Talk:Rosendale, 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

Speed trap

I removed the sentence about Rosendale being a speed trap. The sentence is raises publicity problems for the village of Rosendale. I wonder if the village resolved this issue? Thank youRFD (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be non neutral for an encyclopedia to exclude issues just because they cause "publicity problems", especially when the publicity is self-inflicted because the issue is totally avoidable and there (presumably) was a conscious decision to create it. I'd like to point out that the speed trap Web site is the very first Google search result for Rosendale after the town and village Web sites, this Wikipedia article and MapQuest. Not even the school district's or the historical society's sites come before it. How many locales is that true for? Lastly, I've found multiple easily accessible print newspaper articles about the town being a speed trap, including one on a totally different subject (sports) whose opening sentence is about the speed trap. Jason McHuff (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt' matter how many goofy newspaper articles you find about it. It's trivial tripe, not suitable for an encyclopedia. 32.218.40.152 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a police force that has a reputation of abusing its authority by enforcing laws in an unreasonable manner is "trivia". But since I agree that (actual) non-notable trivia shouldn't be in Wikipedia, I'll try to find a third party and see what they say. Jason McHuff (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are multiple reliable sources about the speed trap, I would say that it is part of the notability of the village. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources, two in small-town local papers, does not meet the criterion of "significant coverage" by any stretch of the imagination.
Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. "Whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

32.218.34.136 (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources were just ones that I could easily find; there may very well be more out there. I first heard about the issue through strong viewpoints of it on Usenet, though I know that's not a reliable source. Another possible option would be to check the speed trap Web site and see how it compares/is ranked to others.

And to be clear, it's not that I have a personal desire for this to be in the article, it's just that it seems like it should be. I don't think trivia should be in Wikipedia (a good example would be that Aaron Rodgers stopped there), but I question whether the town's notoriety really is trivia. Regarding it being an "opinion"[1], this is not about my opinion and I think an opinion shared by multiple trustworthy sources is acceptable for an encyclopedia and noteworthy. Lastly, I'll admit that "Its police department has run such a notable speed trap that..." could be written better. Jason McHuff (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:UNDUE, it seems to say that the speed trap should not be prominently at the top of the article, and that (only?) "viewpoint[s] held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" should be excluded, which doesn't seem to be the case here given its (sometimes prominent) mention in multiple newspaper articles.

One question-does anyone know if the village of Rosendale resolved the speed trap issue? If the village has done so then the information about the speed trap should not be in this article. As I stated earlier this raised publicity problems for the village of Rosendale. Thank you-RFD (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I drive through Rosendale every week on WI 23. I have seen no evidence that they've resolved the speed trap issue. The speed limits have not been changed, the signs are exactly where they have been, and the village police cars are right around the corner where they've always been. I might make a suggestion: Wisconsin's definition of a speed trap includes the percentage of a city's or village's income that is derived from speeding tickets generated by the alleged speed trap. Anyone want to check that for Rosendale? -DrT (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr-t (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]