Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Flag

Anyone know why the VT flag icon is flagged for "Peer Review"?

Messing up user boxes. Anyone?--Jonashart 18:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone?? I can't find anything indicating what this is about. I want my flag back...--Jonashart 17:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, seems to be fixed...ideas? Was it just me?--Jonashart 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Vermont Republic

I see a bit of trouble brewing at Second Vermont Republic. I have removed what I consider unverified and POV material. It has been reinserted. I have now tried providing balance by giving the "other side". Could a few interested people check out the article and its recent history and help out in whatever way you think is appropriate? Thanks. Logophile 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Vermont city infobox

I've caught a coding issue in the Vermont City Infobox that I should I should bring to your attention. As currently written, the template requires the user to repeat the county name in a separate "county" field, even if that information is already present in the subdivision fields — if this isn't done, the template automatically generates a redlinked and unnamed "County, Vermont" category. I've already had to fix this on Burlington, so it's far from guaranteed that everybody who might use the template knows this. And it does this even if the article is already manually filed in the correct county category, to boot.

To be honest, it would be far more appropriate to drop the county field from the template entirely, and manually apply the appropriate county category to the articles on which it belongs — because (a) a user should never have to repeat information twice in the same template, and (b) a template shouldn't be autogenerating categories anyway. Applying categories via templates is a bad idea to begin with, but if it's necessary the template should only be applying categories that already exist. Never give it the opportunity to create a category, or you'll end up with quirky red links you don't want, such as "Category:County, Vermont" or "Category:Chittenden County County, Vermont", every time somebody makes even a tiny error in the coding.

But I leave it to you guys to discuss. Bearcat 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

New articles

Dear Wikipedians, a list of possible Vermont-related articles found by bot is available at User:AlexNewArtBot/VermontSearchResult. Colchicum 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo request

Looking for any Vermont photographers willing to shoot and upload to Commons for Connected farm, as parts of eastern Vermont seems to be one of the primary locales for such style of home, at least according to the definitive study on connected farm distribution, which is, admittedly, old. Thanks in advance and if you could reply on my talk page as well that would be great. IvoShandor 09:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Text templates for legislators

I noticed that other states had text templates for state representatives and senators. So the names can be changed universally in all towns and counties when the incumbents change. Also, so text descriptions can be standardized. Would like to "file" this someplace for reference or change but don't know where. Or maybe how. One is at Template:VT Orleans-Caledonia-1 District the other at Template:Essex-Orleans Vermont Senate District, 2002-2012. It might be nice to not proliferate these until the naming scheme has been worked out. They are awkward but maybe can't be avoided (they are "official" names I found online).Student7 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Presidential Range (Green Mountains)

Is "Presidential Range" the official name of this section of Vermont's Green Mountains? I don't see it on the topo map, and peakbagger.com doesn't have it. The USGS GNIS database doesn't have anything named "Presidential" in VT. Maybe it's an unofficial name? Obviously someone did name those mountains after presidents.
—wwoods 16:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hello, I'm Ben/Bmrbarre, and I was wondering if it would be okay with you guys to start a WikiProject entitled "Roman Catholicism in Vermont". My associate, User:Student7, and I were thinking that this might include history of the Catholic church in Vermont, an article on all the churches (even a stub would do), an expanding of the Diocese of Burlington article, biographies of bishops, etc. Any thoughts on this? Thanks, Ben 13:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Afd not untypical of Vermont

An editor nominated the article Caledonian-Record quite properly for deletion because it had been a stub for a long while. Since it's nomination, several of us have tried to improve it. It's not bad, I think. The main complaint is that the paper is "too small" which could apply to a lot of other articles in Vermont. For newspapers, nothing outside of the Burlington Free Press could be listed and maybe not even it! The article needs your vote. I don't think it needs that much editing at this point, but feel free. I'm sure it can be improved. But if they can delete this article they can delete almost everything in Vermont outside of Burlington. Thanks. Student7 22:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help. The nomination has been withdrawn. The key for thr nominator/administrator was to include something relatively modern that seemed notable or notorious. For this article it turned out to be a case pleaded before the Vt. Supreme Court (which the paper lost!). For the nominator, the fact that the paper was extremely old, maybe one of the oldest dailies in the state (which has only eight dailies!), was founded as a Whig newspaper and is still surviving, and had a market penetration in its own county of 80% - none of that cut any ice! Student7 11:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the (town) label at the end of some towns be removed?

