Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Norwalk, Connecticut Fire Department

StephenTS42 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Population History

→StephenTS42 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The United States conducted its first census in 1790. According to that census report, Norwalk, CT had 8,810 inhabitants. The table in this article starts with 1880 with Norwalk, CT inhabited by 5,308. But, from where did that number come from? The US census reports 13, 956 inhabitants. According to the 1890 census, Norwalk, CT was reported to have 17,747 inhabitants. The state of Connecticut's census report from the same time, which was derived from the US Census, corresponds with that number. Nonetheless the table in this article indicates 5,826 inhabitants in Norwalk, CT in 1890. On and on through the table, the table shows population numbers and attributes the source to the U.S. Decennial Census, which includes no such statistics. The table, therefore, needs to be squared away or deleted from the article as the population history is already included in History of Norwalk, Connecticut.

StephenTS42 (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC) ↑↑↑↑StephenTS42 (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Table of Contents

Recently, a user has added this template on this page. Just going off of the documentation of the template, and not mentioning WP:TOC, it clearly states these three lines:

"Do not use this template to just force word wrap around the TOC, as this is an inappropriate method of achieving this."
"It should only be used in cases where the TOC gets in the way of other content or is detrimental to the layout of the page; it should not simply be used for aesthetics since it tampers with the standard appearance of articles."
"Do not place this template so that the TOC aligns with a large image or infobox; this breaks the layout on narrow screens (even users with screens as wide as 1024px wide can have problems.)"

Just from these lines alone, it clearly states that the template should only be used when it is desperately needed inside a article, not just because of saving white-space. I'm not going to edit war about this... —JJBers 00:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

While the above is true, the operative word used is 'just' (to force word wrap around the TOC). I am not just addressing a whitespace or an aestectic problem in this article. Though it would appear that way from the words I wrote. The whitespace caused by the TOC in this article is tremendous and will continue to grow as the article expands. I, too, do not like or want a editing war ...so rather than insist that (tocleft) is the only remedy I am open to suggestions that will attend to the situation which will be satisfactory to all concerned.——→StephenTS42 17:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Article discussions

User:JJBers:

Kindly bring your editing concerns here rather than leaving messages in editing explanations. I am open minded and will pay attention. To answer your question about giving a redirect a heading: History of a city is integral to this article even though it is a separate article. Whether the history of Norwalk is included in the article or is a separate article is irrelevant. A heading above a section, whether what follows it is a redirect or not, gives a reader an easier way to find it rather than having to scour all through the article looking for it. Otherwise, I think you're doing a great job cleaning up this article and I hope you keep up the good work! ——→StephenTS42 17:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Ɱ

Following your reasoning, then why don't we eliminate all section headings in all articles altogether with each article consisting of one continuous garrulous string of text following the article heading leaving readers to sift it all out themselves?——→StephenTS42 23:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Don't randomly insult people, a lot of headings in a article is just as bad, if not worse than having none.

2. I'm planning to add a little brief in history.

Thank you. —JJBers 18:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes as JJBers sorta explained, subsections are usually only used when there are several large paragraphs to break up. No use having subsection each with a single sentence or so. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating how the two of you make remarks witin 3min of each other in agreement and support of each other. I think this is no coincidence! JJBers 'sorta explained' something? Maybe I missed that one yet Ɱ knows just what that something means? Maybe two divided by two is one. Something smells rotten in Denmark here. Where are the specific rules, policies or consensuses that support your claim about what is or should be the usual or what is of no use in an article? Do you know what lies ahead for the expansion of this article? I think not!

That's some wild speculation you've got there. It's sorta funny because you can look at my and JJBers' edit histories and see they have almost nothing in common, not in the specific article names or style of writing and formatting. I don't even have to look at their edit history to know that. I don't think they've ever edited articles related to Briarcliff for example, while I almost entirely wrote 20... This is truly insulting and bizarre, yes many Americans are on computers at a similar time of day. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Also all of my remarks on this page have been at least an hour apart from JJBers'. Though you and me, Stephen, have comments merely 11 minutes apart; maybe we're the same person? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree its not a credible assertion. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Why am I being accused of being a sock-puppet of @Ɱ:? He most likely lives in the exact same time zone as I do, as does 1⁄3 of the United States. I usually edit articles on Eastern Connecticut (near where I live), while he edits articles about the New York Hudson valley. This bumping into each other is due to Norwalk being both in the NYC metro area, which is located in and near the Hudson Valley, and me due to it being a town/city in Connecticut. Why am I also being accused of being almost like a alt account, when I just agree with someone? Is that to rotten for you? —JJBers 00:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Why would anyone look at another editor's history unless they were conducting an investigation? You claim there is almost nothing in common between the two of your histories, nor styles of writing. You don't have to look at 'their histories', yet you know about specific articles and how far apart in time both of you made comments. How would you know that without having kept records of both: unless you two are, in fact, one in the same? How would you have knowledge of identifying individual writing styles and formatting, as you claim. Are your trained and certified to do so or do you just 'know'? If you claim there is nothing in common between the two of your histories, how would you know that without having been monitoring both over a considerable period of time? How did you know when, or at what time, either of you made comments if you have not been 'looking' at both. You feel insulted? If I were you I'd come clean, tell the truth, and step aside. Remember, I have not yet blown the whistle. No one is accusing you of anything, but the ground your standing on is quite shaky. How did you know what JJBers gender is? By the way, Norwalk is not in, or part of, the Hudson Valley and it may be considered in the NYC metro area by anyone who doesn't live there. Have a nice day!——→StephenTS42 05:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(←) You surprise me more and more at every turn. Should I enlighten you on the many benefits of public user contributions? Tracking a problematic editor's changes is a key one, though it can be as simple as seeing what a friend has been working on in order to ask them about it, help them write, or provide a useful critique. As for how I would "know", it's an expression: I do know that I've never run into the other user before, so I can reasonably assume that their edits are to different pages than mine. I can also tell their writing and formatting are both quite different through their edits to the article and through these discussions. As for gender, I still don't know; I posted one comment using "he, him" pronouns and realized I should use gender-neutral pronouns (there is a risk of insulting through assumption), and corrected myself. JJBers never stated Norwalk was in the Hudson Valley, just near it. I looked through my own edit history, and wow it's so ironic! I first came to this article because I was looking through the contributions of a problematic user who's been taking awful photos and putting them in unencyclopedic random places throughout Wikipedia, including this article. Some of his edits are slightly useful which makes thorough combing more beneficial than just reporting to administrators. All in all, please take your tin foil hat elsewhere. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll vouch for ɱ, in this ridiculous conversation, as not the sort to sockpuppet. My opinion is that NYC metro area is about right. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Another piece of easy evidence is our photography styles, as can be seen on our individual "User Uploads" pages on Commons. Images also have EXIF info that tells you what kind of camera took it. That information is stored on each image description page on Commons, where you can see I have been using totally different cameras and even camera settings than the other user. Should I go on? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, no. Ceoil (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Kooks! I should have guessed. Don't bother to respond...it's like, you know, whatever!

