summarized this very well, though, so rather than restating, I'll simply agree. :-) Omnedon (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but it all seems very redundant. Reywas92 Talk 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Template Help
Your work with Missouri county templates inspired me to create Template:Boone County, Missouri, I was just wondering if you could take a look at it to make sure I got the "cities vs. villages" properly done and to make sure I got the format right. Thanks for all your work.Grey Wanderer | Talk 03:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I noticed a few things:  Sturgeon, Missouri seems to be a city rather than a village; and I believe there is a Cedar Township that should be included.  Would you agree?  One township, Missouri, is also out of order, alphabetically.  Good work, though.  On an unrelated note, are you a Lord of the Rings fan, by any chance?  I only ask because of your Wikipedia name.  Omnedon (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've enacted what you've suggested, and yes, I'm a huge LOTR fan.Grey Wanderer | Talk 03:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

About Taekwondo
JJL is Japanese Pushing POV Troll. He find 'one sentence' from one matial arts paper book. and claimed that "TKD originally from Karate!".(actually, that book written by karate teacher) I really sick and tired of this Japanese Pushing POV troll. most important thing is FACT. but JJL edit is not FACT. please, support me. Manacpowers (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Newton Township
Nice work on expanding the article for Newton Township, Buchanan County, Iowa. The old maps are great. Omnedon (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! And thank you for creating the article in the first place; I had considered creating stubs for each of the former towns in the township, but this is so much better. I lived in northern Newton Township in the Monti area many years ago. I like these old maps. I once saw a school district map from 1915 that would also be usable, but I can't find it anywhere, and the next map I have is from 1988, so there's a big history gap. I added an 1897 map to the page on Buchanan County, Iowa, too, and some day I'll pull out my photo album... Firsfron of Ronchester  00:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo Mediation
FYI, you're a party to mediation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Taekwondo

Your participation would be appreciated.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

noinclude
Thanks for the work with the bits on the templates — I know quite little about template syntax, and I didn't realise that there would be a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyttend (talk • contribs) 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

XHTML
Just curious: what's the difference between and ? Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

is the XHTML self-closing version of the older. Omnedon (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * XHTML is the successor of HTML. In XHTML, tags like line breaks need to be self-closing.  Hence,


 * Well, you answered my question, but I didn't ask what I meant to ask :-( I meant to ask: what's the practical difference with these templates?  Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pleasant Valley Township
I just thought it was vandalism. I went to census.gov and searched, with no results of pleasant valley at all. what is this http://www.city-data.com/? I don't see anywhere that it says census data or a source for their info. Can you show me census data on PV township. I'm confused!  C t j f 8 3 talk 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The data for townships is a bit buried, but here's how to find it:


 * Go to www.census.gov
 * Click on "American FactFinder" in the left menu
 * Under "Getting Detailed Data" / "Decennial Census", click "get data"
 * In the "Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data" section, click "Detailed Tables"
 * Select "County Subdivision"
 * Select "Iowa"
 * Select "Scott County"
 * Select "Pleasant Valley township"
 * You can then select what type of data you want to view, and/or produce a map. Omnedon (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What the hell?! I'm confused....I got the map and all, but why does it say Davenport UA all over the map, including Illinois?  C t j f 8 3 talk 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "UA" refers to "Urbanized Area" -- in this case, the "Davenport, IA--IL Urbanized Area". Omnedon (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never before figured out how to get township-level data. Thanks for providing this!  I've one problem, however: I follow your instructions, but when I hit the "next" button, it sends me to some sort of error page, with the only text being "Missing dataset parameter (ds_name)."  Can you help please?  Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know why that would be; I ran through it again, and it worked for me. What township were you trying? Omnedon (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pleasant Valley Township, Scott County, Iowa. What kind of browser do you use?  I have Internet Explorer.  Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's your first problem! Get rid of that junk. I use firefox, but just tried it on IE, and it worked fine for me  C t j f 8 3 talk 05:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to the CDPs
I'm trying to get consensus for a standard format for county navboxes, especially related to CDPs, but only four people have participated in the discussion. You participated in the earlier discussion; would you please join the second one so that we can have a broader consensus? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Rollback
Hi. I've just done your request. Please feel free to ask if you need any help with the tool. Pedro : Chat

Curious
I saw the maps that you added to the Indiana State Road 101 article and was curious: why not a map showing the extent of the entire road? Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I considered that, but the two sections are widely separated, and I wanted to be able to show more detail than would be allowed by zooming out to show the entire extent of the various sections. Omnedon (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why
Why did you change the picture of the william Tell statue in Tell City to something that has nothing to do with Tell City? Please change it back or I will report you.

Sincerely

Coolgyingman (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't do that. I was the last person to edit the article, but the image itself was replaced (inadvertently, I would guess) by Anna90.  I've reverted it to the original correct version.  Omnedon (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I thought it was you who put that picture there but thank you for changing it back Coolgyingman (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. How do you send messages?


 * When you say "send messages", how do you mean? Within Wikipedia?  You've already left me messages here on my talk page, so I presume you are referring to something else...  I'll help if I can. Omnedon (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A ton of work
You did a ton of work with those Nebraska township infoboxes! Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. :-) Omnedon (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing township?
I see that you made maps of all the townships of Hamilton County, Kansas but Melvern. Just curious: has something happened to the township, like perhaps it's gotten disorganised? Or have you simply had enough to do that you didn't make the map yet? Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Source of image_map
I was wondering what you are using to create the township maps that go with the township infoboxes? I saw your info above about census.gov but the resultant maps don't look like the other Iowa maps you've created. I am a Wikipedia newby and had created Franklin Township, Story County, Iowa patterned after yours, but don't know where to get/create the maps. Thanks! Moline670 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The township maps I create are based on boundary data provided by the U. S. Census; but that data has to be processed through some mapping software. I'm using open-source software and have written my own scripts to semi-automate the process of producing the maps.  I'd be glad to create the map for Franklin Township if you'd like.  Omnedon (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That'd be great - then they'll all look the same. If it is not too much of a pain, would you create the rest of the others in Story County? You've certainly done an awfully lot of work setting up all these townships, I figure I can help out with these.  Thanks! Moline670 (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem -- I've created the township locator maps for Story County and have uploaded them to Commons. Omnedon (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks much, I appreciate it. Moline670 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try to be polite: Why did you revert?
American English grammar is not British English grammar and does not belong on en.wikipedia.org. Put it on american_en.wikipedia.org. The correct British English grammar is "IBM have."

Why do Americans feel the need to dominate an international web site? I am going to revert to my corrections if you don't.


