Talk:Mountain, 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

Why we should mention the importance of tourism in Mountain despite there being no citations.

Mountain is a very prominent tourist destination in Wisconsin - this is fact and would certainly be useful to anybody using Wikipedia to find information about Mountain. I think in the overzealous attempt to keep town and location descriptions in Wikipedia academic, there is too much editing of nuance that we would find in a real encyclopedia... these are things people search Wikipedia to find out. If they wanted know census information, they would search a government site (if one was using this information in an academic essay, he/she can't cite Wikipedia anyways as a credible source and so they would go straight to the source of the information - so this information really is the least important that Wikipedia has to offer).

This raises the problem of how you cite nuance and personal experience. The additions I have made to the Mountain (that have since been removed) were based on personal experience. There are no possible sources you can cite when describing the tourism aspect of a small town, save perhaps commercial sites would not be a viable source anyways.

This information SHOULD be up there, regardless that citation is lacking. Samueljamesfarrell (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree, +1 69.174.87.28 (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]