Talk:List of counties in Wisconsin

Wisconsin High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: U.S. counties Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. counties (assessed as High-importance).

Untitled

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Wikiproject help

Some helpful information on U.S. county lists can be found at WP:COUNTYLISTS. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tribes

Where are the FIPS codes for the tribes in Wisconsin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.189.41.11 (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets make this a FL!!!!!

OK, we will need to get a few things done, then a peer revirew, a copy edit and BAM, off to FL nomination. Here is what we would need. NOTE: This is based on the WV FL which just passed over a week ago.

Formed from, counties need to be wiki linked, additionally, we need a ref or explanation behind, the term unclaimed territory.

About the unclaimed territory issue, this reference on the origin of Wisconsin is excellent! Royal broil 02:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology, titles like President, Senator, etc ec, need to be wiki linked

Population, are these 2010 census, if not, they need to be updated

They are all updated to the 2010 census per [1]. Royal broil 12:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links, one or 2 are broken, I can get that

The introduction paragraphs, someone needs to stun the world with a few paragraphs about Wisconsin counties, most populated, least populated, largest etc etc. Additionally, there has to be something that is unique to Wisconsin in regard to the counties. AND all of that needs to be refd. Its does NOT matter what is unique, as long as it is, Wisconsin

I can link the counties, and finish the county click map, and of course take a look at the refs

[User:Coal town guy|Coal town guy]] (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas County renamed to Barron

Whoah, this I did not know. SO, I have inserted a table for the renamed county and what happened to itCoal town guy (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also La Pointe County, Wisconsin. Royal broil 12:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COOLIO, I bet you set this up to teach me about Wisconsin, didnt you?Coal town guy (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found it at Category:Former counties of the United States. That's the only one from Wisconsin to answer your next question. Royal broil 05:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COUNTY questions

OK OK Wisconsonites, out there, I have found 2 (two) counties that have been renamed. Thats swell. Do we know, yes or no, if there are any more extinct counties, former counties etc etc?? IF there are, let us know as this is going to have a try out at the FL. AND it would be MONUMENTALLY disappointing if at the FL review, someone were to say, OMG, you forgot about.........I am 100% certain that out there in WIKI ether land, there must be a spirit that does not bend nor break, concerning Wisconsin history...PLEASE let us know...Coal town guy (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that we're strictly speaking about the counties when Wisconsin was a state, not the Wisconsin Territory? Royal broil 05:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know yes, all data is post 1848. I have yet to poisr refs for it as I just started compiling a listCoal town guy (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, the residents of Battle Ax county despised the name, I personally would have preferred that to Vernon, but hey, thats just meCoal town guy (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer Vernon. You must have a stronger warrior in you! lol. Royal broil 12:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One day, we must have a beer together. I can tell you about a place named Take In, yes, Take In. Oddly enough, Battle Ax, may NOT refer to a battle....there are several debated origins. Not bad for a non Wisconsonite who loves coal towns.....I must sayCoal town guy (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-there is information about Bad Axe County, Wisconsin in the Wisconsin Historical Society website: Bad Axe County, Wisconsin The State of Wisconsin went through several territorial changes: Northwest Territories, Indiana Territory, Illinois Territory, Michigan Territory, and then Wisconsin Territory before Wisconsin was admitted to the Union in 1848. Any of the territorial legislatures could make changes to the counties. This was the case with Michigan Territory before Wisconsin Territory was established. I think the Michigan Territorial Legislature created what is Brown County, Wisconsin. Thanks-RFD (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the Michigan Territorial Legislature also created what is now Crawford County, Wisconsin-thanks again-RFD (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VERY COOL and many thanks for the info. We will need more but we are getting closer. Can you find data on uncliamed territories???Coal town guy (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank everyone in this group effort. There are yet to be discovered tribes on this planet who have a greater knowledge of Wisconsin history than myself. So, I will be asking lots of questionsCoal town guy (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking the right people! I know that I have been in all 72 counties and I love to vacation around the state. I go to race tracks all over the entire eastern half the state, a different track each weekend in Jan/Feb and then from April until Sept/Oct (about 35 total). So ask away! And thank YOU for helping us understand how this works. I tried a FA once and it was worse than going to the dentist to get a tooth pulled. What were the original counties in 1848 when the state added added to the union? Everything else should be broken off of them. Royal broil 00:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds valid, however, unclaimed territories could be tribal lands or part of another state, Which is cool, WV had ALOT of those. BUT we will need to have a source stating, it was tribe x, or it was a part of y etc etc. I will start anopther section for that on this pageCoal town guy (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unclaimed Territory

