Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut/Archive 4

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Doncram in topic article drive on NRHP articles
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

For 2010 WikiProject Connecticut talk.

Rating System

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article assignment table (with the redux guidelines) is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Assessment.

Hello, I've been rating articles for the Wikiproject (did the counties & all towns in Fairfield & New Haven counties so far) and I propose the following system since I can't find any guidelines elsewhere in the Wikiproject:

Importance

...of course these are general guidelines and some articles could rate higher or lower. Thoughts? Markvs88 (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Timex Group USA, Inc. – looking for reassessment

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I have just completed a brand new extensive update of Timex Group USA, Inc.. The article has been rated as a start-class by the Connecticut Project for quite some time. As I am a member of this project and authored the majority of new content on the article I would like to ask for someone here to please review and assess the article accordingly. Thanks. dtgriffith (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was upgraded to C by AnmaFinotera, which it is at the very least. I think it's on the borderline with B and could well be a Good Article candidate soon, but I have two reservations: A) 25% of the citations are from "Timex: A Company and Its Community", which is a book and therefore hard to verify. More varied citations would help. B) the History section is almost the entire article. You may want to compare other large corporate pages such as General Electric, Pitney Bowes, Unilever et cetera for ideas on how to expand the article. Keep it up! Markvs88 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I really appreciate the feedback! Yes, I agree with you on the citations coming from that one book as well as the primary focus on history. I was building off of what I had originally found on the article page and using available resources, which was in pretty bad shape. I will check out those pages you mention and continue development on the article. Any recommendations on how to handle the conglomerate aspect of Timex Group B.V. versus the American company Timex Group USA? dtgriffith (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm no expert on Timex, but I'd think it would be similar to General Motors and Buick? Markvs88 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Going forward

It's three months later and I've rated the entire backlog the CT project had and have started looking for new stuff by going through town pages, categories, etc to find articles that are "lost". If you write a new article or come across such an article please edit the talk page to rate it yourself, or put this tag in if you're not sure what to rate it as: '''{{WikiProject Connecticut|class=|importance=}}'''. Thanks! Markvs88 (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Going Forward Part 2

I've updated the project's rating system so CT now has Disambiguation, Image, Portal, and Project tags. Markvs88 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Fairfield University

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's classed as "GA" but is a failed GA. Rating may need to be amended. –xenotalk 14:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, rating it down to "B". Markvs88 (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


RfC on use of "Connecticut" versus "UConn" for University of Connecticut athletic teams

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A Request for Comment has been opened concerning whether to use "Connecticut" or "UConn" in the names of articles and categories about University of Connecticut athletic teams. You are invited to comment here: Category talk:UConn Huskies#RfC on use of "Connecticut" versus "UConn" for University of Connecticut athletic teams. –Grondemar 22:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A nonexistent page?

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have noticed under the “Open tasks” section of the main project page the following sentence: “All articles should be added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Articles list by category.” However, this particular page of the WikiProject is nonexistent, and doesn’t seem to have ever been existent. If articles are really supposed to be added to this project subpage, actually creating the subpage would probably be the first step. I’d create it myself, but I’m too new to this WikiProject and would like to see examples of what should be added on the subpage first, lest I accidentally add the wrong thing to it. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been wondering about that myself! I've been editing the project's pages a bit here and there... but there's a lot to do. Go for it if you want! Markvs88 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I've scratched that from the main page... we seem to be doing pretty well without it, whatever it was. Markvs88 (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Important question regarding Lt. Gov. Micheal Fedele's article

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have a question regarding Lieutenant Governor Michael Fedele's order in serving as the state's lieutenant governor. Please read it on the talk page of the Fedele article here. I would like to resolve this mystery as soon as possible. Thank you, Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted why I think there is a discrepency. Markvs88 (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge Section