 * I direct you to WP:MOS. IBM is an American company; and the article seems to contain American spelling and usage.  Your replacement of "IBM has" with "IBM have" in one place doesn't fit the article.  In addition, your edit summary containing the phrase "HEY STUPID, IGNORANT AMERICANS:" which is offensive; and it incorrectly asserts that the English Wikipedia must use British English.  The Manual of Style addresses this issue.  Omnedon (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

City of ____ Township, Iowa
Your articles on the City of _____ Townships in Benton County, Iowa are being proposed for merger because they're not separate entities. I'd write against it, but you remember my annoying problems at being unable to access township data. Could you dig up the Census data (or whatever it was) that you used to write these articles? Here, Title IX, §359.5 of the Iowa Code, is the legal basis for the existence of such townships. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm busy with final exams, etc.: I'll have time to help you once dig up the data, but not time to keep checking back very often. Would you please tell me when you've posted an explanation for having these articles?  Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have summarized the situation on User talk:Dcmacnut. We'll see what happens. Omnedon (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Begin the discussion
I do not disagree that these cities are county subdivisions. I agree that there should be articles for county subdivisions, and am working on maps of my own for various states. We should mention that these cities are county subdivisions. The main reason I proposed the merger rather than blanking the pages with redirects is that the official name of this geographic area is ____ city, so to title an article City of ___ Township, Benton County, Iowa is not accurate. These cities are not "townships" in the same sense that Benton Township, Benton County, Iowa is a township. The Census Bureau lists these subdivisions as Vinton city, Shellsburg city, and Belle Plaine city, not townships, and treats them as Minor civil divisions for the purpose of taking census data. The cities are separate from the other townships, but there isn't a City of ___ and a separate City of ___ Township. It appears to me that the city and subdivisions are the same political and geographic entity, and not separate and distinct entities as you indicate. If so, why not mention the subdivision on the main city article?

For some of the research I did in making this conclusion, see the following U.S. Census Bureau demographic data that lists:


 * Geographic Area: Belle Plaine city, Iowa
 * Geographic Area: Shellsburg city, Iowa
 * Geographic Area: Vinton city, Iowa

The USGS page you use as a source also refers to them as City of ____. The only mention of "township" on that page is from the citation USGS used: "Census County/Townships, CDP's and incorporated cities - Bureau of Census, Geography Division." (emphasis mine). Just because "township" is in the title of the Census Bureau report doesn't mean that these cities are also townships.

With respect to Iowa Code 2001, Section 359.5, Divisions where city included, I can see a situation when a city becomes a township. But can someone provide a reliable source that this is what the voters in these areas actually did? Permission to create a separate city/township government within the Iowa state laws does not mean that it has actually be implemented for these three cities. Is there are separate township government, with elected officers that operates independent of the city for each "city township"? As near as I can tell, these are the only three cities with "township" articles in Iowa. Cedar Rapids, Iowa is an official subdivision of Linn County, Iowa, yet the article City of Cedar Rapids Township, Linn County, Iowa does not exist. Cedar Rapids actually spreads over what looks like 7 townships in the official census map. The official Vinton, Iowa website refers to them as a city, with no mention of a separate township. This geneology resource for Benton County identifies Belle Plaine, Shellsburg, and Vinton as being part of Iowa, Canton, and Taylor townships. And the Benton County website lists them along with the other communities.

Again, if the geographic and political area is the same, the elected officials are the same, and there is no difference between the two, why not cover include a subsection on the subdivision in the main city article? Having two articles for the same topic seems unnecessarily duplicative. If for some reason you think we still need two articles, would you agree to renaming the articles in the form Vinton city, Benton County, Iowa. That is more accurate, since "township" does not appear in the official name, and it would still differentiate the articles from ____, Iowa.Dcmacnut (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * With your permission, I'll continue this discussion on your talk page...
 * Dcmacnut, unlike in some states, not all Iowa townships (like townships in the Dakotas) have articles: they've been more manually created in recent months. Therefore, the nonexistence of the City of Cedar Rapids Township isn't a factor: it's no different from the existence, say, of Dover Township, Fayette County, Iowa, which I'm sure nobody disputes.  By the way, there are several other "City of _____ Township" articles in the state: statewide, there are twelve such articles, and I'm sure that more will be created if an article is created on every township in the state on the current pattern.
 * Whatever it is, there's some sort of difference between the cities of Benton, Shellsburg, and Vinton versus the rest of the cities in the county: look at page 7 of this Census Bureau document, which shows those three cities as different: the boundaries are solid, and a º follows the name. According to the document's key, "A ’°’ following a place name indicates that the place is an independent place or independent city. An independent place is not part of any legal county subdivision and thus serves as the statistical equivalent of a legal county subdivision. An independent city is not part of any county or legal county subdivision and thus serves as both the statistical equivalent of a county and a legal county subdivision. The name for the county subdivision is always the same as that of the place and never shown separately on the map."
 * Look, moreover, at this Census PDF: the very top of page 8, and the middle of the right column of page 12. Iowa's townships, according to the Census Bureau, are very weak: they have their own elected trustees, but apparently don't have the ability to do very much.  Since Title IX, §372.1 of the Iowa Code doesn't list trustee governments as possible forms for cities, I think we can say definitively that the elected officials aren't the same.  Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can provide evidence for these places being townships. Search this document, pages 12 and 24, for Iowa, and you'll find that these independent places are generally coëxtensive with a nonfunctioning township (see paper township for a similar situation in Ohio, which the Census discusses, although not by the name "paper township").  A policy has been established for paper townships in Ohio: would you be interested in considering a similar procedure here?  Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Again, I do not disagree that these are unique city-county subdivisions. I don't question that, and agree my Cedar Rapids example was a poor one. I still question calling these cities "townships" since I can find no reliable source that says the official name is City of ___ Township. The last Census document you pointed me to is the first definitive source to discuss when cities coexist within a township boundary. However, it still does not answer whether these city-townships in Iowa have separate governments, even if the Iowa townships are large defunct as governing units. The source you provided indicates that 18 of the 19 city-townships in Illinois have a separate functioning government, however, it says nothing about the governance of city-townships in Iowa. The Census Bureau also states it ignores the township form of government for these city-townships, since the city and the city-township are identical. If the Census Bureau says it ignores those distinctions, how can we use the Census Bureau as a reliable source to say that the city-townships exist?

I agree that these cities are "independent places" and the "statistical equivalent of a . . . legal county subdivision." However, the map document you mentioned also says that those independent places are "not part of any legal county subdivision," which indicates to me that they are are not in and of themselves township. The township and the city aren't two separate entities, but rather that the city is a township. That is similar for Alexandria, Virginia, which is an independent city and the equivalent of a county. However, we do not have a separate article on City of Alexandria County or other independent cities in Virginia. Why should we have a separate article for Vinton and City of Vinton when they are the same entity, we use the same Census 2000 source for population and other demographics, and the same geographical markers for both. I still think we can cover both issues sufficiently in one articles, by saying "The City of ____ is an independent subdivision of ____ County" or some other language to highlight the unique stature of that city compared to the other smaller cities in the county. That's how the Census Bureau treats them, and if we are going to use the Census as our reliable source, we should rely on how the Census chooses to define the area. To do otherwise, without a reliable Iowa-based source that these are two separate entities in play here would be original research, in my opinion. Perhaps the best way to answer the question would be to go directly to the source and ask the Benton County Commission. To that end, I will contact the Benton County Auditor for clarification.Dcmacnut (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I had consulted may of the sources you provided above prior to making my merge request. I also have a copy of the Township Atlas of the United States (1987) that I have been consulting. All indicated to me that these are named ____ City. The nuances of what is an isn't a townships are different for each state, but there also is room for some standard approach to the articles.