OK, I have counted 24 counties with Unclained Territory as their source. Crawford, Dane Calumet ect etc etc. Do we have a singlwe publuished source that would say, OH, and by the way, here is where we got the land. Tribe x, a gift, etc etc etc?? Good news, our clickable map is now complete. Choose a county in the state, click that on the map, and you will be taken to that county pageCoal town guy (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unclaimed territory don't make sense. replCheck out these edits [2]. Royal broil 03:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing the same. As we have 24 unclaimed, that could be a real bag of suck to have 24 refs+, HOWEVER, The Wisconsin Historical Society is a great online resource, and has helped me understand that what you are saying is rather valid. Do you think we can get the origins corrected for the unclaimed territories? I can start linking FAST as far as what we do have and of course the renamed county table as well. DAM GOOD CONTENT by the wayCoal town guy (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Hey All- I saw the external link added which is very cool. Why not add this to the See Also? Otherwise, the thing to keep in mind is that County FL as a whole stand really firm on being consistant. I have reviewed every FL for US counties, none that are a FL have an external link section that I can recall. I will look again to be 100%. GREAT work and data here. NOTE, when we use any link, we have to cite it per the format used in the list thus far. Again, being consistant is the keyCoal town guy (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The See also section is for WP articles, not for external links. BTW, the Newberry Library's Atlas of Historical County Boundaries has historical county boundary maps for every state, if you want to use the link for other states. -- Mesconsing (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Coal town guy. I don't think that this external link is suitable. I think it fails WP:ELNO. It's not an official source and it is tangential to the topic. Royal broil 01:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already removed the link, but just out of curiosity, which WP:ELNO criterion does the Atlas of Historical County Boundaries, a project of the William M. Scholl Center for American History and Culture at the Newberry Library, fail? It's a highly reliable, factually accurate source that provides a resource beyond what the article provides, and is related to the creation of the counties, which is one of the major data columns in the list. It contains no malware, is not promotional, is easily accessible, doesn't require payment, and isn't previously linked in the article. -- Mesconsing (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main information about changes to the county boundaries should be covered in the text. My main objection is that the website is not official. I don't see why this particular website meets the "What can normally be linked" or "Links to be considered". My attitude is that external links should be extremely minimal. Royal broil 03:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mystified as to where you get the idea that only "official" sites should be linked to. By that definition, 99% of all the links in WP are disqualified from External links sections. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks it's a harmless link. Over 5 dozen articles use the atlas as a source or an external link, including County (United States) and Political divisions of the United States. WP:ELYES: "What can normally be linked: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" -- Mesconsing (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin counties-Louise Phelps Kellogg

Hi-I came across an article that Louise Phelps Kellogg wrote: 'Organization, Boundaries and Names of Wisconsin Counties.' It was published in the Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin At Its Annual Meeting, 1910, pg. 184. The nice thing about this article is that it covers the 71 counties in existence in 1910. The 72nd and final county Menominee County, Wisconsin was not created until 1961 and it would be easy to find information on that. If someone who knows about citation templates, etc, and is willing to help put this together that would be great! Many thanks-RFD (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOU DA MANCoal town guy (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Founding dates, OH MA MA

