Talk:St. Johnsbury, Vermont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] RfC: Shire town

Because the word "shire" is obsolete, I think that "county seat" is more understandable. Student7 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How is the word obsolete? If it's the official term (and it is), it should be there. Most people aren't familiar with the term census-designated place, but we still use it. Nyttend 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not obsolete. I can confirm it as Nyttend has- just because Vermont doesn't conform to what the other states do does not make it obsolete. Louisiana is another exception to the rule, and that is difficult for many people to understand. His change should obviously stand. Monsieurdl 11:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Nyttend is so much in favor of it that his info box for counties contains the word most commonly used in the English speaking world: "county seat." I don't see the objection to using a word that is usually used. Why force anyone (not just those whose first language is not English) to a dictionary over a term that most Vermonters would not use. Sure it's "official." But we don't generally use legal names to describe something when we're not trying to impress people but to educate them. I just can't understand the obsession for a term not in common use. See Wiktionary:shire. Not terribly reassuring. Student7 01:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to be a total pain but a lot of Vermonters do say shire town. I'd consider just putting it in as a parenthetical because I think it is confusing sounding and dated no matter what people here say. Jessamyn (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jessamyn. That's why I had it as a footnote.Student7 01:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(removing indent) I don't know the template syntax to add a Vermont variable. The objection to using the usual word: that's not what it is. I found a reference for it being the shire town; can you find me a reference for it being officially the county seat? And besides being official: what makes something the county seat or shire town or anything else except official designation? Nyttend 04:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Is parish obsolete, despite it being the official designations in Louisiana? Just because it is obsolete in 95% of the other states does not make it obsolete in Vermont, as I was trying to say. If you footnote anything, it should be county seat as it is colloquial and not official. Monsieurdl 12:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
But "parish" is the actual word used in Louisiana. No one uses "shire" anymore except pedants. I think Daniel Defoe and Oliver Goldsmith were the last actual authors....See http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/towns/ (colloquial use). Searched the Free Press - one article using the word shire town, 4 using county seat. It's a quaint expression. We're not trying to express quaintness here. Leave that up to other venues. Strunk and White suggest not using obscure terms. Student7 14:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I can provide proof of its official use through the following sources:
Look for yourself... it is not a quaint old phrase used by a narrow few- it is an official title, something that makes Vermont unique. It is not something that should be shuttled off because no other state uses it officially anymore. I just cannot understand how the State of Vermont statutes, guidebooks, Vermont travel websites, and other sources use it and it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I have provided legitimate published sources, and I think the State of Vermont is the strongest one for sure. Monsieurdl 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Did someone argue that it was not "official?" I don't remember seeing that. "Official" is not the problem as I see it, obscurity is. Quaintness is not suggested by Strunk and White. I was impressed by this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Sail_Types. The terms they discuss are, of course, "official." The editors were more interested in having their article(s) understood. The terms they use did not seem that obscure to me, but the editors regarded them as such. We're not trying to impress readers with our eruditeness. That is the point of Strunk and White. Student7 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a significant difference between sails and governmental entities: to my knowledge, there's no law that says that certain types of sails have specific names, but there's a law that says that the town of St Johnsbury is the shire town of Caledonia County. This page says that "St. Johnsbury is the shire town." So what if the reader is unfamiliar with the term? A leading purpose — perhaps the leading purpose — of an encyclopedia is to inform someone who is uninformed, and therefore an explanation, such as in the article's current state:

St. Johnsbury is the shire town (county seat) of Caledonia County, Vermont, United States.