I will withdraw my merge request for now, but would either of you object to my renaming request? I do not think City of ___ Township is quite accurate as the official name.Dcmacnut (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. I have e-mailed Jill Marlow, Benton County Auditor. We shall see what she is able to provide. However, by way of additional information, please check out Page 33 of the document mentioned by User:Nyttend. It provides information on the "Relationship of Incorporated Places to County Subdivisions." For Iowa, it says:

"There are 901 dependent cities; 52 cities are independent of any township, creating 53 MCDs; most incorporated places shown as independent of any township are legally coextensive with a township that is nonfunctioning and generally not recognized by local officials; as agreed to by the State government, these townships are not identified in decennial census publications. (Emphasis mine)."


 * Coextensive is defined as "being of equal extent or scope or duration." Page 24 of the same document also says "State and local governments tend not to recognize the existence of many of these nonfunctional [city] townships." I would argue that if the Census doesn't consider these city-townships to be townships and the the local county government doesn't recognize them as townships, we should not treat them as such. Also, the information you've provided thus far indicates Iowa townships are minor governments, and in may ways administrative subsets of the county government, rather than independent entities. Cities in Iowa, however, are independent, and not subordinate to the county in any way. Again, we'll have to wait and see what Ms. Marlow is able to provide from the local government official perspective.Dcmacnut (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First to address the naming question: if they're townships, their articles should be entitled that. Going on to the substance: I would interpret the independent cities thing as "independent of any township government" rather than "having no township existence at all — this is the Census Bureau after all, which seeks to describe the practice most conveniently (after all, it lists Iowa as having no township governments, because they don't fit the criteria for governments :-)  It would seem to me that the purpose of voting to split a township into two pieces (for the city and the rest of the township), as described in §359.5, would be to ensure that the city was entirely within a township without any governmental power at all.  And also, about the Census Bureau ignoring them: I interpret the wording to mean that they don't count them separately, especially since Iowa townships are so weak anyway.
 * All this having been said, I've always been a little uncertain about the existence of these articles separately. The standard policy for Ohio paper townships (which I noted above) is to make them redirects to the cities that they replaced; since townships do exist for cities such as Vinton, I think the best course would likewise be to merge and redirect them.  These township articles are rather well sourced, after all; there's some in each one that could be added to the main article.  Not all paper townships should be redirected: ones with a bit of history behind them are permitted, such as Mill Creek Township in Hamilton County, as well as the defunct townships of Cuyahoga County.  Is there any evidence that any of these city-townships have any separate history?  I appreciate Dcmacnut's point on my talk page: "As I understand the Ohio situation, the township previously existed as a distinct entity. In Iowa, the city-township didn't exist prior to creation of the city."  I can't see how the township could possibly have a distinct history, and therefore I think that these should be redirected, like the typical Ohio paper township.
 * Lastly, can we agree not to do anything on these articles until we hear back from the auditor? Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn the merge request for now, and will let you all know what I hear from the auditor. I'm inclined to support merger, but will be open to any resolution, including keeping the articles separate, if the auditor or other reliable source supports the city-township as a separate entity. There's ample precedence for dual articles elsewhere, as I've learned, but primarily when both are legal entities.Dcmacnut (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Response from Benton County
Here is the response from Ms. Marlow with the Benton County Auditor. Here responses are in bold.

1. How many townships are there in Benton County? 20 or 23? - 20

2. Do the cities of Vinton, Shellsburg, and Belle Plaine exist as townships distinct and separate from the cities themselves? - They are not townships.

3. If they do not exist as separate townships, is it fair to say the city and township are one and the same entity? - They are not the same entity.

4. If they do exist as separate townships, what is the appropriate official title to which they are referred. Would it be "City of Vinton Township," "Vinton city township," "Vinton township," or some other term? - '''It is the City of Vinton, City of Shellsburg, and City of Belle Plaine. They are not townships. The City of Vinton is located in Taylor Township, the City of Shellsburg is located in Canton Township, and the City of Belle Plaine is located in Iowa Township. The townships and the cities are separate and distinct governmental entities'''.

I would recommend changing the city-township articles to redirects and adding a section to the city articles that mentions the cities as also being county subdivisions. I would recommend this for all City of Township articles, since I imagine we'd get a similar response to these question from all of the counties in the state. I would recommend something along the lines of "___ City is a independent city in ___ County. The U.S. Census Bureau reports statistical information for the city as a separate subdivision of the county, but the city is independent of the county and the surrounding township." Any thoughts?Dcmacnut (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the email etc. With this, I support redirecting after merging the content: if the information currently listed at City of _____ Township is actually about the city of _____, it is reasonable to assume that such information could properly be placed on the city pages.  Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Naperville, Illinois
Could you go to Talk:Naperville, Illinois, and then to the population. We are discussing the population, and I have posted back the official 2000 population. Thanks for any insight that you would have.--Kranar drogin (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dalton Township, Wayne County, Indiana
Can you please use some inline citation in the article?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. This means you do not have reliable sources to support the information you added in the article.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you would post such a response to your own message a mere 10 minutes after posting your first message, rather than waiting for me to respond. As you can see, I have provided sources, so also I'm not sure why you would conclude that I have none.  Since the data from those sources is used throughout the article in various ways, general references seem more practical in this case; please refer to Citing_sources.  Omnedon (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see from Citing_sources, it prefers use of inline citation.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * General references are acceptable, and this sentence, "the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article", applies here. Omnedon (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Iowa counties
Just wanted to let you know that I've in large part undone the Iowa county reformatting: not because I oppose it, but because the former versions of the six counties were closer to the template given by the county wikiproject. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The project page clearly states, "These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them." The template shown on that page is simply a suggested format; and the outline on the project page doesn't match the template.  The changes I made respect the spirit of the project page, simply placing the cities and townships in the "geography" section (which seems more logical).  Omnedon (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Zion Township
I'm glad that it's you who came into the Zion Township thing, so you know what I mean when I say that I'm wondering if we're getting into a "City of Zion Township..." situation :-) My source for reverting was this, top right corner of page 19, which shows Zion with an asterisk; the key (p. 2) notes that "A * following a place name indicates that the place is coextensive with a separate county subdivision." I wasn't paying attention earlier, and was actually in the middle of typing this comment when I looked at the map again and found that it was an asterisk, not the circle found on those not-in-township Iowa cities.  Do you know anything of Illinois local government?  All I know (aside from this map that I'm looking at) is that they have cities, towns, villages, and townships.  Judging by the map, most municipalities are within their surrounding township (the same way that most of the Iowa cities were), and the only municipality not in a township at all is Chicago.  However, it seems that many of the more important cities (including Zion) are "coëxtensive with a separate county subdivision", which would seem to be similar to what we thought was the case for the "City of _____ Townships" in Iowa. Do you know if this is a right approximation? Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you have answered your own question when you say that you misread the map you were looking at, which actually seems to state the situation quite clearly. On the Lake County template talk page, I've provided additional and substantial evidence that Zion is a township in its own right.  In fact, not all Illinois counties are divided into townships; but the majority are, including Lake County.  Omnedon (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota townships
Some time ago, you moved Aastad Township, Minnesota to Aastad Township, Otter Tail County, Minnesota, saying that "For clarity and consistency, the name of the township article should include the parent county as well as the state." You know that I agree with this idea; but I note that you didn't move any more townships. Did you meet resistance or disagreement from Minnesota people? Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time, I decided to do one township, then wait for comments; but then I got busy with other things, and I never got any feedback, positive or negative, and I never got back to this issue. I'd say that no news is good news, and that hopefully no one would object if all of the township articles were thus consistently named.  What do you think?  Omnedon (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in here, but I know that when I started moving townships to include the county, I did meet a bit of resistance about it. I would highly suggest that for clarity sake that you do move all of Minnesota's townships to include Township, County, State. I just makes everything more uniform also. If people have a problem with it, create the Township, State as a redirect only. That is my take on it anyways.--Kranar drogin (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem -- glad to have your support. I think this naming scheme has a lot of benefits, including the fact that it makes it easier to automate processes like adding maps; hopefully there won't be too much of a problem with getting it done.  I would have moved a bit more quickly, but frankly it got moved onto a back burner and I forgot about it. :-) Omnedon (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