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I wrote the section so we would have a place to FIND proposed merges in the project, and so that (at a glace) a member would know how long a merge has been up for discussion. Okay, maybe the For/Against is a little much, but I figured while I was at it... why not. The 60 days is obviously not a hard and fast rule, which is why it says "may". There are merges out there which are simply not being commented on at all because the article is obscure and/or our Project has relatively few active members. This is to give *some kind* of time limit else we have things like University of New Haven Police which has been in a proposed merge since 29 October 2008! Basically, this is a CT version of [[1]]. Obviously, this is not a way to skirt around using the merge templates and discussing the merges on their respective pages. Does anyone have any ideas for how to improve this as an idea? Or doesn't like it for some reason? Markvs88 (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, the voting and the assertion of 60-day rule seemed over-the-top. WikiProject Connecticut members do not have authority from the larger Wikipedia community to settle thorny merger questions. I wasn't thinking of this before, but I realize that there are, in Connecticut, a handful of WikiProject NRHP-related merger proposals that are the remainder of a long-running dispute and mediated process (a process which solved merger questions for many hundreds of articles already). These remaining merger proposals don't lend themselves to easy resolution. I personally don't think it is even helpful to list them and call for anyone else's attention right now. If they do get brought up, i promise to participate and probably oppose change of their status in one direction, and i expect other parties will also oppose change in other direction. It is an okay equilibrium to leave them in their current status, having a merger proposal outstanding. With some more time I expect some of them will be more easily resolved, eventually, rather than forcing something on an artificial deadline. Hopefully enough about that for now!
About your wanting to show Connecticut-relevant items on the WikiProject Connecticut pages, that can be done by the ArticleAlerts bot. WikiProject NRHP is one that is signed up with this bot that provides occasional listings of all tagged articles within the scope of the wikiproject. See the Article Alerts section within wp:NRHP. The bot updates that occasionally. At the moment, there is a notice posted that the ArticleAlerts bot is not currently functioning, but i assume it will be fixed. You could/should just sign up WikiProject Connecticut with that service. It probably will include mention of all the merger proposals, as well as many other types of article issues. --doncram (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually there are 2 bots that are relevant: The ArticleAlerts one, but also more focussed on the cleanup issues is another, i think called the WolterBot(?). For Wikiproject NRHP its output is at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Cleanup listing. This is the one which would probably display all pending merger items for you automatically, plus other kinds of problems. It updates only occasionally, i think every 2 months or so, but that is actually quite sufficient i think. Hope you find this helpful. --doncram (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
And it isn't trying to settle anything outside of ordinary means. It's just a place to call attention to what's going on in the project. That's what the project page is for, after all. Other projects such as WikiProject Texas do likewise. I don't see how advertising what's being discusses can possibly be a bad thing, as it's all about clean-up and isn't about any one person. Improving our articles is gonig to be a big job, which (as you know) are in terms of numbers very skewed towards the lower end of quality (WikiProject Connecticut/Assessment). IMO, leaving the status quo (interminably) doesen't help.
The bots are nice Doncram, and I have no problem with you (or anyone else) using them. However, there is a limit to what I can do. :-) If you or another project member wants to get that going I'm not opposed, but I believe that until it's done and someone is using those bots on a regular basis that this is a good method. Especially as a "second way" if the person using the bots doesn't do so for a long time.
I also believe that there should be some agreed limit to how long an article should be considered for merging. Is 60 days too long? Too short? I don't know. But as with a lot of things in the CT project, we have to start somewhere. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, you can't get Wikipedia-wide consensus on a 60 day limit, after which you(?) or any member of WikiProject Connecticut(?), gets to decide. There's no way that a widely viewed RFC proposing that would reach a consensus approving that, IMHO. It is okay to call attention to long-outstanding items that you wish, for some reason, to have resolved, but I also don't think it is too very necessary. Maybe there are more important/productive topics for this WikiProject to focus its attention upon?
I'm willing to engage somewhat in helping on these tho. To take one for example, the University of New Haven Police one, i see it has been proposed for merger since this version of October 2008. The fact that you posted a notice about it dated May 2010 has no bearing, IMHO, but it is fine you want to call attention to it. I'll comment at the Talk page where that merger proposal indicated it should be discussed (and where there has been no discussion). --doncram (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't need a Wikipedia-wide consensus. 60 days is just a number to cut down the possibility of an edit war and I'd be just as happpy with 30 or 90, but IMO two months is ample time to contest a merge. It's not a matter of anyone deciding anything: ONLY if an article is on the page for 60 days and nobody weighs in on the merge, it can be unilaterally merged. That's all it's for: to make sure that a merge request doesn't go on forever. If a merge is contested that's a whole different ball of wax, since it wouldn't fall under [2]. Likewise if there is consensus to merge/not merge, that's that.
Certainly there are a LOT of things the project needs to do. As you know, I've spent months rating articles, which leads to the next topic of getting rid of duplicate articles. Exactly so: calling attention to the pages so the members can weigh in on them vs. me (or anyone else) just doing what we feel like about merge requests/deletions/etc. Markvs88 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I just restored 2 merger proposal items to the WikiProject main page, for the following two items:

which had been removed by the editor most strongly arguing for one side in the decision, and who implemented his/her choice. In order to support the process in this WikiProject that Markvs88 set out, by setting up thies discussion section, I would like to ask for some better process of closing involving some other editors. About the first one of these, I don't actually oppose closing the merger discussion against the view that I had held, because the development of the article and the arguments made against my view were pretty convincing. In a closing process, I would concede that, but I would prefer to have made the concession and closed it myself, or to have acceded to some less-involved editor's judgment. About the second, there is an open merger/split discussion, actually at wt:NRHP where the merger proponent opened it, where the discussion is running the other way, towards there being separate articles. It's an open discussion, not over. Can editors here comment on how they would like for merger proposal items to be resolved? --doncram (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Connecticut Summer 2010 Photo Contest

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WikiProject Connecticut Photo Contest

Over the past half year I've rated over 3,500 articles for this Wikiproject, and an alarming number of the have no pictures whatsoever! Therefore, I hereby challenge my fellow Nutmeggers to a contest: who can add the most images to the Wikiproject? C'mon folks, you probably have a digital camera on your phone anyway!