Stephen should probably be blocked at this stage, if he is this wanton on such a tepid matter. Ceoil (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to report this to ANI, this is going to end up like wikidrama. —JJBers 06:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The only thing now I find fishy is that @StephenTS42: retired shortly after I started the ANI on him...—JJBers 16:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Cowards tend to do that. Ceoil (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

City Seal

Official city seal, per city law

Stephen's photo

Pinging @JJBers:, @StephenTS42:, and @Ceoil: here. I didn't think it would come to this, but we're disputing the city seal. Stephen likes his photo of a wall somewhere, which is neither:

1. high quality
2. sourced as the current official design
3. taken head-on
4. well-cropped or saturated

The versions JJBers and I found are official per Norwalk city law, and used by Norwalk's government currently, including on their Twitter. I don't think most Wikipedians even dispute if we should use the official version or not. Stephen did on our discussion on edit summaries to this article and on his talk page. The official emblems (seals, flags, banners, symbols, etc.) are always used on articles, and perhaps we should put that into a Wikipedia guideline so people who challenge what's obvious to most can receive more than a "this should be obvious" argument. It would be silly to include a non-official US flag or presidential seal image. The questions: Should the official version be used here? Should official emblems be used on all municipal articles when available? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This is getting embarrassing. Suffice to say I agree with ɱ, and see his question as rhetorical. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable comments. Once again, I ask where any rule, regulation, stipulation, consensus, tradition, edict, order, directive etc is written in Wikipedia that any image used in any part of any article in Wikipedia must be official. Go ahead, do your research 'resident'. Within the Category:Official seals of places in Connecticut——→ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Official_seals_of_places_in_Connecticut can you show which 'official seals' within that category are, in fact, officially endorsed by their respective municipalities and thus official and which are reproductions or photographs of the same? There are several, so why don't you start after those who also do not meet your insistent criteria of which you focus so much on this article and this editor? If you do not know what Wikipedia:No-edit orders are then you have a choice: do the right thing, or don't. I rest my case (for now).———→StephenTS42 15:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in what you say makes any sense, and I find it hard to take you seriously. At this stage you are clinging to straws and wasting our time. Please stop. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If it doesn't make sense to you, if you can't take this seriously then kindly step aside. Here are images of seals which are currently in use by their respective Connecticut municipalities in their infoboxes!

New Milford seal

Are these not official seals and if so why haven't you bullied into those articles, deleting those images and insisting their editors use only official seals?——→StephenTS42 16:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I take the topic seriously enough, but not you arguments. "Kindly step aside" is a childish retort. You have been refuted, and are now spinning. Please stop, at this stage you are looking at a noticeboard and a likely block. Just so the rest of us can get on with our lives. Also if you could sign you posts, that would be great. Ceoil (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is a summary of this editing war, so far: At issue is an image which you are contending can only be none other than official. My argument is that there is no stipulation within Wikipedia that dictates the the use of official images. You, or your partner(s), counter argument is that by law only official images of city seals are allowed to be used in Wikipedia articles. My counter argument was to demonstrate several instances where this is not true, even to the point of including three instances of images so used. You, or your partner(s), counter argument now stands that you are embarrassed, that my question is rhetorical, that I am childish, refuted, spinning ,clinging to straws, wasting your time, looking at a noticeboard and a likely block. Is this not true? I'll also thank you to stop deleting all or any part of my comments on this talk page.——→StephenTS42 16:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: Thanks! I'll make sure to replace those some time soon. I haven't been as active recently due to other stuff happening, but I have some spare time right now. —JJBers 16:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Stephen's wrong in that I never stated this was a rule in Wikipedia. It is however common practice (look at all GAs and FAs on cities). Nobody responded to my request - would you support making this an actual rule, supporting official over nonofficial? Again, this is obvious to most Wikipedians, so it doesn't seem any rule currently exists. And yes Stephen you are being childish and wasting all our time with such petty matters. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, its not an edit war. Its an editor overwriting consensus to place their preferred image, the value of which has been refuted. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess...—JJBers 18:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

