Talk:Grafton, Wisconsin

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Archive 1: start until October 2007

Population[edit]

I noticed that in the info box the population of Grafton was listed as 4,132 with a population density of 208.5 persons per square mile although in the article the population and census information the population was stated as 10,312 with a density of 2,552 persons per square mile. When I changed the info box to agree with the article my change was reverted. Am I missing something here?

Burningdwarf (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other party needs to provide a reliable source for their changes. I have a road map from the 1990s, and it lists Grafton's population at the 1990 census as 9340. Grafton's population is increasing. Reference #2, the official census website, shows 10312 people as of 2000 census. Please revert their changes as vandalism. I'll protect the article against this vandalism if this continues. Royal broil 12:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The revert WAS NOT VANDALISM!!!!! It was based on the fact that the infobox says that Grafton has an area of 21.4 sq. mi., with a population density of 2552/sq. mi. Multiplying that out produces a population of 54,613, which can't possibly be correct. The Census Bureau reference provides no data as to area or population density. Please provide a source for the area and population density data in the infobox. 12.76.154.53 (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the population density information either, so we agree that information is needs to be removed until it is verified. For some background, all of this population information in city/village/town/etc. articles throughout the U.S. were created by User:Rambot programmed with the census data [1], so the original data should be very reliable [2]. The population of 10312 can be easily verified at the Census Bureau website, so that should not be changed to around 4000. Sorry that I said that you were doing vandalism. I was looking at what you were doing from a different angle (population not density). The population is reliably documented. I wish you had an account, 12, because I have some articles that I'd like you to review but I have no place to request it. Royal broil 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my outburst, but I really don't like being labeled a vandal. The information had been changed by Burningdwarf without an edit summary, so it appeared specious to me. 12.76.152.76 (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues. Number 1, The area is wrong. It is quite obvious to any resident who thinks about it, that the area is not 21 sq.mi. The Village of Grafton website says the area of the village is just over 4 square miles. I don't consider the village website a reliable source, for our purposes, but 21 is just stupid. Second, the population density of 2552 is also just stupid. We can't have information that is is that wrong on WP. Since the facts in the article are both wrong and unsourced, I'm going to blank the fields until we can find accurate info. -Freekee (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking, and all I've found was this site and this webpage (see page 23 of the pdf). By the way, the 21.4 sq.mi. figure seems to belong to the Town of Grafton. -Freekee (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bet that's the problem. I remember seeing an edit summary by Rambot that talked about copying the information from the town article. I bet it was copied wrong. Good job everyone for finding the problem and getting rid of it! Royal broil 16:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now we just have to fix it! Can we use the info that is in the Geography section? That's 4.1 sq.mi. If we use that, does it need to be cited? If we use that, we can just do the math for the density, and it doesn't have to be cited, right? -Freekee (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OUCH! That incorrect infobox was added by User:CapitalBot [3] - it was a bot error! I hope that other articles aren't wrong. I wonder if we need to spot check some other village/city articles for towns with the same name. I think we should either use the info in the original article (4.1), or use nothing. Technically is should be cited, but remember it was taken from a solid source and it was used for the entire U.S. (and I didn't hear about any problems). Of course, I bet the CapitalBot didn't cause many errors either! Simple math calculations like density = people / area doesn't need to be sourced as long as they are both reliable. So if 4 is used on the village website, it should be reliable enough as a source. I eyeballed the city on my Wisconsin Atlas and Gazetteer, and it looks like it would fit just right in a 2 mile x 2 mile square. Royal broil 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just made similar changes to the Belgium and Fredonia articles. All of the Ozaukee County villages that had infoboxes were using the information from their associated towns. -Freekee (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Grafton, Wisconsin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]