One other thing to note about it, is that the US Census goes that route also, Township, County, State. I figure if they are doing it, it must be for a reason. A lot of states have the same township name over and over again, and its more uniform as has been stated already. I know about the back-burner. Sheesh. I still haven't finished up the precincts in southern Illinois.--Kranar drogin (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Saw that you moved Acoma Township in McLeod County; I finished off the county. What is it so far, just Aitkin and McLeod Counties?  I'll move Ramsey and Hennepin; it's not like there are that many townships there :-)  Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think those are the two counties done so far. I started on the list alphabetically by township name, which is why McLeod County happened to come up (Acoma Township in that county being second on the alphabetical list); but when I started in earnest, I decided it was best to go county-by-county.  It will be good to have that done; between us it shouldn't be too bad.  Omnedon (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The township moves, overall, seem like a good idea. However, there are a few townships that are pretty well known in their own right (roughly corresponding to urban townships maybe?). The best example would be 11,000-person White Bear Township, Minnesota. The USPS considers it a valid city for addressing, so addresses there end in "White Bear Township, MN 55110". I'm not sure how many others there would be -- Scandia, Minnesota would have been another one, but it recently turned into a city. - Afiler (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ela Township, Lake County, Illinois
YOu have suggested that Ela Township contains the Northwest Edge of Arlington Heights. However, the Arlington Heights' own sites make no reference to it extending into Lake County: it only mentions Cook County. See http://www.vah.com/. I suspect that the SE corner of Ela Township is either Palatine or Long Grove. --DAW0001 (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Ela Township's own sites do not mention Arlington Heights. See http://www.toi.org/ELATOWNSHIP/. --DAW0001 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this conclusion is drawn from boundary data from the US Census, available here:

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/

I've written some code that analyzes the township boundaries and looks for intersections with populated places, and it concludes that there is a very small portion of Arlington Heights that extends into Ela Township. In addition, this map shows the town barely extending to the southwest corner of the township:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US1702154&tree_id=4001&context=dt&_lang=en&_ts=230068217109

And, most conclusively (in this setting, since it's a static PDF), this map (to which Nyttend referred above, coincidentally) seems to show a small piece of Arlington Heights at the very southeast corner of Ela Township, on page http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/general_ref/cousub_outline/cen2k_pgsz/il_cosub.pdf

From what I can tell, then, the assertion is technically true even though it may not be significant enough to mention in most forums, such as city or township websites. If you find some other sources that disagree, let me know. Omnedon (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing about Ela, is that more than likely the township lands are being taken over by Arlington Heights, hence they are actually losing land rather than watching over those lands. The county wouldn't lose them, but they could be overseen by the city, or even Wheeling Township.--Kranar drogin (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * According to that census map, Arlington Heights is in both Ela and Vernon Townships, and Palatine Township for that matter.--Kranar drogin (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I went to the sources and asked officials from Ela Township and the Village of Arlington Heights, "Does Ela Township include any part of Arlington Heights?"

1) Nora Cunnie from Ela Township answered, "The Village of Arlington Heights is not in Ela Township. Ela Township is in Lake County and all villages within the Township are in Lake County."

2) Janusz Kwiatkowski from the Village of Arlington Heights answered, "Arlington Heights is located within three townships: Wheeling, Palatine and Elk Grove. I hope it will help."

3) From the Village of Arlington Heights Engineering Department:


 * Your inquiry regarding Ela Township and the Village of Arlington Heights addressed to the Mayor has been referred by the Manager's Office to the Engineering Department, so that an acknowledgment and an update can be provided to you.


 * The Village of Arlington Heights is not part of Ela Township. In addition, Arlington Heights is located in Cook County not Lake County.


 * Should you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the Engineering Department at 847/368-5250.


 * Best Regards,


 * Engineering Department
 * Village of Arlington Heights

I will leave it to you to determine if this is sufficient evidence. If you do, please update the entry accordingly. --DAW0001 (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just an observation -- it seems awfully close to OR to use individual examination of census boundary files to conclude that a village (Arlington Heights) is partially within a township when there is not any direct evidence from the respective township or village to support the claim and there is even attestation by communications from officials denying such a claim. The communication of course cannot be used as a referenced source, but then again what reference is available to support the assertion? A link to the boundary maps? Does the Census Bureau even claim that using its boundary file data as official demarcations of municipal jurisdiction is a valid use of the data? I mean, the Census data is a tremendous resource, but we also need to be careful not to overstate its authority. older ≠ wiser 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Lake County's official GIS system shows Arlington Heights protruding into Ela Township near Buffalo Creek Reservoir. Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  18:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it shows Arlington Heights protruding into Vernon Township, not Ela Township. The protrusion into Lake County appears to be between Schaeffer Rd. and N. Arlington Heights Rd., which would place it in Vernon Township as Ela's eastern boundary is to the west of Shaeffer Rd. older ≠ wiser 18:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If one closely examines a printed map and looks at boundaries, that's not original research. If one uses a map to determine what roads pass through a county, that's not original research.  The boundary files I have used contain map data; it is simply in a form that requires a bit of processing, which actually makes it more flexible and easier to apply in a variety of situations.  It's nothing like original research; rather, it is a use of existing, unmodified data that shows an overlap of Arlington Heights into Ela and Vernon townships in Lake County.  It can hardly be invalid to use geographical data to determine geographical relationships; it may not be absolutely authoritative, but there is certainly a reason for the maps showing this.  This is not about municipal jurisdiction, but simply about geography; I have made no statement about political or jurisdictional implications.