OK! You are correct! I wrote there is no rule, etc. in Wikipedia regarding the use of official images; not that you stated there was. Since I never wrote what you never stated, that makes you wrong. Now there's a new category you are including: common practice. So where is this 'common practice' (another one of your appeals to tradition?) stipulated in Wikipedia? Who are you asking support for making rules in Wikipedia? Your partner(s)? BTW Those images have not been replaced. What will you replace them with? Remember...none but official... sez you!——→StephenTS42 19:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Its not about wiki rules, its about fact. Again, see ɱ's rationale above. Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I love how Stephen has tbe biggest superiority complex even though he has no idea what he's doing. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be the Dunning–Kruger effect. Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of precedent, Stephen, which isn't a "new category" (as old as WP and I've mentioned it plenty to you), there are guidelines that WP articles should have the best-quality free photos available. I'll link if you really need to see that obvious rule. And your seal is of poorer quality, per my points above. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

bull I think the only way this is going to end is if someone (most likely Stephen) is blocked for some period of time. —JJBers 23:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
(Also I replaced both New Fairfield and North Stonington, which the latter has been deleted)

I agree re a block. The thing is that we are likely not the only recipients of what is probably trolling. This stuff is time sink, and should be nipped in the bud. I'd pull the trigger (ie AN/I), but am in Ireland, and its midnight, and its bedtime. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll make an ANI request tonight. He's even disruptively editing to make a point now, nominating my seal file for deletion based on his crazy thinking. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Above all, I hope you have fun with another one of your baseless threats! (No matter which identity you assume) Talk about crazy thinking! Remember: You can't win an argument by threats, name calling, sock puppetry-- and especially-- bullying!——StephenTS42 01:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: Please stop copying the same thing I give to you and putting it on my talk page. It's fine for you to remove non-imporant things on your talk-page, but please stop copying it and putting it on my own page. That's technically bullying (or being disruptive.) —JJBers 01:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Original Research

User:StephenTS42, you need to find a source for this or it needs to be removed. As it stands, this is personal commentary unsupported by a source which is already WP:PRIMARY. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Congressional representation

No idea how to ping you, but Mu, if you look at for example, Stephens City, Virginia, it actually includes who represents them which adds information. Simply saying that the location has one rep and one senator is literally true for every single location in any US state. TimothyJosephWood 16:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

To add to that, since I screwed up my edit summary, Patch.com is not "in" anywhere besides New York. All it provides is a filter that sorts news by location, and it can do this for about 900 different locations. If this is listed in an FA besides New York City I'd be happy to take it out there too, because it was likely added as spam. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking into this a bit more, it looks like the reference to Patch was inserted here by an IP, and as I just posted at WP:COIN is listed on probably hundreds of town articles. This is almost certainly spam. I'm gonna look a little deeper, but I would not at all be surprised to find that most of the additions were by new users or anons. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You can ping me with{{u|Ɱ}} or {{re|Ɱ}}, same as others. Copy-paste works, or there are keyboard shortcuts.

Anyway, Patch does original news reporting with editorial review, and has journalists assigned to different areas to report on different topics. It functions exactly like the Daily Voice and has proven to be credible and reliable in all cases I've compared my outside research to articles in Patch. It's perfectly valid for inclusion, and doesn't spam anyone. Don't discredit news sources because they solely exist online; even many big mainstream papers are switching to online-only. Also, Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal, Wikipedia:IPs are human too. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

As well, congressional districts are most appropriate in municipal articles. I'm not sure how many city articles you edit, but I've extensively read almost every city FA in creating my own FAs. Mentioning which districts a city is in is essential, informative, and encyclopedic. And yes, the names of representatives should be included as well. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that might come off a bit snobby. I just mean precedents like FAs are the best tools for improving similar articles, and these FAs include the content I'd like kept. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ehh, I remember seeing this site while back and decided to add it as a supporting ref for the East Brook Mall. It seems alright for using it with support of another ref, but on it's own, it doesn't stand up very well. —JJBers 01:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether Patch is reliable, but whether it's local. The only number I could find for employees was fifty or less total. Even if this is off, even by a lot, if they're employees don't number many many times more than that then they don't actually maintain local staff or editors and at best are a company in NYC that buys local interest pieces from freelance writers. That they're a website is immaterial. Most every truly local news organization has a website for local news, but the difference is that they maintain staff and editors locally, not pay per article and list by location to give the impression of being local when they may not have enough staff to even have a single person at each location. As was pointed out at COIN, just because the New York Times has an option to sort news by location doesn't mean it's local.

That they are on many other articles, even good ones is also immaterial, since it seems to have been added to many many articles and is fairly evidently spam by users who make few or no other edits. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Closure

Can a outside party please close the TOC, Article Discussion, and City Seal...arguments, as it seems like they are un-responsive for a matter of days. —JJBers 04:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
(See below. —JJBers)

