Jump to content

Talk:Middlebury, Connecticut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voter Registration

[edit]

What am I missing about this voter data source... I don't see where the census data references voter registration at all? Where are you getting the numbers from? Drhamad (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous suggestion: Some mention of NASCAR driver Joey Logano? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.26.145 (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpin Map

[edit]

A pushpin map was added without out consensus, obviously cluttering the infobox for no reason. —JJBers 00:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of map

[edit]

@JJBers: You have twice removed a map that had been added to the infobox. With both reverts, you failed to leave an edit summary. Please explain why you are removing this map. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above... —JJBers 00:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus was reached by the editors who created Template:Infobox settlement to include four perimeters for pushpin maps. Two editors have attempted to add this map, and there is no consensus or policy prohibiting its use. You write that the pushpin map is "cluttering the infobox for no reason". First, could you point to a consensus or policy which defines a "cluttered infobox"? Also, pushpin maps have been added to thousands of articles, likely for a good reason. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? I'm using the discussion on WP:USCITIES talk, not the infobox. The result of that was no consensus, and since the adding editor had no real backing for continuing to add them in into the articles in Connecticut, I reverted it. This was also done without consensus beforehand. —JJBers 01:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JJBers: Again, you wrote that the pushpin map is "cluttering the infobox for no reason". Please point to a consensus or policy which defines a "cluttered infobox". Also, you singlehandedly reverted two editors. How is that not a consensus? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you just came off a 0RR, and there is still an open thread at ANI concerning edit warring, and two other editors obviously think differently about the issue, I highly suggest someone opens an RfC before someone gets a judicious block. TimothyJosephWood 12:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about pushpin map in infobox

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

|(non-admin closure)There is rough consensus for including a pushpin map in the infobox.- MrX 16:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]

Should a pushpin map be included in the infobox? Magnolia677 (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. Support - There are four parameters at Template:Infobox settlement for the inclusion of pushpin maps, and both examples shown on the template page include pushpin maps. Particularly on lesser-known locations, pushpin maps give readers a perspective of the location on a full US map. Also, many featured articles, such at Kent, Ohio, use a pushpin map. I also support the inclusion of pushpin maps, even when a local map is also included. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support US map + State map The combination of pushpin on US map + bounds within state orients the reader well; if some prefer, instead of a pushpin showing where Connecticut is, a US map with Connecticut in color could be used, the problem being that for very small states this doesn't work so well. (Or, instead of a full mainland US map, a regional map, e.g. Northeast states, could be used.) Arguments about article length are silly; none of this "disrupts" the text, short or long.

    It seems from what someone says below that there's also talk of a intermediate county map -- that's unnecessary.

