 | United States: Vermont Project‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Do we really need aarticles on each prison? How about taking the List_of_Vermont_museums and putting them here? DLaub 05:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if we need seperate pages for villages, or whether they shoudl all be merged into their relevant towns. There is more to say on some than others but many will have very little information that could not simply be put in the town pages. Therefore I am proposing that we consider turning villages into subsections of town articles. Mickmaguire 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would certainly say that the incorporated villages ( Bellows Falls, Essex Junction, Saxtons River, etc.) should be separate articles. As for the other villages, I'm inclined toward keeping them separate as well, although it may be better to decide it case by case (some villages being more notable than others). However, if they are kept separate, the town articles should link to the town's village(s), and likewise the villages should note the town that they are a part of (currently this is not always the case). Likewise, the CDP articles should be cross-linked with the towns that contain them. Cbvt 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I guess to me its a case of "how much could you likely say about this village, that wouldn't be relevant to the town?" I think with most that would come down to the demographics information only. some of these villages are just a handful of houses. Mickmaguire 13:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- You may be right on most of them, as long as the information is preserved, and "[Village name], Vermont" and "[Village name] (Village), Vermont" are redirected to the town article. I do still think, however, that Bellows Falls and Essex Junction should remain separate. They have their own village government, and are often viewed by the public (admittedly wrongly) as separate towns (also a good number of articles link specifically to those articles). As for the other villages, if you do decide to merge them, they should probably be marked with a
{{ merge}}tag for a week or so, in case anyone has an objection. Cbvt 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- You may be right on most of them, as long as the information is preserved, and "[Village name], Vermont" and "[Village name] (Village), Vermont" are redirected to the town article. I do still think, however, that Bellows Falls and Essex Junction should remain separate. They have their own village government, and are often viewed by the public (admittedly wrongly) as separate towns (also a good number of articles link specifically to those articles). As for the other villages, if you do decide to merge them, they should probably be marked with a
- I am not necessarily going to go ahead and do this just yet. More like I was putting it out there before putting it on the todo list. I think for most I would skip the
{{ merge}}(particularly if they dont have any content other than demographics), with the thought that people could undo the redirect as appropriate if they had some important things to say about the village which would not fit in the town. Mickmaguire 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am not necessarily going to go ahead and do this just yet. More like I was putting it out there before putting it on the todo list. I think for most I would skip the
- another minor point on this - it seems the list as it stands is far from complete. Mickmaguire 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I note that Ralph Flanders and James Hartness are on the expansion list. This puzzles me. The RF article is already an extensive WP:GA and the JH article is reasonably well-developed. Should they still be on this list? -- User:HopsonRoad 02:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Third party opinion requested at Talk:Vermont
An editor from Great Britain has taken interest in the Senate party affiliation of Bernie Sanders at the Vermont article with this edit that included some abusive language. Fortunately, I was able to encourage him to engage in the topic at Talk:Vermont#Sanders party affiliation. I invited some editors, who have shown past interest in the article, to join in but only one other has checked in and did not point the discussion towards a consensus. I've tried to avoid an edit war, which could easily have been a result with the speed and ferocity of the reverts to my edits that occurred. At this point it's just editor vs. editor. As a resident of Vermont, I feel that I have a better insight on this matter, but the other editor is perhaps a bellwether for whether the topic makes sense to the average reader. Your help in resolving this would be greatly appreciated. User:HopsonRoad 04:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
|
| United States: Vermont Project‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Do we really need aarticles on each prison? How about taking the List_of_Vermont_museums and putting them here? DLaub 05:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if we need seperate pages for villages, or whether they shoudl all be merged into their relevant towns. There is more to say on some than others but many will have very little information that could not simply be put in the town pages. Therefore I am proposing that we consider turning villages into subsections of town articles. Mickmaguire 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would certainly say that the incorporated villages ( Bellows Falls, Essex Junction, Saxtons River, etc.) should be separate articles. As for the other villages, I'm inclined toward keeping them separate as well, although it may be better to decide it case by case (some villages being more notable than others). However, if they are kept separate, the town articles should link to the town's village(s), and likewise the villages should note the town that they are a part of (currently this is not always the case). Likewise, the CDP articles should be cross-linked with the towns that contain them. Cbvt 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I guess to me its a case of "how much could you likely say about this village, that wouldn't be relevant to the town?" I think with most that would come down to the demographics information only. some of these villages are just a handful of houses. Mickmaguire 13:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- You may be right on most of them, as long as the information is preserved, and "[Village name], Vermont" and "[Village name] (Village), Vermont" are redirected to the town article. I do still think, however, that Bellows Falls and Essex Junction should remain separate. They have their own village government, and are often viewed by the public (admittedly wrongly) as separate towns (also a good number of articles link specifically to those articles). As for the other villages, if you do decide to merge them, they should probably be marked with a
{{ merge}}tag for a week or so, in case anyone has an objection. Cbvt 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- You may be right on most of them, as long as the information is preserved, and "[Village name], Vermont" and "[Village name] (Village), Vermont" are redirected to the town article. I do still think, however, that Bellows Falls and Essex Junction should remain separate. They have their own village government, and are often viewed by the public (admittedly wrongly) as separate towns (also a good number of articles link specifically to those articles). As for the other villages, if you do decide to merge them, they should probably be marked with a
- I am not necessarily going to go ahead and do this just yet. More like I was putting it out there before putting it on the todo list. I think for most I would skip the
{{ merge}}(particularly if they dont have any content other than demographics), with the thought that people could undo the redirect as appropriate if they had some important things to say about the village which would not fit in the town. Mickmaguire 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am not necessarily going to go ahead and do this just yet. More like I was putting it out there before putting it on the todo list. I think for most I would skip the
- another minor point on this - it seems the list as it stands is far from complete. Mickmaguire 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I note that Ralph Flanders and James Hartness are on the expansion list. This puzzles me. The RF article is already an extensive WP:GA and the JH article is reasonably well-developed. Should they still be on this list? -- User:HopsonRoad 02:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Third party opinion requested at Talk:Vermont
An editor from Great Britain has taken interest in the Senate party affiliation of Bernie Sanders at the Vermont article with this edit that included some abusive language. Fortunately, I was able to encourage him to engage in the topic at Talk:Vermont#Sanders party affiliation. I invited some editors, who have shown past interest in the article, to join in but only one other has checked in and did not point the discussion towards a consensus. I've tried to avoid an edit war, which could easily have been a result with the speed and ferocity of the reverts to my edits that occurred. At this point it's just editor vs. editor. As a resident of Vermont, I feel that I have a better insight on this matter, but the other editor is perhaps a bellwether for whether the topic makes sense to the average reader. Your help in resolving this would be greatly appreciated. User:HopsonRoad 04:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)