As far as I've seen, this is only proper for conduct boards and other listed cases. Discussions on user and article talk pages usually do not get closed/collapsed solely because of a resolution or lack of responses, unless it is a formal edit request or RfC. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should have been more firm at the start. I have spent a lot of time in Norwalk, my other home is Macroom, woe betides a troll on that page. Ceoil (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to show my gratitude for what appears to be the end of an editing war. I acknowledge my responsibility for starting it in the first place. I apologize for my my past arrogance and promise to cooperate from now on. Furthermore, I promise to propose any further changes, from this moment onward, before making any changes to any articles. I was wrong and I know that now. Thank you for reading this.––→StephenTS42 (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Show, dont tell. Ceoil (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Norwalk, Connecticut has more than one district (or distracts [that's a joke]) systems in place that have developed through its history. I believe readers of the article ought to have, if nothing else, a brief unraveling of how these systems interact and how they affect the average or ordinary person living there. I open this proposal to attract suggestions, pro or con, and by such means, to develop a consensus of such an addition to the article.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source on it, go ahead. If not, please detain [from adding it in]. —JJBers 16:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Be careful JJBers, this seems like a trap. I dont buy the sudden change; he mentions arrogance above - indicating that this is actually a troll. Ceoil (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Good point, I'm moving on from this discussion. —JJBers 16:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI: I got 3 edit conflicts in a row, hooray? —JJBers 16:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil, we don't stop assuming good faith, even/especially for people just out of a block. Stephen, there's no rule that you can't directly edit an article, unless you have a serious conflict of interest (usually a paid relationship with the subject). The only good reason to solely propose an edit is for something you think would be very controversial or would go against existing Wikipedia rules. If you can find reliable sources to support the districts and their relationships, I urge you to Be Bold and make the changes. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Thank you. That bottom part was basically what I tried to say, somewhat... —JJBers 16:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Split

I wanted just to inform everyone that a discussion in the talk page of History of Norwalk, Connecticut. —JJBers 03:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
(Link to discussion)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Comment and Suggestion

I would like to add two photos to this page:

Public access fishing pier at Calf Pasture Beach

,

Front of Norwalk City Hall and Concert Hall, Norwalk, Connecticut

There is no photo of the City Hall currently on the page, and I believe that the civic government takes up enough material on the page to warrant such an image. For that photo, I am not certain why it has been removed, and if there are no objections, I would like to add it as a thumb to that section of the page. Secondarily, as for the other photograph, can someone please provide guidance as to why it is not being accepted?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The city hall one would be fine. The beach one - well, you already have a photo of the beach there. It's a bit of undue weight to have 2 photos at the beach, and none of say, the courthouse, firehouse(s), churches (visible), or schools. Also FYI Stephen and other editors - galleries are discouraged, you should spread the images out evenly in the article, and try to have them connect to the text near them in some way. I can link guidelines if you want, but this is practice in all encyclopedias. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Um, @StephenTS42: so you just decided to go ahead and do it anyway? We could wait for more input here, but I strongly recommended not including more than one photo of a beach, when you don't even have photos of courts, churches, firehouses, or schools (much more major parts to a municipality). ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Article dispute discussion

——→StephenTS42 (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: Alright, in that section, I used statistics only from the US Census Bureau, which complies with WP:USCITIES, in-fact it should almost always be the primary source in places located in the United States. —JJBers 14:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Also please stop randomly tagging the article, I don't see any unreliability issues in the demographics section at this point.

Good day! For starters Please specify to which census is being refered. The statistics in the citation(s) given do not match the numbers in the text. Tagging is not random, but are specific to help guide your editing. Please don't try to interpret what the statistics mean. How were you able to conclude there are 21,630 families residing in the city? Is there a category in the citation(s) that mentions the number of families living in Norwalk? How is a family defined? Could one family occupy more than one household? Can a family consist of one person? Are all 35,415 households in the city occupied? What defines a household...house, apartment, shelter, shack, boat? Do your statistics add up to 100 percent? Is it important to report how many households have children under the age of 18? Please become familiar with how to calculate population densities. Please read up on what a poverty line is and what living in poverty means. Thank you reading this. I have to go make my lunch now. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Number one, this is data from the 2010 census, number two, I checked, and all the data matches with the source. Now please stop tagging things without the burden of proof. —JJBers 16:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to do your homework for you, but let's look at your first paragraph!

1: "As of the census of 2010, there were 85,603 people, 35,415 households, and 21,630 families residing in the city." Assuming you were refering to the only footnote made at the end of the fourth paragraph of that section can you show on the page you cited where the US Census of 2010 cites how many families were residing in Norwalk? The truth is neither the number of families nor the number 21,630 appears anywhere on that page!

2."The population density was 2,358.2 inhabitants per square mile (6,108/km²)." There is no mention of population density there either.

3: "There were 35,415 housing units at an average density of 975.6 per square mile (1,570.1/km²)." No average housing density there either!

4 "The racial makeup of the city was 68.7% White, 14.2% African American, 0.4% Native American, 4.8% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 9.0% from other races, and 2.8% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 24.3% of the population." Add up those percentages you gave and the city of Norwalk's population becomes an impossible 121.14 percent!

My friend, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck!  Looks like a duck to me——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

1. The Hispanic or Latino statics are overlapped with the white section, and with rounding, doesn't make it a perfect 100%. It is actually 96.8% to be exact.
2. The densities are just simple math figures, and are accepted in as fine without sources.
3. The family statics from a US Census Bureau run site, American FactFinder, uses census data sometimes not shown on the main site. Here is even a link to the exact place I got the statistic from.
4. Lastly, don't call me a duck, that's for obvious sockpuppets.
—JJBers 01:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(Pinging Ɱ for opinion) —JJBers