Assuming that we can prove that a shire town is equivalent to a county seat (searching the Vermont Statutes Online, I can't find a description of a shire town), there's no reason not to have a note like this that says that the shire town is effectively a county seat. Nyttend 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you honestly think the goal of the towns of Middlebury, North Hero, and Hyde Park is to be erudite? Do you think they are trying to impress their readers? Certainly not- they are stating an absolute fact without embellishment or any other claim of higher intelligence. You make it seem like this is a term that is only for the more advanced kind of person, a sort of esoteric language that is unnecessary. In the statutes of the State of Vermont, "shire town" is NOT a legal term that needs clarification, i.e. latin phrases or legalese. Is the wiki link to shire town not good enough? I think it is to make the connection to county seat. To omit shire town or relegate it to a footnote is to say that the residents and the government of Vermont does not count, that they are somehow too hard to understand when it comes to their word choice, and that's certainly not the way to go. I think it reading as "...is a shire town (county seat) of..." is a fair compromise which promotes correctness and a clear understanding.Monsieurdl 17:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lots of stuff in the constitution that we don't use. I'm sure "shire" sounded quite modern when the drafters met in the 1700s. UVM has an extensive name that no one uses. "Superior Court" judge and "County judge" probably have long-winded formal names that aren't used. This is typical in any language. "Hammer, claw, metal handle, 14 inches" is not a type of term confined to the military. We would still call it a "hammer." And we wouldn't have to have a prolonged discussion about it either! Legislatures often give ponderous names to things that aren't used. Lawyers! I just asked my wife, who is fairly well-read what a shire town was. She said she had heard of it but couldn't tell me off the top of her head. She has visited Vermont for 50 years. And she could care less about my discussion here, BTW!  :) Student7 19:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Shire town isn't long-winded, complicated, or esoteric- you see, visiting Vermont is different than actually being from Vermont and having a lot of family in Vermont though; no disrespect intended. My whole argument about this is that just because Vermont is vastly different in terminology doesn't make it long-winded or an odd term- to Vermonters it is normal. I just can't figure out why you would object to a fair compromise that includes both terms in a simple manner. I've seen several instances of township, borough, etc. being used all the time and I wouldn't dare to impose upon their use if it is officially used, but in this case Vermont is my home. Monsieurdl 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is not long-winded. That is a mercy, anyway. :) Actually I do have relatives there and lived there. I do get annoyed by "township" and "borough" but there are just too many people who live in those places to argue and don't know anything else! The terms are in use there. Do we call the functionaries of the shire "burghers?" I'm sure that's in the constitution somewhere!  :) Student7 19:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It all comes down to this: as the Tenth Amendment guarantees that the federal government may not interfere with internal state affairs, the Vermont state government's authority is supreme in local government. The state has called it a shire town: therefore, it is the shire town — and whatever anyone else may say, it's not a county seat. Any reliable source that says that it's the county seat is simply opinion about the truth: if it's reliable, it deserves to be mentioned that it's effectively the shire town. Nevertheless, neither you nor anyone else has the authority to say that it's something other than the shire town, and to seek to exclude a simple term (whether or not we explain it; many articles have foreign-language translations for names in the intro) is saying that what it really is doesn't matter. Nyttend 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I called for a consensus opinion a couple of hours ago- I think our arguments have been duly presented in any case. I'll leave it is it stands until the RfC is answered :) Monsieurdl 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
County Seat. Footnote with "shire town." (Consensus here right?).Student7 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that this is consensus: simply because I don't know what you're proposing. I believe that the best thing is to say that it's the shire town with a footnote saying that it's equivalent to a county seat: either like it is now, or the reverse of how it was before I edited it (for example, this). Is that what you're proposing? Nyttend 14:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of regionalisms like this, as you've discussed exhaustively above. The official titles of Virginia and Pennsylvania are Commonwealth, and the term is used extensively in both places, but nobody would argue that they are therefore not states. The lede for both articles uses the official title, followed by: ...is a state". I think "shire town" should be mentioned, but it's still the county seat. In Louisiana, it would be the "parish seat", but an outsider could be excused for calling in the county seat. Acroterion (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Louisiana comparison is a good analogy: I checked eight parish seats, all of which said simply "parish seat". Since the term "shire town" is less obviously connected to "county seat", I believe that it's a good idea to mention "county seat" in the intro (especially with a source), but with "shire town" coming first because that's what it is officially. Nyttend 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The current revision looks like it has covered all the bases pretty well. It would be a shame to lose regional terminology in the name of consistency. Acroterion (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
As an observation, I've only encountered the term "shire town" in an English or Scottish context- i.e., Gloucester is the shire town of Gloucestershire (obviously enough). At the risk of opening a can of worms, should the term be applied generally to Vermont? There can't be more than six or seven counties. Acroterion (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Can't see why not to apply the term to all Vermont shire towns. By the way, there are fourteen counties in the state. Nyttend 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Fourteen? That Wikipedia thingum sure is useful; I ought to try it out sometime. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
All fourteen my foot! This discussion only pertains to this town. We're going to the mat on the other 13 towns/cities, individually, plus each shire. Our discussion here doesn't pertain to the Caledonia Shire, please note! (You weren't hypocritically calling it "Caledonia County" were you?). Nor does it pertain to the office of shire-reeve. So there! Student7 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain your comment — especially what do you mean about "going to the mat"? The law to which I've linked multiple times (here's another link) says the following:

The county of Caledonia is formed of the towns of Barnet, Burke, Danville, Groton, Hardwick, Kirby, Lyndon, Newark, Peacham, Ryegate, St. Johnsbury, Sheffield, Stannard, Sutton, Walden, Waterford and Wheelock. St. Johnsbury is the shire town.