Rules:

  • You must take the picture yourself, adding public domain pictures (ie: postcards from pre-1923 that are on a website) will NOT count.
  • The file must be of something notable for a CT rated article and be of decent quality. The picture cannot already exist on Wikipedia.
  • You may not add more than 5 pictures to any one article.
  • All photos must be uploaded and added to their articles. If it wasn't added to the article and titled, it doesn't count.
  • All submissions must be made by 17:00 (5PM) EST on August 31st, 2010.

Prizes:

  • I will award every user with 15+ pictures with a
  The Photographer's Barnstar
Congratulations! You added XX images to the Connecticut WikiProject!
  • The top contributor will win a unique barnstar award! (That looks nothing like this...)

 

Opt in Add your name here if you want to join the contest:

|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|><|

The contest is over and Grondemar is the tentative winner!! I will go through all of the submitted photos and confirm their eligability, awards should be out by the weekend. -Markvs88

Update: Doncram & Grondemar have been awarded their barnstars! Markvs88 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD on Viola Question

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viola Question would be welcome. This relates to one of the items on this wikiproject's main page list of proposed mergers, a proposed merger between Viola Question and Yale University. --doncram (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved by deletion. --doncram (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral name change

WikiProject Connecticut AUTUMN Photo Contest

Congratulations to Grondemar for winning the Summer Photo Contest! But as you probably know, many articles still have no pictures whatsoever! Therefore, I again challenge my fellow Nutmeggers to the contest: who can add the most images to the Wikiproject? C'mon folks, you probably have a digital camera on your phone anyway!

Rules:

  • You must take the picture yourself, adding public domain pictures (ie: postcards from pre-1923 that are on a website) will NOT count. The picture cannot already exist on Wikipedia, in Commons, etc.
  • The picture must be of something notable for a CT rated article and be of decent quality.
  • You may not add more than 5 pictures to any one article during the contest.
  • All photos must be uploaded and added to their articles. If it wasn't added to the article and titled, it doesn't count.
  • All submissions must be made after 12:00 UTC (8:00 AM EST) on September 15th, 2010 and no later than 23:59 UTC (7:59 PM EST) on October 31st, 2010.

Prizes:

Every participant with with 15+ pictures will receive a

  The Photographer's Barnstar
Congratulations! You added XX images to the Connecticut WikiProject!

The top contributor will win the coveted CT photo barnstar award!

  The Connecticut Photographer's Barnstar
I am happy to award [[|]] with this barnstar for winning the Autumn 2010 Photo Contest with XX pictures. Congratulations! Markvs88 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This contest is now closed. I will go through the entries to determine validity (great jobs, Emporostheoros & Sphilbrick!) and barnstars will be out sometime this week, probably by Thursday. Thanks again, the project gained 342 new images by just 3 contributors! Markvs88

Add your name here if you want to join the contest:

Individual listings
padding

Pages:

*Update: I've confirmed Emporostheoros' total as 114. Sphilbrick's is confirmed with 108... So Emporostheoros is the winner! Thanks again to you both for being patient! Barnstars will be awarded presently. Best, Markvs88

Photo contest suggestion

Latest comment: 14 years ago36 comments6 people in discussion

I suggest creating a project page specific to the photo contest for opting-in, tracking progress and spelling out the rules. This way the main WikiProject page does not become over-cluttered with a mix of different content. Any thoughts? dtgriffith (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If we get any more "contestants", I'm all for it! Markvs88 (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Any particular reason why the contest rules state that photos have to be released to the public domain? I've submitted to the public domain in the past, but I've tended to release under Creative Commons more recently, including for this photo of Milford's Metro-North train station last week. Perhaps it's just me, but there might be more participants in this contest if any self-created photo could be included, not just public domain ones. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Good question and I agree. I recently submitted this shot for the Timexpo Museum in Waterbury under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license which is what I feel most comfortable with. Not that it's my best photo, quickly taken with an iPhone, but I still prefer some level of ownership on visual works. dtgriffith (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Good points! The only reason I put Public Domain is that's the way I've always uploaded mine. Sure, I'll change that right now. Markvs88 (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There hasn't been too much activity on this front of late (me included)... would extending the contest out another month entice more contributions? Markvs88 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I have not been able to participate as planned. Many real life factors have interfered, including knee surgery which I am currently recovering from. I suggest creating a new formalized photo contest to start on a specific date and run for a month. Give people at least 4 weeks notice so they can determine whether or not they can participate and promote it all over. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2010 which is currently running and fairly well organized. dtgriffith [talk] 15:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I was interested in participating in the photo contest, but (at least for me) it was unclear what photos uploaded when would count; also I didn't like the requirement to make them public domain rather than licensing them under a CC license. I agree with the above, it would make sense to relaunch this contest, perhaps for the month of August, with clearer rules and requirements. I'd also relax the number of photos required for the barnstar or at least create intermediate rewards, see the Copy Editors contest for a good example of how that would work. –Grondemar 15:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Contest extension