(←) Pings sadly don't work if you don't sign the comment. Also I don't get why this is an issue between you two. Follow WP:USCITIES, but more importantly, you can just copy FAs. Word for word even, just replacing the numbers with Norwalk numbers (just attribute in your edit summary). Copy the "modern" section of Briarcliff Manor, New York#Demographics even. This is how FAs are written: with refs at least at the end of every paragraph, using 2010 US Census data and linking to that article, and citing FactFinder and other US Census Bureau publications. This should be one of the least difficult and controversial parts of a city article. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I sourced up all the tables where I got the data from. —JJBers 02:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear JJbers, I believe you have misconstrued the meaning of what the expression "If it looks like a duck..." means. I believe you also have misconstrued to who or what it was directed. It wasn't directed to you, it was directed to the way you explain things. In other words: one does not need to be a zoologist to understand what a duck is. I don't want to go off on another tangent, so let's put that aside for a later discussion. I believe you are confusing ethnicity with race when you wrote that the US Census overlaps Hispanics and Whites. I don't know how anyone could ever conclude the numbers 68.7 + 14.2 + 0.4 + 4.8 + 0.1 + 9.0 + 2.8 + 24.3 = 96.8, but that's not for me to decide. Please answer the following: What do you mean by "densities are just simple math figures... they are accepted without sources"? Accepted by whom? What do you mean by American Factfinder has "family statistics sometimes not shown on the main site"? The webpage you gave as an example is for Emily City, Minnesota and has no such statistics. So, what is your point? What are you trying to accomplish? May I suggest that you spend less time reverting, deleting, and trying to explain with double-talk that which you do not understand and allow others to continue their work! Thank you for reading this and have a nice day! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

On every other page, including FA articles, the Hispanic and Latino percentile is a overlap, and a sub-category of the White percentile. Rounding also causes percentages to be off of the actual 100%, I also miscounted, it's 99.9% of the population, most likely due to rounding of one. —JJBers 14:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If that's true, you should have no trouble demonstrating it for all of us to see.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's a example from Briarcliff Manor, New York, a featured article:
Hispanic and Latino Americans made up 5.3 percent of the population.
Then one paragraph later:
In 2010, its racial composition was 86.4 percent white, 3.4 percent African American, 0.1 percent Native American, 6.9 percent Asian American, and 2.0 percent from two (or more) races.
—JJBers 16:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, JJBers is correct that the Census separates Hispanics as ethnicity, a separate measure from their measure of racial composition. See page one of The Hispanic Population: 2010. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers:That's a fine example: the source is a dead link! When are you going to answer my questions? Please, stop wasting my time. I don't want to know how many Wikipedia articles support your argument. It doesn't matter how many Wikipedia editors skew US Census data and write misleading articles. I want you to demonstrate how the US Census Bureau overlaps their population numbers! 10,000 wrongs don't make a right! Buy a calculator! Do your own homework! But above all, have a nice day! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes the link went down (i.e. the US Census Bureau changed its QuickFacts URL) maybe a day or two ago, thanks for noticing. I'll fix it. Regardless, I provide a Reliable Source that should answer at least that part of your question. And by the way, don't insult FAs. Featured Articles undergo a more extensive review process than practically any published material existing. Numerous of the most academic users scrutinize every aspect, every word, within an article in the process. FAs are the best way to determine precedents, which is perhaps the best way to determining existing consensus. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Really, FA articles are almost like guidelines for that particular topic/field. I would also say that GA articles are examples of good ways of utilizing FA articles. —JJBers 17:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC) (off-topic)

@Ɱ: ????? Was I conversing with you, or JJbers? Hmmm.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't freaking care who you were talking to. Article talk pages are open for anyone to reply to, this is just a weak response because I provided hard facts and you can't admit you're wrong. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: (This may come as a complete surprise to you, but the words you are reading now are written; not spoken.) Can you hear my written words? I'll put it to you this way: Why were you responding to a question posed to JJBers? Can't he answer for himself? I do have a question for you though: Who just invaded and vandalized my sandbox? Hmmm.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)P.S. I'm not wrong, just different! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I can respond to whatever I want, and will especially when I have answers that can be helpful. And read the sandbox edit history, you know where that is? I never touched that page, so quit it. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: So good to finally be able to converse with the Emperess of Wikipedia! Your majesty, I apologise but I never thought for an instant her highness would have her hand in such a conspiracy. I was merely posing a question! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: In response to the sandbox issue, I attempted to add "nocat" to a template for userpages in the user-sandbox. I quickly self-reverted it, but the edit was reverted by the user, before blanking the page. (Diffs: original edit self-revert revert back blanking of page.) —JJBers 23:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ and JJBers: Here's some reading material you might want to go over: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2008/acs/ACSGeneralHandbook.pdf and https://www.census.gov/glossary/. Have a nice day!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Demographic Characteristics
1.Age Sex
2.Hispanic Origin
3.Race
4.Relationship to Householder (e.g., spouse)
From page 7. This shows that the Hispanic section is separate. —JJBers 15:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ and JJBers:Good! Please! Now take out your calculator and review the statistics for Norwalk, CT from US Census 2010.https://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=06:0667000 (I presume you know how to calculate percentages.) Have fun! I'll be back in a few hours.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: Well, the Hispanic population statics are in a separate category than the races. At this point you're effectively using sources that make your statement more diluted at best. I assume you wanted me to add them, which I did, got the percentages, rounded them, and I got exactly 99.9%, the same as before. —JJBers 20:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ and JJBers: Good! At times progress is better than perfection! Can you demonstrate how you were able to ascertain there were 21,630 families residing in the city? I hope I'm not taking up too much of your time, but there's no rush...take your time. I'll be back in several hours. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: Please check the sources in the Demographics section and please leave us alone, thank you. —JJBers 22:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ and JJBers:I did not realize you were bothered. Of course I will leave you alone now.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

