Talk:Chain O' Lakes-King, Wisconsin

Article on unincorporated community

The unincorporated community of King dates back to the 1800s, far before any Census Designated Place existed. The sign upon entering the area states "King", as does the local post office.[1] Places on the National Register of Historical Places are listed as being in King, not in Chain O' Lakes-King.[2] News reports call the place King.[3] If User:Nyttend does not believe it is wise to have the CDP data for "Chain O' Lakes-King, Wisconsin" on a King, Waupaca County, Wisconsin article, should we instead have separate articles: one for the unincorporated community and a second for the CDP? Cheers--Baron Larf 05:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure nationwide is to have articles on CDPs, not on communities that are parts of them. Why treat this one any differently? By the way, don't trust nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com — it's a mirror website (full of errors) that masquerades as an official website. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should an unincorporated community then never have its own page then if it is part of a CDP? The commonly used term for the area is King, Wisconsin, as I tried to show with the above sources. The only place that appears to call the area Chain O' Lakes King-is the Census. WP:COMMONNAME would seem to suggest that there should be an article named King. Without doing a case-by-case survey, I would imagine that CDP's generally have the same name as the unincorporated communities they encompass. This appears to be the case for every CDP in Wisconsin that I looked at. But for some reason, the census chose to name the region after both the lakes in the area and the unincorporated community.

This may be a special case. King is not a tiny hamlet of a couple of farmhouses and a store, which might not warrant its own article. King is an unincorporated community with a rich history and notable structures, as the cited sources indicate. This includes not just the Veterans Home/Grand Army Home, but the former Grand View Hotel and Resort[4] and historic cottages recognized by the National Register of Historic Places. (Regarding the National Register website: the community is listed as "King" at nrhp.focus.nps.gov as well, but I could not figure out a quick way to get a static link to those results.) Here are some other sources that show the common usage of "King":

Wisconsin Veterans Home at King (book about history of the place in King)
Dictionary of Wisconsin History from the state historical society
Wisconsin Blue Book, the official biannual publication of the state's Legislative Reference Bureau
The federal Board of Veterans Appeals: Bd. Vet. App., 0507158, March 11, 2005 "He stated that he wanted to get back to the VA program in King, Wisconsin for a while because the only time he felt he belonged was when he was with other veterans who had similar experiences."
The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin: Kennedy v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health & Human Services, 544 N.W.2d 917 (1995) "In March 1993, Nina Kennedy was employed as a nurse's aide at the Wisconsin Veterans' Home in King, Wisconsin."
Federal court: Rodgers v. State of Wisconsin Dept. of Veterans Affairs, W.D. Wisconsin, May 15, 2005, 2005 WL 1181956. "Early in 2004 a Risk Manger Position with the WDVA became available at the Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin."
Historic American Building Survey, National Park Service: [5], [6] [7], [8], [9], et al.

Cheers, --Baron Larf 07:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BaronLarf is right about reality, I've been there. Chain O'Lakes is a series of connected lakes - not a community - so it should be included in an article about a lake region. King is the actual community. What's the problem with having the CDP redirecting to an article on the unincorporated community, which is the only real community? No matter what, there should be an article on King as a separate community. It makes the most sense to me to include all of the information in one article at the unincorporated community. The requirement of placing an article at the CDP doesn't make sense to me, please explain why. Who decided this scheme and where is it written in the guidelines? It make sense to have an article about a real, tangible place instead of an article on a non-existent made up place by some bureaucrats. Royal broil 13:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is King really considered to encompass all the populated areas around the chain of lakes? Go to Google with the coords given in the article — the CDP encompasses the populated areas around the lake, which are plainly much larger than the area labelled as "King". Moreover, the GNIS lists a populated place of "Chain O'Lakes" (feature record 2399760) — this is not treating the lakes as a set of lakes. Not saying that King isn't a real community: but there's far more to CoLK than just King. Nyttend (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious that King needs its own article. It has a distinct history, and much evidence that it stands alone as a community. The sticky point is that all the census data is for a larger area. I would add a bit of an explanation of King's place in the larger community, to this article, and create a separate article for King. That article can't have the census info, but it seems the logical place to put all the other info about King. However, there doesn't seem to be much to say about King. Should there be an article at this point?

Also, should this article instead be called "Chain O' Lakes"? If the census bureau is the only thing that calls it "Chain O' Lakes-King", there should probably just be a redirect to "Chain O' Lakes". -Freekee (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Royalbroil about the Chain O' Lakes being considered the lakes themselves. People state that they live "on the Chain O' Lakes" not "in Chain O' Lakes". Quick google searches show this: "on the Chain O' Lakes" wisconsin versus "in Chain O' Lakes" wisconsin (all the sites that refer to "in Chain O' Lakes" appear to be just advertisements generated from Census data).

But Nyttend has a point that the CDP appears to be larger than what people refer to as "King." Since King is unincorporated, it is difficult to say precisely the boundaries of King. Several businesses within the Chain O' Lakes-King CDP that are outside of the heart of King do not claim to be in King. Ex: The Wheelhouse ("located in the heart of the Chain O' Lakes"); Dings Dock ("located on the Chain O' Lakes").

I also agree with Freekee that King should have its own separate article. But I disagree that Chain O' Lakes-King should be a redirect to "Chain O' Lakes," since the data for the CDP covers both King and the area around the Chain O' Lakes. If an artificial federal construct like a CDP is notable enough to have its own article, I see no problem leaving it there and creating a new article for King. --Baron Larf 00:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair. It also sounds like there should be a separate article for Chain O' Lakes (see also), for the details that don't belong to King. Or at least a redirect until they get written. -Freekee (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that someone should start an article on King, the unincorporated community. I don't think there should be an article on a fictitious community called Chain O' Lakes, but I would support an article on the region of lakes called Chain O'Lake that talks about a series of houses surrounding the lakes and about the houses being parts of a CDP. Since probably hundreds of lakes in Wisconsin have houses lining their shores, I hope we don't go nuts starting articles on those fictitious communities. Royal broil 04:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is it fair to say that there is at least consensus to create the article King, Waupaca County, Wisconsin on the unincorporated community, with wikilinks to and from Chain O' Lakes-King, Wisconsin regarding the CDP? I've been working on something at my userspace. Cheers, --Baron Larf 00:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies-for not getting back to you people-my computer had virus problems and I am back to normal. I agree with BaronLarf about the history of King, Wisconsin and some sort of article should be done. I had been to King and seen the buildings. Thanks-RFD (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chain O' Lakes-King, 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) 01:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]