I think we have consensus, I'll extend the contest until 31 August. Will also remove the ownership requirement and lower the threashold for the basic barnstar from 25 to 15. Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent call, thanks! –Grondemar 16:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
C'mon folks, there's got to be stuff near where you live or work... 15 pictures is about 1 per day for the rest of the month! :-) Markvs88 (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This is in regards to Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut#WikiProject Connecticut Photo Contest? Okay, i'll try to add some. Where do i list my pics uploaded for this contest? And, there's an Aug 31 cutoff which is good, but is there a beginning cutoff from when the pics were taken or already uploaded? I would not be able to take new pics now but i have pics from a previous trip, only a couple of which i uploaded. :) --doncram (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Any pictures (per rules) added to a CT article between 17 June and 31 August will count, just opt in on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut page and add your pages. Markvs88 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I've taken several pictures but haven't had the chance to upload them yet; don't worry, you'll be seeing some contributions soon! –Grondemar 16:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Grondemar wasn't kidding, has just reached 35 pics in last 2 days of contest, now nearly over. Rats, i think i've been robbed, when i thot i had the big prize all sewn up!  :( But, what time is the contest over? I suggest midnight of August 31, time as known in Greenwich, Connecticut, not that other Greenwich time, which would cut off sooner. --doncram (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It's listed as "All submissions must be made by 17:00 (5PM) EST on August 31st, 2010." under the rules on the main page... so that is that. Yeah, I thought you had it too. I've been way busier than I thought I would be this week and so won't be adding any more pictures. Oh well, we can always hold another one for autumn. Markvs88 (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I didn't intend for it to turn out like that. I just didn't have a chance to upload most of my pictures until late last night. –Grondemar 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Winning is no reason to apologise! (lol) Anyway, after 5PM EST I'll close the contest and will start going through all the new pictures to make sure they're legit. I'll probably hand out awards by Friday. I'd like someone else to hand out mine, btw. Maybe next time we can get more participants too! Markvs88 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations to Grondemar. Thanks for making this interesting! I did log on just now, 9pm GrCT time, thinking I was going to be able to upload a few more pics and make you sweat, perhaps, but I concede the rules were clear with the 5 p.m. cutoff. For a future contest, a cutoff at midnight or 5 a.m. could possible induce more agony from the participants. Again, congrats glad to have you on board as a member of the project, too. :) Markvs, thanks for running it. Right, you should not self-award, leave it to others. I was wondering what would happen if u won the big prize, about which i am quite curious. Cheers, --doncram (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome! Had I ended up with the unique barnstar, I would have had to give someone else the code for it to award it to me, the same as I'll do with the regular barnstar text. Markvs88 (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Autumn contest

Is there interest in another contest? If so, should any of the rules be changed? Markvs88 (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely propose increasing the visibility of the contest, maybe by sending a notification to the talk pages of project members. I'd also wait until October to start, to give everyone (including myself!) time to recover. –Grondemar 23:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
1) Okay, how about the 24th of Septmeber through the 24th of October? My thinking here is that by the end of that timespan the sun will set at 17.54 (in Bridgeport, sooner in more northerly parts of the state) and there will be a lot less of a chance for folks to photograph much after that. I'm also not keen on a Winter contest for that same reason...
2) Do we want to end at noon, 17.00, 23.59...? (I know Doncram likes 23.59...)
3) Grondemar, if you want to be in charge of sending out notifications... you're welcome to it!!  :-D Markvs88 (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I think starting and ending in the middle of the month will confuse too many people. How about September 15th through October 31st? I also agree with ending the contest at 23:59 UTC (which should be 8:00 PM EDT). I can also take care of the notifications, no problem. –Grondemar 15:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me! I'll post the new contest around the 7th, that'll give folks a week to comment. Markvs88 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The new contest is on the project page and will begin on Wednesday the 15th. Markvs88 (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll work on sending out the notifications this weekend. –Grondemar 16:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
All the notifications have been sent out; I hope everyone likes them. :-) I also made a couple of minor modifications to the contest start and end times that I hope make them a little clearer. –Grondemar 04:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Grondemar. Reminder to all - only 20 days left... and I should *not* be in second place with 9! :-) Markvs88 (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Only a couple days left now. You're not in second place! There's Sphilbrick at 111 counting (out of 137 uploaded) and Emporostheoros at 68 (out of 79 uploaded), and there's me with a boatload, with what i project should be just enough to beat either of them. I learned from the last competition though and am not announcing my pics til the last day. I am a bit concerned that Grondemar has the same plan i do; otherwise i have this in the bag, i am quite sure. :) --doncram (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Emporostheoros has far more than 68.
A couple technical questions.
  • I see upthread a concern by Grondemar that in a prior contest, the images needed to be PD, not CC. I didn't see that requirement this time. Did I miss it, or are CC licenses OK?
  • I also see a requirement that images be titled. I assume this is to make sure someone doesn't just drop a bare image into a page. However, in some case where I've added an image, e.g. Jonathan Root House, I didn't also add a title, because the info box seemed appropriately titled. Can I get a clarification on whether that image will be disallowed if I don't add a redundant title?--SPhilbrickT 15:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope u understand i was only kidding, i am not gonna be in this race at all. I was in it seriously last time round, but that used up most of my pics until i get another swing through the state. I'd like to visit Litchfield in good weather, in particular. But a multi-stage contest, where you have to get 15 then 30 then 15 more by certain dates, could be a good way to run it. --doncram (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Bridgeport