This article's talk page appears to need archiving. As a courtesy and in hopes of establishing consensus among all concered I suggest reading Help:Archiving a talk page as there are choices available. Thank you for reading this! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sound like a good idea, I'll archive some old discussions. —JJBers 21:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent flurry of edits to this talk page. Common courtesy notwithstanding, these edits can only be regarded as aggressive and unwarranted because not enough time has yet passed for a consensus to take place. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Norwalk, Connecticut article. I had hoped my suggestion, made in a courteous and civil tone, would be respected and the same courtesy reciprocated. It looks now that I was wrong as not only was an unagreed upon archive begun but an innapropriate edit summary accompanying an inadequate explanation for deletion of my editing has taken place. This behavior all adds up to an act of bad faith. I have buried my hatchet and buried it will stay. Hope you will do the same, someday. Have a nice day! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Upon consensus, the sections I have marked resolved ought to be archived. Those not marked or marked unresolved ought to stay until properly resolved. Yes? No?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: What? You really seem confused at this point. The removal of the templates was because they were misused, and you can see in a earlier discussion where I suggested the same idea. The flurry of edits were removal of the misused templates, and a removal of a character I forgot to delete; then the next one was replying to this, and finally, archiving the page. I'm really confused at the point you're trying to make, if you believe you've changed your mind, that's fine. But, the page was in dire need of archiving, and I went ahead and did it. You're point on this page is about improvement of the page is correct, but improvements to the talk page itself is fine to be discussed in a talk page. Also, there was no bad faith in the removal, I said in quotes: "You can't close talkpage discussions, I mentioned this issue earlier." I don't see how bad faith was assumed. Even then, the policy applies to new comers, or for editors you've never met before. Not for editors you've interacted with for now multiple months.—JJBers 16:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem! Please stick to the argument, explain what is wrong with the edits; not what you think is wrong with other editors. Thank you!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I explained it in the reply earlier. —JJBers 20:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Inquries/Suggestions

Inquiry1

Precisely from where are the statistics about population, climate, and demographics derived from in this article? The citations given may guide the reader to websites related to the subject at hand in a general way, but there is nothing in the citations given that back up, or match, the context in the article.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The US Census 2010, please just read the citations. —JJBers 12:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers:——1. Please stop asking me to read something I am well aware of. Indeed, the citations are the crux of my inquiry. I suggest you look at what you are writing about before casually dismissing my inquiry. The citations given are from the US Census Bureau's QuickFacts; not the 2010 Census. The difference is the former provides estimated numbers and the latter provides official numbers. Neither source has statistics about climate.

The climate source is the Stamford article, a town neighboring Norwalk. The "QuickFacts" is simply just a way to view US Census data. —JJBers 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers:While Stamford, Connecticut is nearby to Norwalk, Connecticut can you show how their climate is identical. Furthermore, if you want to use Stamford' data to represent Norwalk's why have you not labeled, or attributed the data source at the top of the chart?

Inquiry2

What is wrong with the following lead paragraph for the article?

Norwalk (pronounced nôr′wôk′), is a city in Fairfield County, Connecticut, United States, it lies within Connecticut's Gold Coast and the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area as well as being a component of the New York City metropolitan area. The 2010 United States Census reported that Norwalk had a population of 85,603. With a total area of 36.35 square miles, of which 22.86 square miles of land, the population density of Norwalk was 3,744.7 per square mile (1,445.8/km²). Norwalk ranked sixth in order of population from greatest to least on the List of municipalities of Connecticut by population and 49th on the List of Connecticut locations by per capita income. The U.S. Census Bureau's American FactFinder estimates Norwalk's population increased to 87,701 in 2015.——StephenTS42 (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

References for Inquiry2 above only

ˈˈ ——StephenTS42 (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

@StephenTS42: I feel that's over descriptive of the subject.
1. There's no need of the geography/demographics part in the lead, that can just stay in their sections.
2. You don't need to type out the source title of the information, that's what citations are for.
3. All the rest of the information is already simplified in the lead.
The only thing I can think of adding is the metro area mention. Which I did. —JJBers 12:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: So, which parts of the present lead do not include a geographic or demographic description? For example: Is Fairfield County, Connecticut not a geographical location? Since when has Norwalk been in greater Bridgeport? Once again, I suggest you look at what you are writing about before casually dismissing my inquiry. Thank you and have a nice day.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: Oh, Greater Bridgeport is the same as the metropolitan area. The geographic part is the statics, not the location. The current lead I feel is fine now. —JJBers 15:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: Why can't you answer my question? (Repeating: Since when has Norwalk been in greater Bridgeport?) Next: Since when has geography not included location? Please read: Location (geography) Very important: What Wikipedia principle do you believe justifies the reversion of my request for expert advice? "(Undid revision 778348185 by StephenTS42 (talk) Please stop adding pointless tags to the article, you'll be blocked if you continue.)" If the template used is 'pointless' or otherwise objectionable to you and you wanted it removed, why did you not discuss this in this talk page? The template was placed to obtain expert advice for the article. That's not pointless; it is a fair and reasonable request which by your act of reversion is a repression my right to ask for it. That's a bit uncivil to revert another editor's contribution then threaten to block that editor if they continue to try to restore the contribution isn't it? Thank you and have a nice day.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the exact thing that lead to you being blocked both times, if you don't stop abusing the tags on articles, you'll be blocked indefinitely. —JJBers 20:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers:Are you going to answer my questions? I have apologized for my past behavior and promised not to repeat it. Please stop threatening me with any further punitive actions. An expert needed template is not a tag, therefore by placing one in an article does not constitute "abusing the tags on articles'. Thank you!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Those type of templates are also called tags. And the reason for the threat is that adding inappropriate tags to articles is nearly the exact same thing you did before. —JJBers 16:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion/proposal

Would the inclusion of the following be acceptable or helpful for use in the current climate box "Climate data for Norwalk, Connecticut"?