I really don't think its necessary to label the towns of Marshfield, Poultney, Manchester, Swanton, Fair Haven, Ludlow, Jericho, Johnson, Branson, Albany, Alburgh, Barton, and Hyde Park in the "town name (town), Vermont" format simply because a CDP or village of the same name exists within their boundaries. Obviosuly in cases such as Rutland and Barre, the clarification is needed to judge between the town or the city, but when it is only a CDP or village, a town should always take precedence. As the long as the village or CDP is designated clearly as such, shouldn't the towns be able to be simply labled as "town name, Vermont"? Raime 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also required for Newport town and Newport city. I happen to live in Barton and the change would be fine with me! It has been a pain to be forced to distinguish! Changing is not trivial, however. Besides links, there are categories. I think we're talking hundreds of links here, hopefully not thousands!

For your amusement, there is a competition between two villages or nearly the same size in our town that has persisted for over a hundred years. A history was rewcently published that listed "Barton" on the outside. Of course, it was not a town history and contained no mention of the other village! One of these little deliberate slights that an accident of nomenclature can produce! Student7 13:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, changing is trivial, but I simply feel is is not necessary. I have gone ahead and requested a move from Bennington (town), Vermont to Bennington, Vermont (the survey can be reached here), as this situation seems ridiculous - what real chance is there for confusion between a town and a CDP? At least there is merit in the argument for differentiation between towns and villages, but not for CDPs, especially when they are clearly marked on a dab page. I'll probably request a move for Fair Haven, which is in the same category as Bennington. Raime 04:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kiss villages goodbye?

Someone has been going around deleting the term "villages" from places that are unincorporated and deleting them from the category Vermont villages as well. Was this anything that has been discussed? An unincorporated village is (duh) an "unincorporated village," IMO. What is wrong with that? Wasn't the intent of the category to include all places that weren't cities, gores or towns? There is no separate category for unincorporated villages as far as I know. This distinction in tiny Vermont is just slicing the pie to thin IMO. Student7 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There is already a Category:Unincorporated communities in Vermont. A "village" is a legal municipal corporation while an "unincorporated village" is not. There will be potential confusion if these are mixed together in a single category. --Polaron | Talk 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a legal confusion, but who cares. Villages shift back and forth between the two, though lately, mostly to unincorporate. "Villages" are just that in Vermont. In order to differentiate them, we should call one "incorporated villages" the other "unincorporated villages" and merge them both at a higher level into "villages." This seems like lot of work for no really good reason. "Unincorporated communities" also covers gores which have their own category. The term "unincorporated community" is not used often in Vermont. "Community" is a vague term here meaning "neighborhood," at best. I will agree that incorporated villages have borders. Unincorporated villages do not. Student7 15:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 12#Category:Unincorporated communities in Vermont. --Polaron | Talk 15:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging town center CDP articles into town articles