 * To quote WP:NOR: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."  I am not going beyond the intent of U.S. Census map data by concluding that X town extends into Y township, nor is this out of context; and the static PDF version of the map clearly confirms this particular conclusion.  Omnedon (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But that assumes that the U.S. Census Bureau data is authoritative for that purpose -- while I would agree that the Bureau certainly makes every effort to ensure accuracy, their purpose is ultimately to identify and categorize the demographic data collected by the Bureau. If there is no other supporting evidence other than minute analysis of detailed map data, I think that would indeed qualify as original research, especially when local authorities offer no support for the assertion. older ≠ wiser 18:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the Census Bureau maps are slightly different between 2000 and 2006. Working from the Fact Sheet page for Arlington Heights in American FactFinder, compare the 2000 map with the 2006 map. The tiny notch into Vernon Township is missing in the 2006 map (and I see nothing on either map that indicates AH protrudes into Ela Twp). older ≠ wiser 19:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Could http://www.vah.com/, the official website of the Village of Arlington Heights be used as a source? It definitively (and exclusively) states "Cook County, Illinois", which precludes Ela Township.


 * Also http://www.toi.org/ELATOWNSHIP/, the official website of Ela Township states "Within its borders are all or part of the Villages of Barrington, Deer Park, Hawthorn Woods, Kildeer, Lake Zurich, Long Grove, North Barrington, & portions of unincorporated Palatine and Mundelein." Notably, NOT Arlington Heights.


 * Slightly less definitive is http://www.co.lake.il.us/about/communities/default.asp, which lists the communities in Lake County, including Barrington, Buffalo Grove, and Wheeling, which are true "border town", falling on both sides of the county line. --DAW0001 (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding your first source (vah.com), it says that Arlington Heights is in Cook County, and that's perfectly true since that where most of it is, but you can't take that to mean "Cook and only Cook". Again, as shown in Lake County's own GIS, Arlington Heights does in fact slightly protrude into Lake County, despite vah.com not mentioning it.
 * As for the second source, if only small slivers of Arlington Heights protrude into Lake County (as seems to be the case), it's not surprising that it's not mentioned.
 * For the third, this again is moot since the fact that small parts of AH are in Lake County is not in dispute. This also applies to some of your interview sources who assert that no part of AH is in Lake, despite Lake County's own GIS and official census data showing that it is.


 * What this seems to boil down to is this: official public data and maps show very small sections of Arlington Heights protruding into Lake County, specifically Vernon and Ela Townships. This doesn't depend on any subjective parsing of data -- the map explicitly labels these protrusions, with two separate arrows and text that says "Arlington Heights" pointing into each township.  The protrusions seem small bordering on insignificant, but it'd be against Wikipedia policy to deny the census data source simply because a) personal interviews say otherwise, or b) we speculate that census data is perhaps intended for some other purpose that showing boundaries.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  21:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no official data that shows AH extending into Ela township. There is some conflicting maps from the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau is not (and does not claim to be) the authoritative source for municipal boundaries. Census data is not without errors. It is a humongous bureaucracy. If there is no support from local authorities, I do not see how we can accept confusing (contradictory) census information as definitive. older ≠ wiser 21:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is indeed official data that shows it: U. S. Census data.  "Official" here doesn't necessarily mean "the one and only final authority".  Errors can creep into any data that is handled by humans, especially when the data set is as massive as the census data; but on the other hand, the Census Bureau would naturally want its data to be as accurate as possible, and so far I have no reason to suppose that the data is wrong in this particular case -- so far I know of no official source that definitively says that the census data is invalid or incorrect or in error here.  According to the sourced census boundary data, the extension of Arlington Heights into Ela Township is tiny, less than 1% of the city's total area.  In fact, some would quite understandably say it was trivial; and many people might not know or care about it, including (perhaps) county or city employees -- and I could hardly blame them, as it might have little or no practical application for them.  However, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be mentioned in the article if the assertion is sourced, as this one is.


 * I would also point out this phrase from the note on page 2 of the census PDF cited above: "Any geographic entity name may include ’(pt.)’ if some portion of the entity extends beyond the limits of the map area displayed on the page..."  This appears after Arlington Heights both on the Lake County map on page 19, and the Cook County map on page 20.


 * If it turns out that the data is indeed in error, and this can be proven and sourced, or (alternatively) if the data was correct at the time but the situation has since changed, fine -- let's cite the source and change the article. Boundaries do change over time.  I want the article to be accurate, as I'm sure we all do.  So far we have no such proof.


 * As to the other issue, there is no way that using map data to determine geographic relationships is original research. The census map data is useful as a source of boundaries for various political entities.  Would you also say that Arkyan is guilty of original research for using census data to produce the excellent city locator maps that are included in articles for many cities, such as (for example) New Smyrna Beach, Florida?  I certainly wouldn't; those maps are very useful visual representations of freely-available data.  For that matter, my own locator maps for townships are based on the same data.  None of this is original research; it is simply the application of existing data.  Producing a list of populated places within a township by using that data is simply another way of visualizing the data -- in this case, textually rather than graphically.  Omnedon (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

NEW SOURCE, which I THINK is definitive and designed for the purpose!

http://gis2.co.lake.il.us/maps/ is the interactive map application for Lake County, Illinois. Under Government maps, one can select topics of Municapal Boundaries, including for Arlington Heights, as well as Township Boundaries, including Ela Township.

The application shows a small sliver of Arlington Heights north of Lake-Cook Road (of course), perhaps 1600 feet wide and no more than 100 feed tall. It straddles the intersection with Ridge Road (which approaches from the south and ends at Lake-Cook), wholly west of the intersection of Ashford Lane (and west of Arlington Heights Road) and wholly EAST of Schaefer Road.

The application shows that the eastern boundary of Ela Township is WEST of Schaefer Road.

Thus, I conclude that Arlington Heights DOES protrude into Lake County, but ONLY into VERNON Township, not Ela!

HOWEVER, this sliver of land IS surrounded by a large swath of property that is designated "unincorporated". That unincorporated parcel continues in a contiguous fashion west into Ela Township, ending roughly at the intersection of Route 53 and Lake-Cook (and abutting Buffalo Grove to the east at Arlington Heights Road). I believe the entire parcel is the "Buffalo Creek Forest Preserve". The map application does not specify if this area is Arlington Heights or Palatine or Long Grove or Buffalo Grove.

So, perhaps "UNINCORPORATED Arlington Heights", if that is how that ENTIRE swath is designated, does protrude into Ela!

Whew! --DAW0001 (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Although it doesn't (unless I'm not paying attention) address the township question, http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/files/SUB-EST2006_17.csv lists A.H. as having an estimated population in Lake County (admittedly, just 1 person): if there's a person who lives in both A.H. and Lake County, A.H. must extend into Lake County. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * DAW0001, that is precisely what I saw above and which is why I said (and repeat here) there is no official source that AH extends into Ela Township. There is a possibility that it might extend ever so slightly into Vernon Twp. The Census Bureau boundaries are authoritative ONLY for describing how the Census Bureau has aggregated the demographic data it has collected. The Census Bureau is not and makes no pretensions WHATSOEVER of being the definitive authority on municipal boundaries. I think it is for the most part quite accurate. But slight blips in computer-generated maps should not be interpreted as being the final authority on what is or is not the actual boundary of a municipality.