Climatography of the United States NO. 84, 1971-2000 Daily Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/DLYNRMS/dnrm?coopid=065893 - - Thank you!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems fine, I'll add it in. —JJBers 16:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: Thank you! Now that you have 'added it in', may I ask if you are going to factor the newly acquired statistics into the article's weather box?

@StephenTS42: Looking at the data, it already matches the data on the table, so there is no needed change. —JJBers 15:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers:If the numbers match, then there should be no need to change the weather box numbers as you wrote. However if that is not true then it should be easy for you to demonstrate here that they do match, no? Secondly, thank you for reverting (deleting) my suggestion regarding calculating population density. I should know the wisdom of this, but I dare not ask for fear you might think I am 'attacking'. Have a nice day! Thank you!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Stephen, your source roughly corresponds to the Weather Channel's data on Norwalk, and doesn't include anything extra that's useful, so it's unneeded. It's also less easy to read and presumably less up-to-date (only 1971-2000, while Weather.com should be to the present). So I removed that ref. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe the ref should be kept just simply for verification of data from a government source. —JJBers 16:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

At this point it's refspam. If you don't trust the largest and most popular weather service in America, you might as well put on a tin foil hat and block Wikipedia on your router. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Thank you for removing 'that ref' That was my contribution as I had nothing to do with its source, thank you. My contribution's data has nothing to do with the Weather Channel's data. Whether it corresponds 'roughly' to the data provided by the Weather Channel or not is irrelevant. The data from the Weather Channel spans back to 2016. That's not even two years. The ref you removed is a valid source spanning 29 years and should be represented in the weather box. The numbers in the weather chart do not correspond to either the data from the Weather Channel nor from Climatography of the United States No. 20 1971-2000 Station: STAMFORD 5 N, CT. The data from that report (dated 1971-2000), CT has nothing to do with the data that should represent Norwalk, CT. So, why didn't you delete 'those ref(s)' too? Oh, and by the way, I am not attacking.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

(←) This is the most troll-like comment I've seen from you in a while. Cut the sarcasm. The Weather Channel is the largest and most reliable weather source (I can provide refs, or just Google it). I'm not sure what data it uses (where do you get "two years" from?), but it's the most up-to-date, and used in Featured Articles across the board. Cut the nonsense questioning even the most basic, widely-used, and reliable sources. Next are you going to question the US Census Bureau? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ:Look, I am not questioning any source such as the Weather Channel, etc. I don't know how you picked that up, so please drop it. The two of you are starting to sling mud by name calling. "Troll-like"..."tin foil hat"? Uncivil? Very. Please stop this. I am not using sarcasm, if you take it that way then that's not my problem.

I will re-frame my questions. The following is a copy of the weather box which is presently posted in the Norwalk, Connecticut article:

Climate

Climate data for Norwalk, Connecticut
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Record high °F (°C)	68 (20)	71 (22)	79 (26)	95 (35)	97 (36)	97 (36)	103 (39)	97 (36)	99 (37)	89 (32)	77 (25)	66 (19)	103 (39)
Mean daily maximum °F (°C)	37 (3)	39 (4)	48 (9)	60 (16)	70 (21)	79 (26)	84 (29)	82 (28)	75 (24)	64 (18)	52 (11)	42 (6)	61 (16)
Mean daily minimum °F (°C)	19 (−7)	21 (−6)	29 (−2)	38 (3)	44 (7)	57 (14)	62 (17)	61 (16)	53 (12)	40 (4)	33 (1)	24 (−4)	40 (5)
Record low °F (°C)	−15 (−26)	−7 (−22)	−2 (−19)	17 (−8)	30 (−1)	34 (1)	45 (7)	41 (5)	31 (−1)	17 (−8)	14 (−10)	−9 (−23)	−15 (−26)
Average precipitation inches (mm)	4.2 (110)	3.15 (80)	4.33 (110)	4.37 (111)	4.36 (111)	3.94 (100)	3.83 (97)	3.89 (99)	4.54 (115)	3.89 (99)	4.04 (103)	3.96 (101)	48.5 (1,236)
Average snowfall inches (cm)	9.3 (24)	8.3 (21)	4.9 (12)	.8 (2.0)	trace	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	.7 (1.8)	4.6 (12)	28.6 (72.8)
Average precipitation days	10.5	9.7	10.9	12.5	12.5	11.7	10.2	9.7	9.8	9.2	10.6	11.3	128.6
Average snowy days	4.8	4.3	2.5	.4	0	0	0	0	0	0	.4	2.7	15.1
Source 1: NCDC
Source 2: The Weather Channel

Question #1: If you can agree this is an exact copy then please show me where the numbers in the weather box match, or correspond to the references or footnotes at the bottom of the box.