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just read through the Bridgeport page, and parts of it are nothing short of horrendous. How this page has maintained a "B-Class" is beyond me, especially when compared to New Haven's page, also ranked B. I encourage individuals with knowledge of the city to begin a massive rewrite; otherwise, I believe the page should be "demoted" to a C-class ranking. CampTenDMS (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi CampTenDMS, I've rated over 3500 articles over the last six months for the project (when I started the project had less than 1500, we're now just above 5000.), and that's been while dealing with a person of questionable sanity regarding New England on the Stamford page (see talk if you're interested). Needless to say, there are some that are probably a few mis-rated if only because they change over time. In this case, Bridgeport was rated a B at 13:53, 5 April 2007 by Ebyabe. Given the ratings volume, I didn't go through the previously rated articles looking to make changes. Feel free to improve Bridgeport or any other articles all you want. Heck, join our WikiProject and get involved! The CT project has relatively few active members (perhaps 8-12) and we'd like all the help we can get. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The project currently has no standards for what links are allowable in the external links section of town articles. A very strict reading of the external link guidelines might imply that only the town's official website is allowable. In current practice, however, websites of town institutions, such as the town library, are typically included. A discussion related to this is at Talk:Simsbury, Connecticut#External links. --Polaron | Talk 17:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The official website of a municipality is a definite thing to include, and should probably be the primary and topmost link in the external links section. As for additional links, I think there probably should be an allowance, but the number of them should be quite conservative. My thought would be that if an individual topic or entity received a "significant" amount of coverage on that municipality’s article, it would probably be justified to be included among the external links. "Significant" should probably not be rigidly defined, however; items worthy to include links to on some municipalities’ articles may not be appropriate on all of them. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, there should a limit and think that it should include any site that is "verifiably legitimate". For example, Trumbull's website was until just last year privately run & hosted, and I'm sure that there are at least a few other towns that do the same thing. Likewise, there are sites like houses of worship [[3]], private Emergency Services [[4]], political candidate sites (not touching that one), historical groups, places of interest www.barnum-museum.org/ , et cetera that aren't under direct town sponsorship which would be/are valuable resources. There are also sites like Devon [[5]] which seem semi-official but I'd think should be included. Like Sgt R.K Blue said, conservative but with an allowance. Markvs88 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Spreading the word: GOCE backlog elimination drive

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If anyone is interested, a new drive is being planned for September. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2010 to get involved! dtgriffith [talk] 02:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Liberty Green Historic District