 * To Omnedon, yes it is indeed original research to use minute difference in maps that are not intended to be definitively authoritative for the purposes of demarcating municipal boundaries to determine whether an entity does or does not extend into another entity. The purpose of the census maps is to illustrate the geographic entities which the demographic data has been aggregated. In most cases it corresponds to actual boundaries. But to make such claims based on minute analysis without supporting evidence for local authorities (and indeed in the face of contradictory evidence is very much original research. If you don't agree, I suggest we ask for other opinions at WT:OR. older ≠ wiser 03:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not at all original research to take a map such as given by Huwmanbeing (the Census pdf) and say that it's partially in Ela Township and Vernon Township: unless the arrows are ambiguous, or unless there's possibly another Arlington Heights in the state to which the arrows refer, it's not making use of unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that advances a position. What's more, because Lake County is shown on a different page of the map from Cook County (p.19 vs. p.20), there's no question of whether there's a slight deviation along the line.  Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The entries on the PDF map that show Arlington Heights extending into Ela and Vernon townships are not "blips". They are clearly labeled.  They just happen to show very small extensions rather than large ones.  Your argument seems to revolve partly around the word "minute" -- that somehow if you look very closely at the map, it is original research, whereas if you look at the same map from a distance where you can't see the small details, it's not.


 * As to the application of census data, it is frequently used throughout Wikipedia, including for the production of maps. Again, do you feel that Arkyan does original research in producing his maps?  The census doesn't have to be the final authority on boundaries in order to be validly used, since the census needs to have accurate data for producing statistics, and it has the advantage of being a single source of data that covers the entire nation.  That doesn't mean it's perfect, and if a case emerges where the Census has it wrong, or where there is newer, more up-to-date information available, then the article can be adjusted, as I've already stated.  In this case, the incorporation lines have apparently changed since the 2000 census, and this may be one of those changes.  Since the county's GIS shows an extension into Vernon Township but not Ela, that can be cited in the article.


 * This "original research" argument is, quite frankly, nonsense. Omnedon (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the main thrust is not the "minuteness" of analysis required, although that is a part, it is rather simply that the Census Bureau maps are not authoritative for the purposes of demarcating the precise boundaries of municipalities. They authoritatively reflect how the Census Bureau aggregated demographic data. Period. They are mostly accurate enough to use for other purposes such as to illustrate a big picture aspect of boundaries. But it is original research to use census maps for purposes other than what they were intended.


 * And I don't know why you keep brining up Arkyan's maps. They are a red herring here. The Census Bureau maps are accurate enough for most uses. In cases where maps based on census data contradict local authorities, they should not be used. older ≠ wiser 11:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely the Zoning Map for Arlington Heights might be considered authoritative? Or the interactive GIS maps provided by the Village? Neither shows Arlington Heights extending into any portion of Ela Township. The Zoning Map pdf does show two small slices along the north side of Lake Cook Road into Vernon Twp, but nothing north of Lake Cook Rd in Ela Twp. The interactive GIS maps show the same thing. There is simply no basis whatsoever for using the Census maps to overrule local authorities. older ≠ wiser 12:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "red herring" here. You questioned the use of census data to determine boundaries, calling it original research and claiming that it has no authority whatsoever to define those boundaries.  Arkyan's maps use census data to show municipal boundaries.  It doesn't matter if it's "big-picture" or not.  If you feel that does matter, then it's a question of degree and nothing else.


 * It has not been claimed that the census data defines boundaries. Rather, the census bureau uses boundary data in producing their statistics.  They need it in order to produce accurate demographic data, such as how many people live within a certain city or township or county, and they compile that boundary data across the entire nation; one additional result of this is a free, useful, national repository such data which, by and large, is accurate.


 * As for the census overruling local authorities, I have never claimed any such thing, as you should know by reading my comments, such as this one from the very start of the conversation before your involvement: "From what I can tell, then, the assertion is technically true even though it may not be significant enough to mention in most forums, such as city or township websites. If you find some other sources that disagree, let me know."  Such a source did eventually emerge.


 * Until I examined the Lake County GIS, I had up to that time seen no proof that the census data was contradicted by any other official sources. Having seen through the GIS that there is a contradiction between the 2000 census data and the (presumably) more recent GIS data, you'll see that the article has been appropriately modified.  However, as long as I have census data that has not been challenged or contradicted by some other citable source, I'll stick to it.  That is not original research.  Omnedon (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, what I questioned was the use of census data to determine precise details of boundaries where local authorities do not support such details. I don't disagree with your description about what the Census Bureau uses the boundaries for. But it is nonetheless true that the Census Bureau is not and does not claim to be the authoritative source for local boundaries. And yes census data is by and large accurate. But surely you are aware that there are many inaccuracies in the data. There is nothing sacrosanct about census data. What bothers me most in this (and some other discussions) is an almost reflexive obeisance to census data as the be all and end all, even when there is no corroborating evidence from local authorities. You say It has not been claimed that the census data defines boundaries and yet that is the practical effect when statements are added to articles such as Ela Township, Lake County, Illinois that indicate Arlington Heights, Illinois is partially within the township.


 * In particular, I find the use of the pdf county maps from the census particularly dubious for determining precise boundaries. The scale in such maps are simply not adequate for making such minute determinations. I suspect that what happened in the case of the map on pg 19 is that there are two pieces of land north of Lake Cook Rd -- and the scale of the pdf map simply did not allow the arrows to be precisely positioned. What I would hope is that where the census maps portray such minute details, editors would seek some corroborating evidence before making assertions based on such details. older ≠ wiser 13:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What you "suspect" happened with the map is neither here nor there. The scale is quite sufficient -- one can clearly see the extension of Arlington Heights, and one can clearly see the labels and the arrows, and there is enough space for both to be positioned accurately according to the data that they had.  I have never treated the census data as the "be all and end all"; I have been quite clear on that.  Using the data to say that X city extends into Y township is not saying that the census defined those boundaries.  It is simply using the data that the Census Bureau had already compiled and made public, and which is generally reliable.


 * I have to wonder if you are really reading what is being said here. You just said "surely you are aware that there are many inaccuracies in the data".  Yet yesterday I said, "Errors can creep into any data that is handled by humans, especially when the data set is as massive as the census data."  Then I said, "That doesn't mean it's perfect, and if a case emerges where the Census has it wrong, or where there is newer, more up-to-date information available, then the article can be adjusted, as I've already stated."  That has already happened.  Let's move on.  Omnedon (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm simply flummoxed then. That is precisely original research. You are taking a map which is in no way authoritative for the purposes of determining the precise location of boundaries, and, seeing marks that appear to indicate that the village of AH has two extensions into Lake County, conclude that therefore AH extends into Ela Township (even though there is NOTHING that explicitly says that in the map). Just as you are wondering whether I am reading what is being said here, I have precisely the same misgivings about what you appear to be thinking I am saying.


 * Using the data to say that X city extends into Y township is not saying that the census defined those boundaries. It is simply using the data that the Census Bureau had already compiled and made public, and which is generally reliable. Except that in this case, the actual evidence that X city extends into Y township is based on a misinterpretation of a map being used for purposes it was not intended. All I'm really saying here is that care needs to be used when examining census data so as to avoid misinterpreting the data or relying on it as definitive for purposes it was not intended. older ≠ wiser 14:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Bkonrad: You keep asserting that census data isn't authoritative. That's your opinion and you're welcome it to, but it's not supported.  WP uses census data extensively.  If you want to challenge that practice, other forums may be more appropriate, but you'll need to cite clear reasons backed up by objective sources.  Simply saying you're bothered by it is insufficient.


