![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
These are the only ones that will be affected, assuming there is agreement for merging.
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
These are the only ones that will be affected, assuming there is agreement for merging.
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)
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)
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)
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)