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Could anyone help improve this new article a little? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  10:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I can try and do some expansion later today. However, wouldn't it be better to discuss the topics as part of the Clinton Village Historic District, which is just an expanded version of the Liberty Green district? --Polaron | Talk 14:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
To Chzz: Nice job with developing the article so far.
Let's not saddle this article and this editor with contention. (There's been long-running contention about mergers/splits of Connecticut NRHP historic districts; much covered in mediated review during 2009-2010 of all CT NRHP historic districts that were disputed. This one didn't come up in that review as this is a local historic district and is not NRHP-listed.) One of the results of that mediated process, and other editing decisions and discussions, is that for several town greens in Connecticut, there is one merged article for pairings where a green is included in a historic district named after the green, i.e. having article placed at Name Green Historic District and having Name Green redirect to that. In fact I recall cases where editor Polaron wished for that, and I believe that kind of treatment prevailed in every such pairing case. That treatment sounds appropriate here. Could we please presume this editor's independent judgment of need/usefulness of an article at Liberty Green Historic District is good, and just help with the request? It will provide a good place for coverage of the green which I am presuming is fully included in the local historic district.
For a start, i'll create Liberty Green disambiguation page to cover the many places of this name, and set up Liberty Green (Clinton, Connecticut) as a redirect to Liberty Green Historic District. I'll also edit some in the LGHD article.
To Polaron: Hey, I think your redirecting the article, after just that casual remark above and no agreement, was really pretty drastic! In fact, rude, especially in the way done, where Chzz's contribution history was entirely separated, without even a credit in Chzz's direction in an edit summary. (The edit summary for move of material to the Clinton Village HD article was just recorded as "add".) I am glad Chzz restored the article. --doncram (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Closing Hazardville merge discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The merger discussion at Talk:Hazardville, Connecticut has been open for over 60 days. Based on the discussion and on the preference of the principal contributor to that article (User:Orlady), I think this should be closed in favor of merging. Is this a reasonable conclusion? --Polaron | Talk 01:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Support : I agree, as I posted on 1 June in talk... this HD article is a stub and the HD area vs. the town of Hazardville is quite small. (That and Hazardville itself is quite small too). The HD article has not and (IMO) is unlikely to ever get much more detail or development. Markvs88 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Umm, the merger proposal is at Talk:Hazardville, Connecticut#merger proposal. There's been more devleopment there since above was posted, including Markvs88 seemingly supporting closing in favor of "keep split". It's okay to call for renewed attention there, by posting an unbiased notice, but the above is outright wp:canvas canvassing in favor of one position. It coulda been worse, but I think that the presentation here just inflames matters. Anyhow, others' comments would be welcome at the merger proposal discussion. Please continue there. --doncram (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

New Preston Hill Historic District

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Next up on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut#Articles pending merge list is a proposed merger for a NRHP historic district, the New Preston Hill Historic District, into a town/village/hamlet/neighborhood article. I'd like to resolve this by developing the NRHP article to cover available detail about the properties in the district, and to explain its significance, so that it stands like many other pretty good NRHP HD articles. These provide specifics about places that is more detailed than is appropriate in town/village/hamlet articles, and is worthwhile for bringing light to the local history embodied in the preserved artifacts of houses, etc. Help would be appreciated! --doncram (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Historic sites article drive choice

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The list of NRHP-listed places in New Haven, Connecticut was recently the topic of an article improvement drive. The drive completed out starter articles for every item, added NRHP nomination documents, got one DYK for CT (for Goffe Street Special School for Colored Children, on May 8), and otherwise improved many articles. Which NRHP list in CT should be done next?

or

--doncram (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am able to help out on the Fairfield County and Bridgeport lists having lived in Fairfield County for most of my life and being familiar with a lot of the sites, especially around Norwalk-Stamford. I can also contribute to some degree on New Haven County, mostly for the Waterbury area. dtgriffith (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let's go with that. Dtgriffith, i expect it will be mainly me, but perhaps others will also chime in and contribute. Even if it is just one or a few editors, all of the articles can be created and get good NRHP document references, and any that you can visit and photograph can get photos. There are about 50 redlinks in the Fairfield NRHP list (shortcut List of RHPs in Fairfield); I'll get a start on developing those and fixing up the articles already existing. --doncram (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to determine how best to get an article started in this scenario. I found a stub for my neighborhood which is listed on the NRHP, South Britain Historic District, which contains only location info and category links. Does this example fit what you will be doing to start an article? Regarding this article, time permitting I will begin developing it as I have been learning about the local history while living here. dtgriffith (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that South Britain Historic District is in New Haven County but that's fine. I added the NRHP nomination document to the stub article for it and began developing it somewhat, beginning a list of the contributing properties (which is not at all required but seems to work well in some HD articles). Note the statement of historic significance is a bit confused, starting on page 26 continuing onto page 24 of the scanned document. Historic district articles are harder than individual building ones to develop to a finished degree. Some good examples of HD articles are listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 38#Good historic district article examples. You could take photos of general views and of each contributing building in the district, and include all or selected ones into the article. All your photos, including ones not directly placed into the article can be uploaded to wikimedia commons with "South Britain Historic District" as an identifier and included in a commons gallery link. It would be great if you could specifically re-take some of the same views in the 1986 black and white photoset that accompanies the NRHP nomination, for comparison. It would also be great if you could find and consult the cited references (page 25) and/or add older or more recent ones. Have fun! --doncram (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Doncram. Funny, I just wrote a note on Development to you on the article's Talk page referencing some of these same points. Wild seeing some pictures of my home in the nomination document. I will jump on this as soon as I can! dtgriffith (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking forward to pics! Article development in the drive is continuing; i've started a bunch of stub articles with links to NRHP nomination documents. See also Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Fairfield County, Connecticut. --doncram (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