    While I'm here, can I put in a plea for an end to the idiotically overprecise demographic statistics seen in so many city/town articles? Reporting that a town of 6400 people is "97.12 white" and "0.03% Pacific Islander" is preposterous, as are incomes reported to the last dollar, and much else. EEng 05:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  3. Support pushpin maps and remove the PNG maps. However, I wouldn't have an issue with modifying File:USA Connecticut location map.svg so it shows town borders. –Fredddie™ 11:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Pushpin maps are much clearer than PNG maps and can also toggle between different maps, such as county, state, and country, which provides clearer geographic context to the reader. Dough4872 13:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the .PNG image maps are being slowly replaced with their .SVG counterparts. So I see no valid reason just because of their file type. —JJBers 13:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But the toggle function between maps is what makes the SVG pushpin maps a better option. Dough4872 13:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, and even better would be to add a feature to {{location map}} to allow a static image to be included in the toggled map list, so we could have 'Middlebury CT lg.PNG' as the top level default with toggles to show the location in a larger context. Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I don't find the claim that the pushpin map "adds clutter" compelling, they are commonly used and I find them beneficial. That being said, I would prefer that the location map was merged into the pushpin map so that only it was displayed by default and the reader could toggle amongst all three. But even without this functionality I am fine with the pushpin map as is. MB 15:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Frietjes. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     09:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 'Support including both , with the option buttons as presently shown. I find both levels of detail helpful in unfamiliar areas.People not familiar with Connecticut will not immediately realize were the town is in the US. This may seem superfluous to an person from the US, but consider a similar location in one of the states of India, for example Balod--where both maps are certainly needed for most people outside the country. We do need a general rule for this. DGG ( talk ) 13:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose The infobox parameters shouldn't play a role in this dispute. Anyways, the image map should be able to fully cover what is needed in a map sense. If there is no image map, the push-pin should be able to fulfill it's role until one is created. The map of it's location in the United States is unneeded at best, and at worst, over lengths the infobox to the point that it disrupts the flow of the article. There is no point to keeping the push-pin map if another map already fulfills it's role. — JJBers 13:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose the state level pushpin map - I'm in a compromise situation. I fully support the federal level pushpin map, but, not the state level one. I've taken a look at all of the options individually. Option 1. Have just the county map. Option 2. Have the county and both pushpin maps. Option 3. Have just the pushpin maps. Option 4. Have the pushpin federal map and the state level county map. I support the very last option. I'd like to note I oppose only the state level pushpin map. The pushpin map at the state level has a serious drawback. It's just a dot on a map. I like the pushpin map, but, at the state level, the couty map is far more valuable than the pushpin one. At the same time, while I can see the resourceful value of having the county map, I also have to note that it too has a serious shortcoming. Non-U.S. or even Non-CT residents are unlikely to find the county map as useful as a pushpin map that shows them location in the U.S. first. You look from the smallest scale to the largest (from Federal to State). Despite CT's relatively small size, if you're looking at the U.S. level then you're not interested in exact precision but approximate location. In these terms my favourite solution is the fourth one. However, all this considered, my second preference isn't option 2 or option 3, it's option 1. If there is a move to have both pushpin maps then I have to oppose the motion. The pushpin map at the state level is simply redundant and less useful, and this just detracts from the functionality of the IB as a whole. We do not need two maps showing the same thing, especially when one of the maps is clearly and objectively more informative and more accurate. Middlebury is not a circle, it's a misshapen rectangle. It's simply a better representation of the town. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, because it's a short article. If someone add a bunch of text to this article, then it would be less of an issue, but I wouldn't add it to city article that already had a map of the county and state. I consider a community article to be "short" when the right-column infobox + census table + photos + other junk are contiguous and overflowing into the reference section. I typically add pushpin maps only for communities that don't have a map drawing. For rural Kansas communities, I prefer the 2nd map to be the cropped county from a state highway map, which is more useful than a high level USA map. Some states have SVG map drawings of city highlighted into the county next to county highlighted in the USA, like this example, which is included in this Hays, Kansas article. Unfortunately these don't exist for every state. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Parameters occurring in an infobox don't necessitate their use. Templates are neither guidelines nor policies. This article's fist map cleanly and concisely shows its location in the county and state, making other maps superfluous. Nobody needs to see little Middlebury's context within the United States, and if they didn't know where Connecticut was, there are two links to Connecticut in the infobox and another in the first sentence of the lede. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh, who signed this? —JJBers 01:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, unusual mistake for me, fixed. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • As a note from a relatively uninvolved editor (I'm just following some breadcrumbs) this is based on a series of edits by a set of editors who feel that a pushpin map is simply too much for the infobox (and has removed them on various similar pages). Similar discussions about this have happened here, here, here, and the section above this one. This (I gather) is the reason for the RFC. Primefac (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize I don't understand the question. Which map or maps are agreed upon, and which are in dispute? Please link to a version of the page showing all the maps, and identify which is which. EEng 16:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This version of the article shows a PNG state map on top, and a pushpin map below it. This RfC is asking if the pushpin map should be included, as it is in dispute. On various US city articles, either or both maps are included. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RfC should be for all Connecticut towns, not just Middlebury. The roughly 150 town articles should either show the town outline map, the pushpin map, or both. Some CT towns have pushpin maps, and some do not. Making a decision about Middlebury will not change that situation. Go big! – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had considered this option, and if this reaches a strongish consensus based on a broad rationale (i.e., not that this article in particular is too short), then that's probably the logical next step. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm another editor from "outside" this dispute, so will comment rather than support or oppose. I am looking at the reference version of the page identified a couple of comments above this. I have heard of Connecticut (mostly because of its awkward spelling) and had a vague idea it's sort of north-eastish in the USA, it's not one of the 7 or 8 I have visited yet. For an article about "Middlebury, Connecticut", the "third map" (the one I get by pushing the button "Show map of Connecticut") is by far the most useful on its own, as it shows the landform around the state, including that it has a coastline but it's not on the east side. If the pink and red bits of the first map were transferred to the third one which is the state in standard Wikipedia colours, it would probably be the only one needed. I would suggest if the USA map is to be kept, it should be the "hidden" one. All three show different information. The WikiMiniAtlas is not available on mobile viewers, which also don't show the switching between maps. --Scott Davis Talk 04:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Middlebury, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Middlebury, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Middlebury,_Connecticut&oldid=1203998593"