Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Initial Remarks

As a proud flatlander, I'd just like to point out that only Vermonters would be so arrogant as to consider a Wikiproject required to provide coverage of the nation's second-smallest state and its penal institutions. Almost enough for me to consider an article on the peculiar phenomenon of Vermont nationalism. That having been said, more power to you -- carry on. RadicalSubversiv E 03:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey! This state is very important. Wikipedia can't be a real encylopedia until we have articles on every Vermont prison. ;) Neutralitytalk 02:01, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I bet Delawareans(or whatever you'd call someone from Delaware)are pretty pissed at Vermont trying to take sole possession of the second smallest state title, but Vermonters are known for self-promotion. ;-)
I think he meant second least populous, but anyway, we're far from second least significant! How about we substitute Vermont Museums for Vermont Prisons? DLaub 05:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Does it take much to create WikiProjects such as these? I'd like to do one for New Hampshire, i'll join this one since VT and NH hold alot in common.Karmafist 21:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

FYI: I've added your Vermont WikiProject to both Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states so you are a little more "official" (and also added you as a Similiar WikiProject to the California WikiProject). BlankVerse ∅ 16:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

As a proud native of Vermont, I fully support this project, and will help expand our cause. Connor Shlatz 15:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Brattleboro, Vermont really needs some cleanup, it's accumulated a chunk of vandalism over the years. Sdedeo (tips) 01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plates?

How about adding a license plate for this list, also to be included in the transportation section of the main article? --LV (Dark Mark) 19:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Vermont

Many articles covered by this WikiProject lack photographs. As part of a subcategorization of the requested photos category, there is now a category for Vermont articles needing photos - to use it, just add {{reqphotoin|Vermont}} to the article's talk page. I have only added a few articles to the category so far, but it would be an easy way to make an extensive list of Vermont-related articles lacking photos. I hope you find it useful! TheGrappler 09:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. For those of us who live here it should be easy to put photos on our "to do" lists. Jessamyn (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I went through the list of towns and cities last week adding the template {{reqphotoin|Vermont}} to the talk pages of all articles with no images. Mickmaguire 18:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Membership?

So how does one become a "member" of Project Vermont? do you just add your name to the list and start editing or is it nomination or... ?

It's just an interest group, really, so feel free to check in and see what needs working on and help out! Jessamyn (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

Suggestion - Replace lists with categories as they are self maintaining? Anybody have any thoughts / advice on this idea? Mickmaguire 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History buff needed

Please check out List of current and former capital cities in the United States and make sure that Vermont's capital cities are listed accurately. A word of warning: the page does contain quite a bit of complicated wiki formatting, so if you're not comfortable editing it, just post your changes on the talk page and someone more experienced will apply them to the article.   JEK   19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominate articles for Portal:United States

I've worked for the past month to update Portal:United States and keep it better maintained. Though, I think the Portal:United States would be even better with broader participation. One way to do that is instead of choosing the "selected article" myself each week, if others would nominate articles and help make decisions. (same goes for pictures, though these are stocked up through July 29) If there is anything related to Vermont (or anything else related to the U.S. - culture, music, literature, geography, history, politics, ...), please nominate. I'd also like people to weigh in on the nominations and help select what should be featured. Thanks. -Aude (talk contribs) 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New "People from [city]" Categories

Hello, everybody. I am the bozo who just recently created the new subcategories in the "People from Vermont" category. I thought that some of you might want to know why they were created, and why they often have so few pages in them.

The majority of the states have "People from [state]" categories which have at least 200 entries, sometimes over 1,000. This is clearly an unworkably large number for anyone wishing to use the category for research purposes. In 8th grade in Rapid City, South Dakota, the social studies class asked us to write, over the course of the year, reports on two or three people who were or had been residents of the city. Because of that, I have reason to believe that they could be used and probably are used for research purposes. To make such research easier, I looked at the list of metropolitan statistical areas and basically entered in one new category for each metropolitan statistical area.

I know that many of these categories might well be, in the eyes of you who know more about the cities in question much better than I do, misnamed or otherwise faulty. I apologize for any mistakes I may have made along those lines, and I would welcome any corrections, including deletion, that any of the rest of you might choose to make. With that in mind, I have also generally populated the categories with only one or two names, to ease in the process of deletion or renaming.

I thought you all should know why these categories were created, and felt some degree of responsibility for letting your know. I wish you all the greatest good fortune in making the coverage of your state in Wikipedia of the greatest scope and quality possible, and I hope that I haven't annoyed too many of you by my recent actions. Badbilltucker 13:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub deletion notification

This message is to inform the WikiProject that {{Kentucky-stub}}{{Vermont-stub}} and Cat:Kentucky stubsCat:Vermont stubs are being considered for deletion at WP:SFD. The category is currently undersized, meaning it has less than 35 articles. Please populate this within 6 days (July 27th) or the stub template and category will be deleted. If you have a question, feel free to leave a message on my talk page or on the SFD page. Thanks you and happy editing. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • hmmm I guess you actually mean VT stubs! ;o) Mickmaguire 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, shoot! That's what I get for using the same text for different projects.... Also, I've updated the SFD to reflect the increase in articles. Vermont-stub should be safe. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article needs help!

I've made some comments and some changes, but the VT article is really lacking. A whole lot of anecdotal nonesense, non fact-based assertions about what VT is, and who VTers are. The modern history section includes a bit on the Great Flood and Civil Union...and thats it! Come on now, we can do far better!--Jonashart 13:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

Wanted to let you know that WP:BIOGRAPHY has added a "work group" called Politics and government, and so wanted to invite you to participate on any biography-type articles. The section for VT is here and if there's interest, we can beef it up to look like the newly-created Virginia one plange 05:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to new WikiProject

A new WikiProject has been started, and may be of interest to members here. It is WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. It covers all listings on the Register, in all states and territories. Should you be so inclined, please feel free to join. And spread the word to any other interested parties. -Ebyabe 19:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 19:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Days article

Kudos to those of you who contributed to the article in this week's Seven Days about Wikipedia. I'd say it was a pretty well balanced article. Dismas|(talk) 09:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Lyndon, Vermont

Hey all from a random Wikipedian. I don't live anywhere near Vermont but I noticed way back in 2006 someone involved with this Vermont group tagged Lyndon as needing a photo. It still doesn't have anything. Any of you Vermont residence people have or can get one? Just random encouragement! Cheers Nesnad (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Try http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/fist.php -- User:Docu

[edit] Category

I've nominated Category:County seats in Vermont to be renamed to Category:Shire towns in Vermont. Please offer your commentary at the discussion page. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Jarvis (merchant)

New article I've tagged with your project. Cheers. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question on article suitability for this project and possible assessment

Myself and a couple of new editors just created an article about our favorite jigsaw puzzle company Stave Puzzles, which is located in Norwich, Vermont. I would like to know if an article about a company located in Vermont is suitable for inclusion in this project? If it does meet the scope criteria for this project, I would appreciate an assessment. Thanks in advance. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brattleboro Free Folk Festival

I've thought about either merging this stub into a general folk festival article/list or nominating it for deletion if I can't find any good sources to expand it. Does this project have any input? Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)