The reason I'm advocating calling it the shire town is because it's called the shire town in state legislation, and the Statutes say nothing about "county seat"[1]. However, it's obvious that the Statutes call the divisions of the state "counties". Nyttend 00:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(removing indent) Does anyone else here LIVE in Vermont? I do. I know that it doesn't matter especially, but if we're trying to achieve consensus, I'd go with "shire town (county seat)" because that's what it says on the signs here and people in Vermont know them as both. Jessamyn (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot because of my service at this time, but before I joined I sure was- Main Street. My family has been there for over 2 centuries not 3 miles up the road from St. J. I'm just what you call a strong believer in the preservation of everything that makes Vermont great (and unique). :))) Monsieurdl 03:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm on board with all this. Now what do we call people who work at agriculture outside the city? "Serfs" or "peasants?" Since banks most often own their property, are they addressed as "leige lords?" Obviously, those without mortgages are addressed as "squire." For the people who have made it into the safety of the city for one year are now called what? "Yeomen?" Come to think of it, the Victorian architecture on main street does look like medieval-revival. Right in character. Since we're on opposing sides, is it okay to address you as "varlet". Or would you prefer "knave?" If I throw down the gauntlet, does this result in a duel someplace? (at my age, I'd better hope not!  :). Student7 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone besides me sense just a "little" inconsistency between calling a large area a "county" instead of a "shire," yet calling the seat a "shire town?" Like the shire-advocates lost in the 18th century but now appear once again to fight another day? Student7 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it sounds like an odd idea. However, that doesn't matter: there are plenty of other inconsistencies in the world, yet we report them. You may not introduce your own opinions to Wikipedia articles, any more than I may — read WP:SOAP if you aren't aware that Wikipedia is not a place for you to fight for what you believe, even in rather insignificant matters such as this. Therefore, if you want to change the idea of "shire towns" and "counties", email someone like Jim Douglas: he likely has some influence over governmental matters. Nyttend 14:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with using an apparently anachronistic term, provided such terms are in common use locally. I live in an area where various towns have aldermen or burgesses. While those titles sound antique, they are the statutory terms in everyday use. Nobody thinks twice about them, and they would be appropriate for use in Wikipedia. As long as it is apparent that "shire town" is the local term for "county seat", there's no reason not to mention the usage. Acroterion (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Nyttend is arguing so much on the basis of "common useage" as he is on the basis of "it's official." While parish, burgess, aldermen, borough are in common useage, shire town is not. Randomly polling the web shows a preponderance of "county seat" to "shire town" but counties are politically weak in NE and Vermont so neither term is used very much. But county seat would be recognized far more often by most people. Nyttend is unimpressed with that argument and says it is "not official." Student7 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Either way, I don't see anything wrong with the way it's been done. A Google search on "shire town" turns up an inordinate number of ghits associated with places in Vermont, so it appears to have some currency there. Your mileage may vary. There is, in fact, Shire town available on the 'Pedia, albeit unreferenced and in dire need of cleanup. Not a useful source, but other editors appear to have picked it up somewhere. Acroterion (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we now use "Class I" and "Class II" roads instead of "paved?" "Class III" instead of "unpaved?" Most Vermonters would actually understand those terms. They are "official." They would be poorly understood outside the state so most writers have (up to now) refrained from using this jargon, unfamiliar to outsiders. Student7 00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to RFC

  • I came here in response to this RFC and would like to offer a bit of perspective from outside the USA.
I think you'll find that amongst the majority of English speakers neither term is recognised. Remember that the readership of English Wikipedia extends beyond the USA. In the UK the term is county town, and in India, the country with the largest number of English speakers, the equivalent is district headquarters. Given the wide variety of terms used for the same concept it surely makes sense for the local "official" usage to prevail, as long as it's linked to an article that explains what it means. Phil Bridger 23:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CDP change