New York metropolitan area composition

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a dispute about the definition of the NY metro area that would benefit from additional input here: Talk:New York metropolitan area#New York metropolitan area composition. NYCRuss ☎ 17:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

List of United States federal courthouses in Connecticut

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This list is largely complete, but has bits and pieces of information missing, and needs images filled in - any help in completing it would be much appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fairfield County and Bridgeport NRHP list development

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, the development of the National Register of Historic Places listings in Fairfield County, Connecticut list-article has proceeded along pretty well i think. There are now articles for all NRHPs in the county, and all of the new ones plus most of the old ones now have the good NRHP nomination document references included in them, and some development of material. Also there is sourced summary discussion of many of the places now in the list-article. Can editors pay some attention, perhaps visit and add photos, or help develop the articles and list-article? The improvement drive has been running for a while so it is nearly time to close up. I provided an update about this co-sponsored drive at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Fairfield article improvement drive update too.

On some technical matters of ideal formatting for NRHP list-tables, there are open discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#same name same county, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#extends into another county, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#boundary increases. The issues come up in the Fairfield list-article. Connecticut editors' comments would be welcome!

Also, I note with interest that editor AbbyKelleyite has been developing Bridgeport articles and adding pics to them and to the National Register of Historic Places listings in Bridgeport, Connecticut list-article. It's great to see that going on! --doncram (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the shout out. I am enjoying the work of helping to bring some of Bridgeport's history into the light. I see that sourced summaries for the Bridgeport list article, too, wouldn't be a bad idea, now that I've taken a closer look at the Fairfield County list. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Good, glad you like it! And you put it well, that this kind of work is bringing local history "into the light". --doncram (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of Living People without references

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

According to this list generator, the following articles about people from Connecticut have no footnotes. There's a campaign on, supported by ArbCom, to delete all such articles in upcoming months. Please look over the list, and if you don't want to see the article deleted, add footnotes. This list was generated here [6] and I can't vouch for its accuracy.

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


HDs vs. neighborhood/hamlets in Fairfield County

Development of NRHP articles in the county and state-wide was previously hampered by contention during 2009. It was contended, mostly by one active editor, that NRHP historic district (HD) articles should not exist, and their topics should be developed only within neighborhood/hamlet/village/town articles. This perspective was enforced by the one editor through setting up redirects and watching them closely to prevent separate articles from being started. I have been the editor most actively contending in the other direction, both creating separate articles and asserting that NRHP HD articles should almost always be permitted. I've argued that the nature of good NRHP historic district articles is to provide detail on how individual contributing properties are artifacts of architectural and other history, and this detail is not usually appropriate for neighborhood/hamlet/village/town articles. I contend that forced mergers tend to give the wrong message to locals, when in fact Wikipedia would/should welcome detailed development and addition of photos etc. where appropriate (in separate articles, although not usually in merged town/village articles). With involvement of many others through an RFC and otherwise, a mediated process was set up to review all NRHP HD cases in CT. The outcome for Fairfield county, regarding its 46 historic districts, was that separate NRHP articles would be created in all but four cases. In the current drive, I have now come across these and wish to revisit them as follows:

There is also one other case where the mediation process / consensus decision was for there to be separate articles, but the other editor now seems to dispute that. The other editor duplicated the NRHP HD material and partly implemented a merger, avoiding notice by leaving the HD article untouched and duplicative. This was for South End Historic District (Stamford, Connecticut) vs. South End of Stamford. There is some discussion about this at Talk:South End of Stamford. Offhand I feel that the separate HD article should be permitted, as it has been repeatedly shown that separate is usually best, and I also object to the apparent attempt to sneak around the mediated/consensus decision, so I currently simply want to reverse the half-merger.