Many of the CDPs in Vermont (and in the rest of New England) are simply town centers (these are the CDPs with the exact same name as the town). Articles on CDPs of town centers will never have a history that is separate from that of the town and will remain simply a collection of demographic/geographic data. I would suggest merging these town center CDPs into their respective town articles. These CDP articles would not even exist if Vermont towns were treated as the "incorporated places" that they are by the U.S. Census Bureau. These CDPs were created only so that the larger towns (which are not classified as "places") would be represented in a Census Bureau tabulation of data for "places". --Polaron | Talk 15:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? I live in a town with two different villages which have dramatically different histories from each other and the town. I suppose some smaller areas won't. But these do. Incidentally, what do you propose for the Burlington article? It gulps in, as do all "central cities," nearby areas like South Burlington and Winooski. Do they get swallowed up too even thought they have their own government? The villages I'm talking about have their own government. It's more the reverse. When a town outgrows it's article, the editors may be forced to create village articles whether the village is unincorporated or not. This is the way it has been in our area. Logic never seems to work for these discussions though. (I dread the day <a certain editor> discovers that cars are legally called "motor vehicles" and we are all forced to change all references to them acccordingly). Student7 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only referring to CDPs with the exact same name as towns. Burlington is a city (considered as a place by the Census Bureau) and does not have a CDP so that's not going to be affected. But, if you're comfortable with having Brattleboro CDP separate from Brattleboro, then no problem. I just don't see what else you're going to put in the CDP article aside from technical data. --Polaron | Talk 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Vermont statutes does provide for the existence of villages without incorporation. See Title 24, Chapter 39, 1301. This calls villages "villages" prior to incorporation. The statute goes on to explain the extra atrributes acquired by the village. Student7 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is related to the town center CDPs. Maybe you're talking about the village categories in the previous topic? If so, what are you proposing? Put unincorporated communities (renamed as unincorporated villages) as a subcategory of villages? That could also work. --Polaron | Talk 23:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this is a brilliant idea. I don't really know much about Vermont, but certainly from the perspective of Massachusetts I would almost go so far as to say that these "TownName (CDP)" articles are basically nonnotable from a Wikipedia standpoint. They're entities created for statistical purposes by the Census Bureau, and don't, as far as I can tell, relate directly to what actually are the significant entities in people's thinking and way of life. Perhaps I should make this proposal ove at WikiProject Massachusetts as well. AJD 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Most definitely this is not a brilliant idea. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. What do you think of the US Census Bureau? And what of this USDA governmental link. Is the federal government unreliable, or are the Census and the USDA the same entity? There are CDP articles nationwide. Please remember that there is no Tenth Amendment for Wikiprojects: if it's done nationally, supported throughout the USA, the Vermont project has no right to reject the more general consensus found nationwide. Nyttend 20:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All those are derived from Census Bureau data and are used in the context of statistical data tabulations. You wouldn't find any travel guide or history book dicsussing the town center CDPs as being a distinct place from the town itself. There are likely no independent secondary sources that can be found for these. You seem to be reading too much into the proposal. It only affects those in the list below. CDPs for distinctly named unincorporated villages will not be changed. The CDP will still exist in templates, categories, etc. and is described fully in the town article. You are treating the town as if it were merely a county subdivision as in other states rather than an actual place. --Polaron | Talk 21:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Nyttend, just because the Census Bureau presents data in a specific way doesn't mean we're obligated to follow that. A pretty good case can be made that the way the Census Bureau organizes data on New England communities is simply wrong; and if not that, it's certainly serioiusly misleading. We can do better. AJD 21:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Polaron asked me to comment (maybe since I belong to the CT project?) In any event, I have no overarching objection to these mergers, but suggest you listen carefully to objections on any single merger; it seems possible that a town center and a town may have non-overlapping notability (extremely unlikely, but possible). While here, what of this "population was spread out" language. I don't think it makes any sense in English. And when describing the location of the town center (eg, St Johnsbury) a detailed description of the boundaries seems silly (along Cross Road, under I-91, turning north at the stump of the Michaud's old oak....) Jd2718 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We can probably get rid of precise boundaries of the CDP in the town article if that's awkward. We can dump it into the CDP article if the mergers don't go through (I mean what else are you going to put in a CDP article?) We should definitely flesh out here which ones can and should not be merged primarily based on how Vermonters view the situation. Former incorporated villages (if the boundaries roughly match) could possibly be excluded, particularly if they existed for a long time. --Polaron | Talk 00:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this by Polaron. I think that in the past I've opposed merging CDP articles into the related "container" article. But that was mostly based on my experience in the midwest where there are relatively few CDPs that correspond to town centers with the same name as appears to be more common in NE. But with the limiting criteria that Polaron mentions, I've no problem with the proposal. My main concern would be that the demographic data might get lost, but the current revision of St. Johnsbury, Vermont preserves the demographic info and explains the CDP designation as well. So long as the CDP and the town have the same name and there is a close identity between the town and the population center, then I think it makes sense to have a consolidated presentation. I'd be a little cautious about cases where the town contains multiple population centers though -- that is where the various population centers might have distinct histories which all contribute to the overall context of the town. I also agree with the caveat of Jd2718 to pay heed to objections to specific mergers (i.e., don't interpret a limited consensus in some cases as a broad mandate.) older ≠ wiser 00:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the locals think there's something special about the CDP. Why? This Census page declares that CDP boundaries are chosen (usually) in concert with local officialy, and I think that we should give the Census the benefit of the doubt. After all, it's assuming good faith. It is possible to expand these articles separately — see Boardman, Ohio and Boardman Township, Mahoning County, Ohio for an example of a CDP and of the area containing it. And to see another source for the area, other than governmental sources: this realestate-selling website. By the way, anybody answer my question about why these CDPs are not notable? Nyttend 02:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The Census' criteria are not notability. And Ohio's not Vermont. And real estate salesmen are hardly reliable sources. Jd2718 02:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Addressing your second and third points:

• Did you look at the Ohio links? The point is not that Ohio and Vermont communities are identical, but that the CDP article can be expanded: it's as if it's a neighborhood within a larger community. I don't see how the CDP is less significant than places such as Aspetuck, a neighborhood in the town of Easton, Connecticut. Of course, Connecticut isn't Vermont, either, but it's much more similar than Ohio is.
• The point of the real estate is that someone is using the CDP for commercial purposes. By introducing this link, I'm not trying to prove anything except that someone outside of the government is using the CDP. Nyttend 16:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Aspectuck is a principal community and has a somewhat distinct identity from Easton. This is not what this proposal is addressing. It is for CDPs with the exact same name as the town and where there are no other CDPs/villages in the town. --Polaron | Talk 16:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• What's the problem of having an article such as "____ is the central and most developed part of the town of ___, Vermont. The United States Census Bureau counts it as a census-designated place for statistical purposes" and then continuing. Take St. Johnsbury: I'm assuming that the CDP part is more urbanised than many parts outside. We could take the CDP article and make it into an article on the center of the community, distinct from the rest of the town. Of course, I'm not in a position to do such a thing, to a large extent, but surely some of you in Vermont could do a little digging and find sources for interesting information. Somebody local must have thought so, as the Census Bureau generally consults local leaders for the boundaries of CDPs. Nyttend 18:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• You're still treating the town as if it were merely a civil township. You can of course split them like the Census does but then you will either get a CDP article that is redundant with the town article or the town article will become stubby. I would rather see a fully developed town article than a fully developed CDP article for New England places. These particular CDPs were created because otherwise it would appear that no such place existed in Census Bureau tabulations for places. What do you think would happen if New England towns were treated by the Census Bureau as the incorporated places they actually are (I think they actually were before 1950 or so). --Polaron | Talk 19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd relly appreciate it if you answered the question: why do you disagree with my proposal, as stated above, of treating this like a neighborhood? Nyttend 01:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Because in general it's not really a neighborhood if there's only one neighborhood in the entire town. Does one really say "I'm in the West Rutland section of West Rutland"? There's no problem with treating CDPs as neighborhoods for distinctly named communities. I'll give you an extreme example, North Haven, Connecticut has a CDP where the CDP and town boundaries are nearly the same but not exactly. The 2000 populations of the town and CDP were the same. Should the CDP be treated as a neighborhood? Why aren't the actual named sections of the town such as Montowese and Clintonville not treated as CDPs? --Polaron | Talk 02:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I might as well drop it: although I think this is seriously against nationwide consensus, my arguments seem to be rather fruitless :-) My only answer to your last question: seeing that the Census pays attention to local opinions, I'd guess that the locals had some opinion that those two communities weren't important enough for the CDP. Perhaps you could send a complaint to be read at the next West Rutland town meeting :-) Nyttend 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know what "nationwide consensus" you might be referring to. Even the Census Bureau acknowledges that its classification of New England places is problematic. The Census Bureau is primarily interested in cataloging demographic data. They made up a category for population centers and pushed a square peg into a round hole. Just because the Census Bureau has abstracted some statistical entities doesn't necessarily mean that every such entity is significant in its own right. Polaron's proposition appears to address cases where there is a strong identity between the town and the population center and there would be little beyond the bare statistics to say about either that would be independent of the other. older ≠ wiser 04:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Specific mergers

These are the only ones that will be affected, assuming there is agreement for merging.

• Arlington CDP --> Arlington
• Bennington CDP --> Bennington
  • CDP matches old incorporated village plus other incorporated villages exist within the town.
• Brandon CDP --> Brandon
• Brattleboro CDP --> Brattleboro
  • CDP corresponds roughly to old incorporated village (CDP is a bit larger) plus there is another CDP inside the town.
• Fair Haven CDP --> Fair Haven
• Middlebury CDP --> Middlebury
• St. Johnsbury CDP --> St. Johnsbury
• Springfield CDP --> Springfield
• Wallingford CDP --> Wallingford
• West Rutland CDP --> West Rutland