These CDP changes really should be discussed first because it is a lot of change to the overall flow of the article. To me it reads like technical jargon rather than an article about the town itself. Monsieurdl 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And the CDP article is not technical jargon? It is, in fact, nothing but technical jargon and will never be anythin but technical jargon. Personally, I'd rather see the CDPs for town centers deleted as many people in New England do not usually think in terms of CDPs but whole towns. Only if the CDP corresponds to a well-known village should they remain separate. Merging is something I did just so no information would be lost, but, to be honest, the CDP demographic data is useless (you can see it pretty much matches the town). --Polaron | Talk 17:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it is the header that really cuts it- there must be a better way to merge the information without getting too deep into the technical language. We can work this out I'm sure. Monsieurdl 18:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I changed the headers to something less technical. How about a single paragraph for demographics with the corresponding CDP data in parentheses beside the town data? --Polaron | Talk 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe while it is fresh in your mind, you could point (reference/link) to the CDP boundaries? Student7 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
While I used GIS data for the information, there is a good map here that should be the same. --Polaron | Talk 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Aside from demographic data, what is the point of the CDP article? Who are the notable residents of the CDP? What are the points of interest in the CDP? What is the history of the CDP? What is the industry of the CDP? If the answers are the same as for those of the town then there is no point ot the CDP article? The demographic data is already here. Some people are still treating the town as purely a minor civil division instead of an actual place. While there are unincorporated villages in New England, how come only some unincorporated villages are CDPs while others are not? You'll be hard pressed to find people in New England that think of places in terms of CDPs. Some CDPs seem to be just the dense part of town without regard to the actual communities within. --Polaron | Talk 19:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm disconcerted by the fact that the CDP seems to have more households and more families than the town. AJD 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There as an error in the town numbers. I have fixed those. All the rest of the town's data should probably be checked too. --Polaron | Talk 20:33, 14 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. older ≠ wiser 00:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit dismayed by the detail of the boundaries, which of course have to be in there to explain why the CDP census may not match other data. I may have (probably have) missed the point here, but I would rather see the CDP info "forked" to its own article with it's own boundary descriptions. I think that's what Polaron is ssying, too. I hope. Student7 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing of a fork for the CDP; it's been there for some years, and the debate is whether it should be merged into the town: something proposed, not opposed by Polaron. Nyttend 02:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to be so out to lunch. I would rather see it remain in it's own article. Maybe with a more obvious pointer from the town/village article. The boundary description just seems to clutter. We don't describe boundaries of cities/towns/villages generally. Seems like a bad precedent. Student7 02:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
But there are no "boundaries" as such for CDPs -- they are completely artificial entities created entirely at the whim of the U.S. Census Bureau. The demarcations used by the Census Bureau are extremely transient and subject to revision with each and every decennial census. older ≠ wiser 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Grant your point, although it's amazing how often some municipalities change their boundaries so rapidly as well. It's an example of why no entity should have its super-specific boundaries listed under normal circumstances. Nyttend 03:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the limited usefulness of including excessively detailed boundary descriptions -- a map is worth a thousand words in such cases. But the difference with municipalities is that their boundaries are defined external to the Census Bureau and do tend to have some permanence. New England towns are a somewhat unique situation, in that it is rare for there to be an incorporated municipality with the same name as a town and there appears to be little expectation that population centers will incorporate to become independent of the town. In the midwest, it is fairly common for there to be incorporated cities and villages with the same name as an adjacent or surrounding township. older ≠ wiser 03:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this argument is going, but it is actually fairly common. The incorporated village of Orleans is in Orleans County. St. J is in St. J. town. Troy (unincorporated) in Troy. Derby in Derby, etc. If this tends to undermine moving the CDP descriptions out, I deny everything!  :) Student7 03:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are 19 such cases in Vermont where an incorporated village has the same name as its parent town. There are 4 cases in Connecticut where a incorporated borough/city has the same name as its parent town. Those are the only cases in all of New England. And the trend is for these dependent sub-town municipalities to disincorporate and revert to town control. Because most of New England (except Maine) is virtually incorporated, town boundary lines are unlikely to change since there's nothing left to annex. The most recent town boundary change in Vermont happened when Winooski village was chartered as a city in 1922 altering Colchester town. Boundary changes at the town level are extremely rare in New England. --Polaron | Talk 04:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to get this group discussing readability. That is, user friendliness. We get annoyed when computer programs aren't user-friendly, but then write articles which aren't and claim that "It's legal" or whatever we feel like. The description of boundaries suck. They are boring. They are unecessary. They are tendentious. City/town/village articles do not have boundaries in them so far. That makes the rest of them readable, but not this one. Can they be forked into another article? Can we discuss how readers would like this instead of how the constitution reads? Or the US census mandates? Student7 02:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Whatever do you mean about the constitution or the mandates? Nyttend 02:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were putting it in because "it was a legal document on the census" and therefore it had to go in lock, stock and barrel, regardless of what it sounded like. The arguments I'm reading above do not apply to readability, but to who's doing it and their rationale. Student7 02:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's what I've been trying to say, but look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont to see that I'm the only one on that page arguing for a separate CDP. Nyttend 02:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there's agreement to not include detailed boundaries for the CDP in the town article. --Polaron | Talk 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm very interested in how this works out, because we're considering doing the same thing in New Hampshire (where the job appears to be easier, because there are fewer cases of multiple villages in towns with CDPs). I made a change at the beginning of the "Town center" demographics section, so that "CDP" is defined again. This will help people like me who jump to the center of the article and may not ever discover that "CDP" is defined in the opening paragraph. It still seems overly verbose, so improvements are always welcome. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it needs to be rementioned in the demographics: if the CDP is judged insignificant enough and little-known enough for its own article, I don't really see why we would expect people to care much about it. If you really think that an explanation belongs down below, please don't put it in the demographics information text, as that might confuse bots in any future rewordings of demographics sections. It's much better to have it as a separate piece of text, listed above the statistics. Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)