Overall I feel that development of the 42 other Fairfield separate historic district articles in the current drive and otherwise shows the value of allowing them. Some of the HD articles are getting to be pretty good; others are works-in-process but are on their way. A good pairing in the county is Cannondale, Connecticut vs. Cannondale Historic District, the latter split out by me and nicely developed further by User:JohnWBarber. Here at WikiProject Connecticut, i wonder if others could offer general or specific comments. Do CT editors like or dislike the detailed NRHP HD articles? --doncram (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Historic Districts should in most cases be included in the articles about the community in which they are located. This can often be one of the more notable things about the community and there's no reason to make a reader click on a secondary article to get relevant information -- even if it's not merely a stub or redundant -- since most readers will be searching for the town name, even if "Historic District" is just an add-on to the name; in cases where the HD name differs from the community name (e.g., Main Street HD) it's even less likely readers will search for it under that name. Exceptions would be districts in larger cities when there's more than a few sentences to say about the district, and/or there are several districts in the city so that the main article would become too long or the districts would receive undue weight. In all cases, the relevant guidance would be at WP:CFORK. Station1 (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an issue on which I see the points of both sides. Where a fairly detailed property listing like the Cannondale Historic District is the end result, it may be helpful not to "clutter up" the Cannondale, Connecticut article with such detailed information of interest to only some. On the other hand, with a tiny village like Hattertown, Connecticut, I'm not sure there really is much to say about it beyond the historic district information (it really doesn't function in any meaningful way now as a separate entity from Newtown, Connecticut). Might it be best to develop historic district information within the context of neighborhood/hamlet articles to the point where section size would argue for forking off an HD article? I think my main concern is just that if anything gets merged, no information is lost. On the other hand, as long as neighborhood/hamlet articles have "further" and "see also" links to historic district articles, readers who want more historic information will easily see where to look for more, so I don't see it as any great hardship to have separate articles. My thoughts on this are a muddle. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that for small villages like Hattertown and Aspetuck, there is nothing outside the designated historic districts that is significant to warrant a separate stand-alone article about the village. Once you describe the historic district, you've basically described everything that's significant within the village. The same is true for historic districts that are substantially similar to city neighborhoods. Everything of interest in the neighborhood will have been described in the historic district. In these cases, a single article helps the reader better understand the historical context. Since NRHP nomination forms are available, the best option would be to simply look at the historical significance section of each historic district document and see if the nomination is talking about the village/neighborhood as a whole. That's a good indication of the suitability of merging. Now for town center historic districts, these should definitely be separated from the town articles. --Polaron | Talk 20:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
What I hate to see is confusion between the bounded geographic area of a historic district, which might or might not overlap a lot vs. a hamlet or neighborhood, vs. what a historic district is. What it is is a museum, a set of observable preserved artifacts from a certain era, that successfully evoke events that happened or that illustrate architectural styles, etc. The topic of a hamlet includes both very old stuff and current stuff, and also the fact that the hamlet includes a museum. The topic of the museum is different, mostly limited to what its artifacts speak to, which in part could be the history of the hamlet but could also be broader American trends of architecture or industrial development or whatever, not particularly tied to the hamlet. The history of the museum itself would be relatively recent, about who set it up and what they hoped to accomplish, and what has happened since, e.g. that some of the artifacts have been destroyed or fixed up. The topics of a hamlet and a geographically-overlapping historic district are basically completely different. And, that's pessimistic to say there's nothing else to say about a hamlet. Any one of the hamlets has tons of history and has schools and fire departments and lots more to talk about, I am sure. I would rather see a one- or two- or three-sentence article on the hamlet until there is more hamlet-type information coming forward, and a well-developed proper historic district article to handle the museum type information, than see an awkward merge. --doncram (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. There's a similar merger vs. split issue for Greenwich Avenue Historic District vs. Greenwich Municipal Center Historic District also in Fairfield County, under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Greenwich Municipal Center district. --doncram (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Connecticut articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Connecticut articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to help with WikiProject United States

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello, WikiProject Connecticut/Archive 4! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject United States, an outreach effort which aims to support development of United States related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Round Pond, Connecticut

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've just split this article about a pond in Ridgefield, Connecticut from teh article about the pond in London and tagged it as part of your project. You may want to maerge it with the article about the settlement, but if you do please move/update the {{copied}} templates on the talk pages of talk:Round Pond, Connecticut and talk:Round Pond. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

article drive on NRHP articles

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have a semi-automated process working fairly well now, which could create pretty good starter articles for any set of NRHP-listed places. It uses the same NRIS database that is behind what's known as the Elkman NRHP infobox/article generator (described at wp:NRHPhelp, but this new process does a bit more, including drafting an article text and drafting inline references to the NRHP nomination documents (and to MPS/MRA documents where applicable). If there are one or two editors who would be willing to follow on, who would check and refine the started articles a bit, i'd like to use it to fill out the NRHP entries in the Hartford County list-article, or in a city like Bridgeport, or in "18th and 19th Century Brick Architecture of Windsor TR" (one of CT's 22 multiple resource area studies), or churches, or in any other defined set.

This version of Canton Center Historic District and this version of Makens Bemont House are examples of its output plus a tiny bit of manual tidying. These articles need further development.

Any takers? It could help you get prepared for the first CT photo drive of 2011.... :) Or should i just do all the Connecticut NRHP articles this way? --doncram (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

While testing the semi-automated process, i started up new articles for the following Tolland County places:
  1. Brigham's Tavern
  2. John Cady House
  3. Coventry Glass Factory Historic District
  4. Ellington Center Historic District
  5. Loomis-Pomeroy House
  6. Minterburn Mill
  7. Somers Historic District
  8. Elias Sprague House
The articles are pretty raw so far. It would be great if anyone would help fix up one or more, now that what can be done in semi-automated style is done. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Connecticut/Archive_4&oldid=1257918760"