I have done two example mergers for St. Johnsbury[1] and West Rutland[2]. User:Nyttend has said that the town center CDP article should remain distinct from the town article because they are different places. Aside from demographic data, there won't be anything else to add to these town center CDP articles since the histories are identical. I will not do any more mergers until more people comment on whether or not this is viable. Again, this only affects the list above. All other CDPs (which are distinct villages) will not be affected. --Polaron | Talk 17:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone summarize any relations there are to incorporated villages for the above list, or any other kind of municipal boundry? Separately, do the CDPs align with any incorporated village boundaries? -- Yellowdesk 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, incorporated villages are treated as incorporated places so are never CDPs as long as they remain incorporated. Some of the above might correspond to old village boundaries prior to disincorporation (I think Fair Haven is an example). Some have larger boundaries than the old village lines (e.g. St. Johnsbury). Some have never been incorporated villages at all (e.g. West Rutland). I can do a more thorough search later. --Polaron | Talk 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Do any of these towns contain other CDPs? older ≠ wiser 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Brattleboro and Bennington have other "places" within them as listed above. I have crossed these out. --Polaron | Talk 01:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong section to post, but what about the town of Windham in Maine, the CDP of North Windham is simply the major commercial center of the town, and is officially part of Windham. Would this situation be eligible for a merger? Penman 1323 (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably not as the names are exactly the same. Windham town does not appear to have a single compact settlement. --Polaron | Talk 00:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New section

While I believe merging is the best option for these particular CDPs, it seems there are those who believe that the Census Bureau treatment of New England towns should take precedence over local views. The Census Bureau just can't seem to grasp the indistinguishability of the township and the primary settlement in New England towns, among other misconceptions. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if these CDP articles exist separately or not so I will no longer push for merging if there is strong opposition. I don't think anyone else here really cares either way. If they do remain separate, these CDP articles will simply be forever a collection of only demographic data and no one will really bother reading them anyway. Maybe the Census Bureau will get rid of these single town center CDPs in 2010 :) Anyway, it would probably be a good idea to remove the "(town)" label from the titles any New England town article whose only competition is a CDP (e.g. Fair Haven (town), Vermont). I apologize for wasting all your time. --Polaron | Talk 04:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. Does this leave us free to use the CDP data (not boundary descriptions) for "village" demographics even though the boundaries (if any) don't "match" the village boundaries. Obviously this does not apply for unincorporated villages- that is, unincorporated villages are assumed to be the same as the CDP since it makes no difference. I hope (but don't know) that the census bureau more or less observed incorporated village boundaries. And if this all seems that I haven't been paying strict attention, I'm afraid that is an accurate observation (blush). Student7 14:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have to ask, what harm is caused by including the CDP into the town articles, as a section of the town articles, and redirecting the appropriate CDP article to the particular section of the town articles? It enhances the town article, and puts come context to the wayward Census statistical groupings. The U.S. Polaron responds to Student7's query about incorporated villages and CDPS--the CDPs don't follow incorporated villages, but may follow lines of long-dissolved villages.
  -- -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Call for consensus

When I placed county templates on communities statewide, I removed the {{Vermont}} templates from all place articles to which the template didn't link. Mickmaguire and I disagree on this point: s/he thinks that it's appropriate to place on Tunbridge, Vermont (population 1309, way too small to be listed on the template) because "its in Vermont - and its helpful to put it in context, these boxes were on all VT towns until they were replced by the less useful county ones - makes sense to have both."

I want to start a discussion of this point: is the extra template appropriate? I've placed county templates on communities nationwide, including often removing the state templates, and not had this situation crop up before; and it's not a big deal to me to have it one way or the other. Please comment, because it would help to have consensus on this — especially since this practise is not common for other states (for example, {{California}} and {{Pennsylvania}} appear to be placed only on articles to which they link) for which other people placed the county templates. Could we please establish at least an informal consensus for Vermont articles? Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I like being able to quickly link to another area/county. Tunbridge now has the Vermont template from which I can do this. It doesn't seem obtrusive to me. Maybe it benefits editors more than anybody, but that's okay. It's at the bottom of the article and does not intrude on the article itself. Who can complain if it comes up "hidden?" Student7 (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

National Historic Landmarks in Vermont

A List of National Historic Landmarks in Vermont article is in progress, and could use some help. These NHLs represent an "honor roll" of the List of Registered Historic Places in Vermont. For the 17 NHLs that are located in Vermont, there are currently just 4 having photos, and 4 articles that have been edited to include links to text and photos from the National Park Service. All 17 articles can be further developed usefully. There are other state lists of NHLs in progress (see List of National Historic Landmarks by state, but none has reached Featured List status yet, the natural goal for such lists. You could bring Vermont's along towards that goal.... doncram (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)