Jump to content

Talk:Babbitt, North Bergen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redundant maps

[edit]

Wikipedia does not include redundant state maps for municipalities let alone city neighborhoods; info included in inset which is sufficient. Too large:photos should correspond with sub section.Djflem (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey is an oddball for its use of county maps for unincorporated communities in the state; a quick glance around the nation shows that the vast majority use only state maps. New Jersey's wikipedia editors are very insular in their tendencies and references, and a greater uniformity should exist across the country. Famartin (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the consensus for unincorporated communities in NJ is to use the county map. And what about neighbourhoods in urban areas? Djflem (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be a "New Jersey" consensus on anything. There should be a national consensus, at minimum, since Wikipedia is a "global" organization. New Jersey is not special. In any case, the consensus would be to actually show a map of the city which depicts the district/neighborhood as a highlighted area. Note this only applies to cities, so would only apply to Communipaw (not Babbitt, which is a township). Famartin (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the neighborhoods in these templates?

Djflem (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of infobox maps, I've only added the state map to the New Jersey articles I've created about unincorporated communities. It's a personal preference, and I wasn't aware they were redundant. Other editors have added county maps to the New Jersey articles I've created, but the infobox seems to accommodate multiple maps. In Mississippi, for example, every article uses the state map. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can find few if any states which use anything other than the state map for most unincorporated communities. New York, for example, uses the state map for virtually all of its hamlets, even in relatively urban Long Island. A few random examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin,_Nassau_County,_New_York
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbor_Isle,_New_York
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Lynbrook,_New_York
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniondale,_New_York
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_City_Park,_New_York
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakeville_Estates,_New_York
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Gardens,_New_York
There should be nothing wrong with including a state map.
Famartin (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above are Census-designated place (New York). You are adding the state map to city neighborhoods. As is seen in New York and Boston that is not common at all.

Djflem (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to stress to you now that this article, Babbitt, is *not* a city neighborhood. Its an unincorporated community within a township. Famartin (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to City (New Jersey), a City in the context of New Jersey local government refers to one of five types and one of eleven forms of municipal government. Despite the widely held perception of a city as a large, urban area, cities in New Jersey have a confused history as a form of government and vary in size from large, densely populated areas to much smaller hamlets.Djflem (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but its still not a city. Or even close to one in the "classic" sense. PS, could you possibly use the proper reply format with the colons instead of restarting each line? Famartin (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems no point to start discussing your interpretations, but would refer to List of municipalities in New Jersey, the most urbanized and densely populated state in the union, NB has a township form of government. More to the point:

What is the reason to add a state map is? What does it add to the article? How does it improve it? What additional information does it impart? Why is it better to take up the space and thus require the photos to be moved and stacked on the left, thus jamming the text which raises Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images issues.

I refer you to a discussion at another page which I have imported from User talk:Alansohn#Unincorporated communities?:

  • Djflem - I agree that the county level map should be all that's necessary, as there is a state insert on each of these maps. As I see it, using only the state map doesn't provide sufficient context and using both county and state maps is redundantly repetitive overkill that isn't needed multiple times. It's really not relevant what's done elsewhere as there are very few county maps out there. Any suggestions as to how to address this, perhaps a poll at WT:NJ? Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest at this time if you wish to take the advise of the above and bring it to WT:NJ or elsewhere if you wish to see if you can establish a consensus for insertion of state maps and other changes to wish to introduce.Djflem (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this... I'm intending to go through and add as many unincorporated community articles I can via GNIS and, eventually, the NJ state listing. I intend to add both county and state level maps because I find them both useful and I think the world outside of NJ does too. If you are really that convinced of the unnecessaryness of the state map, go ahead and remove them and I won't revert it back, but I do intend it to be part of the standard "create/fix" procedure because, as I said, I think anyone outside of NJ finds the state map context useful. Famartin (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make a deal to have to follow up and revert your work. As you can see above at least two editors (myself include) find that the maps unnecessary I suggest you try adding a few to the neighborhoods mentioned in the templates above to get a NY and MA point of view, to test your theory about a national consensus to support your contention that NJ is somehow an outlier. I would suggest you inquire the above editor and those who have worked on filling the Category:Census-designated places in New Jersey, and present you proposal to [[WP:NJ}}. before proceeding with your plan. Since no community in NJ is not part of incorporated place, there may be other approaches to handling the matter. In the meantime, I'll repeat the unanswered questions from above. What is the reason to add a state map is? What does it add to the article? How does it improve it? What additional information does it impart? Why is it better to take up the space and thus require the photos to be moved and stacked on the left, thus jamming the text which raises Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images issues. Lastly, if you prefer I can bring it the WT:NJ if you are uncomfortable about it. Djflem (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you contact User:Tinton5, who has done a lot of work on Category:Census-designated places in New Jersey and on Category:Neighborhoods in New Jersey.Djflem (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. I'm not making a deal. I'm just telling you what I'm going to do. You can do whatever you like about it. I'm tired of arguing about it since I know we aren't going to come to a resolution and I no longer am interested in reverting the changes you feel are necessary. I'm creating hundreds of new articles. If you have a problem with them, then fix it. Famartin (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a county-level map for every one of the 21 counties in New Jersey, providing a level of information and context that is unavailable from other sources. The county maps have a state inset, which would seem to provide the appropriate context, making the state maps both unneeded and unnecessarily large. I'm not sure why folks in other states haven't created their own county maps, but we have the opportunity to use them in New Jersey articles and there is no "national consensus" that demands that we use the detail-free state maps. For cities with neighborhoods, we'd benefit from city-level maps allowing greater detail, not unlike at West Ridge, Chicago. Given all that's been accomplished by WP:NJ, you'd expect that some of the model of detailed data and maps would be spread to the other 49 states, rather than demanding that New Jersey articles be dragged down to the lowest possible standard. Alansohn (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Babbitt, North Bergen. 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) 09:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Babbitt,_North_Bergen&oldid=1199281233"