Talk:Caledonia, Wisconsin

drama

so, anyone know the story behind the "special legislation" referred to in the ártigo? Tom e r ^talk 03:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An amendment was placed in the 2006 biennial budget that gave Caledonia the right to vote to become a village. They became one on January, 2006.

School issues

An edit war has begun on this page regarding the names of those who decided not to move ahead on a study. It is public record. This is pertinent information for anyone exploring education development in Caledonia. This information will continue to be replaced if continually removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3B5E:8380:4C98:A25B:F0B6:A244 (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it is public recored, it is also not notable unless or until a reliable source reports on it. The continued insistence of entering unsourced information into the article with a promise to contually revert is considered disruptive. The next step will be to take this issue to AN/I. Scr★pIron^IV 17:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to read what you are putting in. There is no context for it. I'm guessing it might make sense to locals in Caledonia, but this is not a message board or local news site. If you care to find some reliable sources and write some thing that might make sense to someone in Ohio or India, perhaps you maybe able to find the consensus to include it.John from Idegon (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many pages on wikipedia contain information that requires more investigation. There is nothing that requires this information be notable to someone unaware of Caledonia in Ohio. In fact, if they're on the page, they are there for a reason, and know enough about Caledonia that this makes sense. These are important to the context of the vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3B5E:8380:5827:6E5B:450:F89D (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current text is gibberish. If you have to be there to understand it, then you don't need to read it here. Plain and simple, it's news; it's unencyclopedic. I propose the following wording:

Caledonia is part of the Racine Unified School District. Since 2007 a small group of residents has been advocating the removal of the community's schools from the district.^{[citation needed]} On April 7th, 2015, Caledonia voters narrowly approved a non-binding referendum that asked whether they supported the creation of an independent school district.^[1] On July 6th, 2015, the village board decided not to conduct a feasibility study necessary as the first step in the separation process.^{[citation needed]}

^ [1]

To call that gibberish is idiotic. It is chronological and informative. You clearly are someone in the village opposed to the creation of a school district. What shameful behavior.

It covers all the bases and is perfectly understandable to all. 32.218.36.92 (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

32 is on the right track, and I would support that, if and only if citations can be found to support the places where there are citation needed templates in his example. Ad I was unaware that there had actually been a response here, albeit a not too constructive one, I stubbed the section to the undisputed facts, that the community is part of the Racine school district. That is fact. The rest is possibility, possibility that must be weighed as to neutrality and likelihood based on what all reliable sources say. John from Idegon (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree; the entire idea is completely unencyclopedic. This is a barely notable local news event, and Wikipedia is a worldwide incyclopedia. It is even less notable because it is a measure which did not even pass. Feasibility studies and referenda? All belongs in local news, but not here. Scr★pIron^IV 15:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, after further thought, I am leaning to agreeing with Scrapiron. I'm on my phone and can't really check the sources, but it sure seems like a long term non issue. John from Idegon (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can get behind that. My proposal was really a compromise position. On another note, if we decide to go this route, how about page protection for a while? 32.218.38.80 (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested and denied. Will request again if needed. John from Idegon (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to clear this up a bit for the IPv6 editor. What goes into a Wikipedia article is decided on consensus. The only one who is edit warring here is you. When another editor sees something he feels is not referenced well enough, is not written in a neutral fashion, or is just plain not appropriate for the article, he can and should remove it. It is then up to the editor that wants it in to try to sway all the other interested editors to his position on what should be in the article and it is on all interested editors to form a consensus for what the article should say. This is done by arguing from reliably sourced references and Wikipedia policy. The IPv6 editor has not brought forth one single proper argument, just ILIKEIT arguments. So at this point, consensus is that the education section should stand as it is, altho I don't think anyone would complain if someone who actually wanted to take the time to add the names of the schools actually in Caledonia. Any further insertion into the article of copy regarding whatever it is that the IPv6 editor was touting is editing against consensus and will be dealt with by page protection and blocks. If the IPv6 wants to try to get a consensus for what he wants, and is willing to work in concert with the editors here, they are more than welcome to come here to the talk page and discuss the matter. John from Idegon (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the IPv6 editor is back with the same stuff. I'm hoping he comes here to discuss this. I see no point in notifying him however as IPv6 addresses are usually highly dynamic. The same issues remain: Lack of clarity, lack of NPOV, lack of any sources beyond the local area. 32 reverted. I'll ask for protection if it happens again. John from Idegon (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article. IP, I'll lift the protection as soon as you start participating here constructively instead of just reverting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been constructive, changed the language and made it more relevant. People looking to move to our community look for this information. Saying the information on a topic must relate to someone across the country or world or not be included is stupid and illogical. The course of Caledonia's quest for education is a statewide issue in Wisconsin and has been discussed by news and talk show outlets. This information is not just relevant but sought out by residents, neighbors and prospective home buyers. This is a shameful attempt to remove information on our village. So much for being a free and open society at Wiki

Please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end. If this story has or had statewide interest, show references that demonstrate that. And I'm sorry, but 2,000 characters of copy on this is way too much, especially since the education section doesn't even tell us what schools there are in the community. It puts undue weight on the issue, which is obviously important to you, but in the perspective of the entire history of the community, is not as important as you are making it seem. Lastly, your copy is not neutral in any way. It espouses a viewpoint. It does not cover an issue from all sides. If you wish to contribute in an encyclopedic fashion, come here and discuss the issue. No one is stopping you, and that is how it works. John from Idegon (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Caledonia, 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1]

[1]