 * A few other points:
 * You say that nothing in the census map suggests AH extends into Ela. Howver, the map clearly shows it, and it does so about as explicitly as it's possible to do, with arrows, text labels, etc.  It's there in black and white.  Repeatedly denying it's there doesn't change that.
 * You say that the contention that AH extends into Ela is based on a misinterpretation. No, the census map is explicit.  Once again, denying that the map shows what it shows isn't good scholarship.  You also suspect that aberrations due to scale account for any discrepancies, but such unsupported suspicions also aren't good practice.  (Plus the explicit use of arrows and text labels pointing into Ela aren't accidental.)
 * Finally, I too fail to see how looking at a map and citing what it shows counts as original research. If that's the case, then your own GIS and zoning board maps need to be tossed out as original research too — after all, you looked them up and are making claims based on what they include.  How are they any different?


 * The article's current description of the protrusion seems fine to me since it addresses the discrepancy and the various sources involved. Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not say that Census data is not authoritative. It is authoritative for the purposes for which the Census uses the data. Census data is not authoritative for local boundaries. It makes no such claims. That is not simply my opinion. Show me where the Census Bureau claims it's data and maps are definitive and authoritative representations of local boundaries. The Census data and maps are nothing more than the best efforts of Census Bureau personnel to reflect such information for the purposes of aggregating the demographic data collected by the Bureau. You'll need to cite objective sources if you want to use Census data for purposes it for which it was not intended.


 * the map clearly shows it -- the map clearly shows something anomalous there. Precisely what is not at all clear and drawing conclusions based on such weak evidence is, well shoddy, if not original, research. That the arrow indicates something is unusual there, certainly. That it means Arlington Height extends into Ela Twp is speculative.
 * Concluding that AH extends into Ela Twp based on a census map that was never intended to definitively show the precise boundaries to a minute detail is misinterpretation. I don't see how it can be anything else. The current phrasing in the article is tolerable, but probably gives UNDUE emphasis to an isolated quirk in a census map being used for a purpose beyond what it was designed for. older ≠ wiser 16:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you may misunderstand how sources work in WP:
 * It's not up to me to prove that the census is specifically intended for any purpose. It's simply a reliable, third-party source that's widely considered trustworthy, and that's sufficient.  If it presents information, it can be cited, regardless of what my "purpose" is in doing so.  As WP:NOTTRUTH states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."  In this case, the fact that AH extends into Ela is shown in publicly available census data and maps, so therefore we can refer to that.  That's it.  It's not up to you or me to second-guess the intention of the creators or to speculate about the purpose that they intended it for.  It's not up to us to say "I don't like their data" or "I prefer other sources", since that injects personal opinion and bias into the article.  It's simply a source, and in this case a widely used one.


 * As for the map, you're trying to conjure ambiguity where none exists. The census says it's there and they produced a map with an arrow and the text saying that AH is in Ela.  What more would they need to do?  As I've said before, describing it as anomalous, a quirk, weak evidence, etc. doesn't make it so.  The data supports it and the map is clear.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  17:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One more rather interesting point: In both the GIS and zoning board maps, the northern border in the area we're considering is actually drawn north of Lake-Cook Road. In other parts of AH, borders often run right along the edge of the road or down the middle, but not along Lake-Cook — there's a strip of land north of it that's within AH's borders. This is also what the census shows. :-) Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  17:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of notes from the real (outside) world:

1) John Schweda, the Ela Township Assessor, says:
 * "I think the census data goes by property addresses and not physical locations, a USPS issue.


 * In looking at the parcel addresses along the Lake County county line, there is one property that has a Arlington Heights Address:PIN # 15-31-400-004 althought the property is located in Vernon Township, Lake County.


 * There are no properties in Ela Township that have a Arlington Heights address.


 * Go to Lake County GIS mapping,  http://www.co.lake.il.us/gis/  property tax, click on search, PIN # 15-31-400-004, click on report, click on each parcel along the county line,  and you can see the address of all the properties as well as the township it is in.

2) Peter Schoenfield, from the Lake County GIS Department, adds, "The piece [of incorporated Arlington Heights that is north of Lake-Cook Road] is actually a road right of way for Lake Cook road and is located in Vernon township."

3) Thank you (to Omnedon) to the adjustment you made to the article. Looks good to me!

--DAW0001 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your input and efforts on this issue, and for your civility; I'm glad you are satisfied with the statement in the article. Omnedon (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cenus Tiger/Line Shapefiles
Given your work on maps, I thought you'd be interested to know that the Census has posted its 2007 Tiger/Line boundary files in Shapefile format. They are available via FTP or through individual download. These are updates to the 2000 general boundary files. The boundaries are often much more detailed at higher resolution, and, in some cases, reflect legal boundary changes that have occurred since 2000. Thought you'd be interested in them. They've been helpful in my North and South Dakota mapping efforts.

Also, Census posts geographic boundary changes since 2000. Several of the states you've been working on have posted several township changes (mainly annexation of villages or cities annexing parts of townships) that may be beneficial for historical discussions in the articles. I found several instances in North Dakota where a few townships have disbanded entirely since 2000.Dcmacnut (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- I was not aware that they had published updated shape data for 2007; I see that it was released in March 2008. That will certainly be invaluable data. Omnedon (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

need some help from TKD article(JJL)
Yesterday, i read carefully Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 4, but there is no one permitted JJL's edit. by the mediation(Requests for mediation/Taekwondo), mediators are not accept JJL's POV edit. but i still do not understand why article is remained JJL's pov edit. may i ask you, if you are not busy please participate in this discussion.Manacpowers (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I need some help. I know you are neutral editor. I'm not a native english. My english is not a pretty well. JJL rv. my edit and reason is "ungrammatical". if you are not busy, can you help me correct grammar in "Modern taekwondo" part? He rv. again again... pushing POV as possilbe as he can. i do not think my edit part is ungrammatical.(actually, quote from english source)Manacpowers (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "The history of taekwondo has been a matter of contention. Some believe that it was entirely derived from earlier Korean martial arts, or that it is a native Korean martial art with influences from neighboring countries. "
 * actually, I'm not a have POV from "TKD is purely from Korean tradional martial arts."
 * my POV is TKD is martial arts of Korea. and Influenced grade system from karate. also possibly influenced by Kungfu, and Karate skills.
 * I think this sentence "or that it is a native Korean martial art." need delete. like you see, official TKD site(ITF, kukiwon, WTF) do not say TKD influence from foreign. Manacpowers (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be glad to help if I can. Firstly, though, might I ask you to tone down some of the accusatory language you have been using?  That will help the whole process to go more smoothly.  Although you and JJL may disagree very strongly, try to keep in mind that you both want to end up with a good article.  I think the goal here should be to present information so that the readers can come to their own conclusions rather than having conclusions forced on them; to that end, I'd be glad to help with grammar and construction and (if you will permit me) some suggestions on compromise.  It may not be until the weekend, however, as I have various other things going on.  I think we are making some progress here.  Omnedon (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your's effort. however, I disagree recent your change. why you omiited this sentence? This state cleary exist, too. i can prove by various sources.
 * "Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were based upon various martial arts Taekkyon, Kungfu, karate."