OKey Dokey- I took a look at This. RFD was kind enough to supply the title, and its a free Google book. BUT, the founding dates in this book differ from the current list. Do we have a agreement that this should be the source for founding dates and formation history? It looks to be as primary as one can getCoal town guy (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the differences? I'm checking the latest Blue Book to see if it has establishment dates. -- Mesconsing (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes it does! The Blue Book is the official compilation of info on the state, so that should be the source for county creation dates. I'll work on checking the dates against the Blue Book. (BTW, neither the Blue Book nor Kellogg are primary sources.) -- Mesconsing (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kellogg is a primary source as it was compiled by a state agency during the time period being observed, at least, the Wisconsin Historical Society thinks so, I am UN involved with the list, but your assumptions for historical data are not correct.......Coal town guy (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statutes creating the counties are the primary sources. Kellogg's work was compiled from the statutes, making it a secondary source. It's in the definitions. It's not my assumption. -- Mesconsing (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOPE, if the data was compiled BY AN AGENCY of said state, during the time period, its PRIMARY. AND THAT IS the definition and hereKellog was at the Wisconsin Historical Society, the actual text was published BY the society which IS a state agencyCoal town guy (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This concludes any effort or edit on my part for this list or talk pageCoal town guy (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all your "definition" goes way beyond anything on the web page to which you linked. What the page actually says is "Primary sources are works created at the time of an event, or by a person who directly experienced an event." Kellogg was not around at the time many of the counties were formed and did not directly experience them. Second, as you have already stated elsewhere on this page, you know little about Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Historical Society is simultaneously a private organization and a state-funded organization. As a government-funded agency, it is responsible for the archiving of official state documents and other historical artifacts. As a private agency, it operates museums, publishes books and magazines, and sponsors member events. Books that the society publishes are not official government documents. Or perhaps you think that Bottoms Up: A Toast to Wisconsin’s Historic Bars & Breweries or Haunted Wisconsin are official government documents and that a No Beer No Work Pin is official government jewelry. -- Mesconsing (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REF update

Hey all- GREAT job on the refs, However, it is critical that we agree on refs as far as a courtesy link. The courtesy link allows a user to have the ISBN and search for a copy or version of the book. This was a deal on WV FL. The WV fl has courtesy links for the refs now, and they should remain. ALWAYS keep in mind, a cvourtesy link will NOT take you to Amazon etc etc, it merely tells a user where they can get a copy of the said book. I am very sorry if I did not communicate this earlier. It was a real blast discovering this during the FL review, thought I would save lots of hassle up front.Coal town guy (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies-I did not know it either about courtesy links. A citation about Menominee County, Wisconsin and how it was created is needed. The Kellogg article covered 71 counties in 1910; however, the 72nd and final county Menominee County was not created until 1961 so a citation is needed. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed at all. This is a group effort. It would NOT be possible to do this without everyones efforts here. Agreed 100% about the county link. Getting there, bit by bit.By the way, that ref you provided rocksCoal town guy (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference-Menominee County, Wisconsin-'The Making of Menominee County,' Paxton Hart, Wisconsin Magazine of History, vol. 43, #3, Spring 1960-History of the creation of Menominee County-that should be one of the refrences in the article-thank you-RFD (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and many thanks. Getting dinner together, may not get to it until tomorrowCoal town guy (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hart, Paxton. "The Making of Menominee County". Wisconsin Magazine of History, 43:3 (Spring 1960), 131: "On July 30, 1959, Governor Gaylord Nelson signed into law a bill creating Wisconsin's seventy-second county—Menominee. ... The new law will take effect on December 31, 1960, when the federal government terminates its 105-year supervision of the Menominee Indians.:

State of Wisconsin 2011-2012 Blue Book, p. 731: Menominee County was created in 1961.

-- Mesconsing (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on, my error

As it is being pointed out that a courtesy link with an ISBN for books before 1970 would be "preferences hoisted upon me" and also since, my recent FL experience does not slice it, "thats what we call a good article here", I am at this time, totally, UNinvolved in this process.

I do not know squat about WI history. I am sorry to have taken up your time, your effort, I am sorry. Thank you for teaching me about Wisconsin. It appears to be a lovely state. Thanks again to all of youCoal town guy (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of counties in 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: 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) 15:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is wrong with the clickable map?

I click on a county and get little blue squiggles that intersect and are only in the vague position of the county. Not sure what the problem there is. Kingofthedead (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Road to Featured List status

Short list of improvements to make this a featured list (FL):

Etymology: source every county directly, instead of the whole column
Improve the sourcing on the lead (3rd paragraph specifically)
Population figures should have a hatnote with the date or some other way to signify when (so 2010 census, unless we get 2020 figues soon)
~~Potentially re-order the table, so its more logical (FIPS code is not second, population is more to the left, etc)~~ (i recognize that the current table is a standard across all tables, so it should not be changed here.)

--JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 17:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]