for fairly view, this word must be change like as "whereas some others"
 * and another changed sentence : "whereas others"


 * in my suggestion,

"TKD officialy stated that their arts based upon Traditional Korean martial arts Taekkyon, Subak.[1][2] However, Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were almost entirely based upon Japanese karate. Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were based upon various martial arts Taekkyon, Kungfu, karate. Manacpowers (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This was done in the spirit of compromise, in an effort to describe the two main views simply and fairly. We could go into more detail and split it into three or four views, but I believe that will complicate the process right now.  Let's get through this, and if we can get to a position where everyone can accept a version, we can then try to expand it by stages so as to maintain the balance.  Omnedon (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * oh, really? I see. thanks for your mediation. keep it good work. Manacpowers (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry to bother you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Taekwondo_2

I think nate seem like he wanna block me as possible as he can. but fact is, I was an good faith editor according to my sources in Hapkido article. See So it is not my POV. so i keep avoid major change. i don't wannt make dispute more. and my english is not good, so, I Somtimes Used other native user's english grammar or Quote to others. it is not a offensive behavior. please understand this.Manacpowers (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Townships
Two weeks ago, I created Kiowa Rural Township, Kiowa County, Kansas (the only township in the county), and I'd be thankful it if you added a map and the various other things that you can make that I can't :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and can you create Leoti Township, Wichita County, Kansas, too? It's the only township in the county, as well.  Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've created a map of the county and added it to the township article. As to Wichita County, Huwmanbeing is doing the Kansas townships, and I'm sure he will get that one done in due course.  Omnedon (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't keep track of who makes the maps; I thought you made the maps that he uses. Thanks :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you mean you wanted me to create the map? I can do that; when you said "create Leoti Township", I presumed you meant the article. Omnedon (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, the map for Wichita County now exists in Commons as "Map highlighting Leoti Township, Wichita County, Kansas.svg". Omnedon (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

TKD
Thanks for that cite, it Leaves the POV view nothing to stand on. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem -- it was easy enough to find, and that particular citation seemed good for the purpose -- not a statement of fact, but simply an indication that the application of the term was fairly widely-recognized, and it gave some good background on General Choi as well. Omnedon (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I did not notice it until today. I will look into it.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion please?
Would you please weigh in at Talk:Dunwoody, Georgia? The community has voted to incorporate, but there's debate on the talk page over when the incorporation will be official. Someone has provided an official document, but I can't read it — but as you may remember, my browser won't display everything, so I'd appreciate it if you checked the link to see if it will display to you. Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on Bethel Cemetery photo
Omnedon, thank you for the compliments on my Bethel Cemetery photo! I do think that the photo says a lot about Richland Twp. Mr. Harman (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving Minnesota townships
Thanks for your work, moving most of the Minnesota townships. Do you think we should talk to the Pennsylvania people? They likely have a more active project, so we definitely shouldn't do anything without talking first. Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Township governments
Hello Omendon! I thought I would pose a question to you for input. I would like to include something on the makeup or township government on all the Indiana township articles. As all township governments are 100% identical except for the elected representatives, I believe it would be redundant to add just a government description like I did on the county articles (county governments are unique in the number of councilors, commissioners, and established boards). In what way do you think would be best to link the townships to this information? I was thinking a See also Indiana Township Trustee, added to each township page, or maybe add it to the infobox somehow. Charles Edward 15:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello! First of all, regarding the Indiana county government issue, I am sorry that I somehow missed your initial message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indiana about the government section on the Indiana county articles; I'm afraid I only noticed when you actually made the changes to the articles, and have been somewhat busy in real life recently.  In any case, if the county government sections do diverge and become unique, then it makes sense to describe county government on a per-county basis; but I believe you're correct in saying that all the townships work the same within the state (at least, as far as I know).  Since there is a section on this in the Indiana government article (Indiana_government), could we just link directly to that section?  There is a "government_type" attribute in the infobox, so perhaps a link could be made from there, with a label of "Indiana township".  What do you think?  If we come up with something, I would be glad to add this to the township articles using AWB.  Omnedon (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking along those same lines. A link to either Indiana_government or Indiana Township Trustee, labeled "Indiana Township Government". Adding to the infobox sounds good to me also, and If you can do it with AWB, that would be tons faster that I could doing them manually. Charles Edward 17:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done this on Blue Creek Township, Adams County, Indiana. What do you think of it? Omnedon (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that is perfect! Charles Edward 17:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for suggesting this; anything that usefully expands the township articles is a good thing. As I look at it further, I wonder if a link to Indiana Township Trustee as you suggested would be better, as it provides more detail...  Omnedon (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, de-stubbing them all should be a priority of the project. Indiana Township Trustee may be the better choice. It does have the government template at the bottom that can be used to easily access related information. Charles Edward 18:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the Indiana townships should be de-stubbed in the near future; I've made my way through Jefferson County, Indiana so far. Naturally, any additional specifics that can be added would be great, and a few townships have been expanded by various users, but at least none of them will be stubs any more.  As I move forward, I'll include this government link in the additional material I'm adding, and will go back and add the link to the townships through Jefferson County as well. Omnedon (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:USRD/A
We appreciate your work in Indiana; however note that if an article has only 1 out of the major 3 sections (route description, history, and junctions table) it is a stub class, not a start class. Rschen7754 (T C) 21:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked on the page and apparently it's not as obvious as I thought. The consensus as in the WT:USRD archives is that if it has a route description or history, it is a start. If it just has a junction list (or if it doesn't have one), then it is a stub. This is not the same classification system as WP:WSS uses. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Factfinder help
This request discusses race-related demographics data from the Census Bureau. I can't find a page at the Factfinder that would solve the problem; could you please read the section and try to find a relevant page? Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)



I believe that the Image:Map highlighting Yellowhead Township, Kankakee County, Illinois.svg map is skewed
I believe that the Image:Map highlighting Yellowhead Township, Kankakee County, Illinois.svg is skewed in a counter-clockwise manner. What should be horizontal east-west lines seem to rise northwards as they move eastwards.

FYI, Mr. Harman (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The lines do actually run as they are depicted. You can see this in various other maps available electronically, such as Yahoo Maps, Google Earth and the official county zoning map; you might compare the southern Kankakee County border with some other county lines in Illinois and Indiana.  My maps are produced from U. S. Census data; do you have some source that disagrees?  Omnedon (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Extinct settlements proposal
Thanks for your support on this proposal. Sadly, I don't there's enough support to make it a "goer". What I've done instead, is to set up a family of categories "Lost settlements in x" under "Lost settlements". Used "Lost" instead of "Extinct" as there were alreadty some "lost settlements in x" categories that could be included. Also tied in cats such as "Ghost towns" and "Sunken cities". Comments welcome. The first negative comment has appeared at Category talk:Lost settlements in Asia. Folks at 137 (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was advised to propose renaming the "Lost settlement" categories. The discussion is at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 20. I hope that you will contribute. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)