Well yes I took your comment as having plenty of sarcasm, that's what single and double quotes often represent, especially in conversations. You misinterpreted 'tin foil hat', that wasn't part of any insult, nor directed toward you or JJBers. As for the data, I recently went in and corrected it to match the Norwalk data of the Weather.com link. If you click on it, it shows you a line graph. The numbers in that line graph are the same as the ones in this table above. However Weather.com only has average and record temps, and precipitation (inches). I couldn't find any data for Norwalk for the lower things (snow/precip days), so it still uses the Stamford data from NCDC. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ:Would you please drop the personal comments? So, the numbers did not match and you have since corrected them, yes or no, please?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I added personal comments to clarify what I said, and because I believed your tone to be inappropriate. And yes the numbers are correct. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: Please stop this behavior, or you'll be reported to WP:ANI and be possibly blocked.
And for the matter with Ɱ, looking at the Weather Channel; it seems to be similar to the NCDC source with some minor tweaks here and there. Also I think that the Weather Channel is fine, but many editors/admins seem to hate it as a primary source. —JJBers 23:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd ask why, but honestly it shouldn't matter. I don't care what a few editors think of what's objectively an RS. They can't have policy or guidelines to back that opinion up, so it doesn't matter. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I quickly looked back at the infobox, and I saw that the Stamford data was being referenced. Shouldn't that be replaced with the Norwalk data of the exact same time period? —JJBers 00:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No because the Stamford one has the data used in the last 3 rows but the Norwalk one doesn't at all. And I'm frustrated I can't even find the data on the NCDC's stupid website. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Anyways, I'm converting it into a template; Template:Norwalk, CT weather box. It'll just be a direct copy of the infobox on the page (I'll link history in the edit summary creating it). —JJBers 01:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait why? That's highly irregular and AFAIK not how things are done around here for weatherboxes... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Huh...I see many weather box exclusive templates. I've done a couple myself. —JJBers 01:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Which articles? Any Featured Articles? Seems silly to have specific templates, and it blocks some editors from accessing the code. The Norwalk article isn't even that long... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Usually articles on major cities/regions, this whole category has quite a bit, Category:United States weatherbox templates. —JJBers 01:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(←) also please stop pinging me, I watch this page. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I kinda got used to it. I'll stop. —JJBers 01:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ and JJBers:I would like to point out that there is no weather station operated by the National Weather Service in Norwalk, CT. Therfore, there can be no weather history data from NWS about Norwalk. If another weather station's details are to be used to represent Norwalk then the source of the data ought to be attributed accordingly. Using data from other NWS locations, nearby or otherwise, claiming the information presented belongs to Norwalk is false and misleading the reader to believe the climate in Norwalk is identical to whatever other NWS station is used. Another weather history site I believe will be helpful in compiling the weatherbox used in Norwalk's article is: http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/norwalk/connecticut/united-states/usct0154 . Although it does not name its source (It may well be its own source), it claims the data spans from 1961 - 1990. Thank you and have a nice day!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Norwalk and Stamford are 5-8 miles apart, with very little differences in geography. There mostly subtle differences at best. —JJBers 14:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers:Look, I wrote my piece; that's my opinion. If you believe 8 miles in geography is a subtle distance: that's your opinion. Subtle differences count and ought to be attributed, especially within the frame of an encyclopedia. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: It's already fixed. The Weather Channel data is from Norwalk. —JJBers 15:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers:Very good! Now, what of that NWS source to Stamford?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: Look at the discussion above, data on the table is using it, so it can't be removed. —JJBers 16:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's no consensus at this point (There really wasn't anything happening)? —JJBers 03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: Progress takes time; consensus takes time.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers and Ɱ:Question #2: Does the time frame or time span data from report Climatography of the United States No. 20 1971-2000, Station: STAMFORD 5 N, CT from National Environmental Satellite, Data,

and Information Service correspond with the time frame or time span data from report Norwalk, CT Monthly Weather from the Weather Channel? ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: It's most likely from 1970-2017. —JJBers 23:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: I'm not following you. What are you referring to? What is it that is most likely from 1970-2017? ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42:Sigh, the Weather Channel data spans from 1970-2017. —JJBers 14:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyways, this is clearly going nowhere, so there really is no use to continue on. —JJBers 16:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers:Thank you! I will take your comment above to indicate that you are referring to my attempts to reason with you. As a courtesy to you I was willing to compromise my former behavior and suggest edits rather than doing them directly. Since you stated that this is clearly going nowhere and you find no use in continuing on I presume that to mean you are no longer willing to work with me. Therefore I will resume direct editing without advising you in advance. Please do not take this as disrespect. By this comment alone I am showing respect. Of course if you object, or disagree, to any edit I make I will take your objections in high esteem and consider your opinions respectfully. Please discuss your objections first in this talk page before reverting any edit I make. I have no desire to engage in any form of edit war or conflict with you or any other editor. This is an offer of a truce, a gesture of goodwill and a promise to never repeat my past behavior. I hope you will accept this also as a direct apology for my past behavior.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: That's fine. Be bold, just know if you violate a policy/guideline, including Manual of Style, or anything else; you'll be reverted. —JJBers 00:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: remember that WP:MOS is not a policy, but instead only a guideline. MPS1992 (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot. It still is something that's official. —JJBers 12:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's just "generally meant to be best practice[s]" according to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (which is a procedural policy). It is worth re-reading the part of WP:NOTBURO (itself also a policy) which says "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." This reflects WP:5P5 of course. And pillars trump policies, but I apologize for going way off topic here. I'll be quiet now :) MPS1992 (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment

I would like to follow a suggestion, made a while back, to emulate the form or layout, not necessarily the context, of a city article rated as a featured article into Norwalk's article. I've spent some time looking and I believe San Francisco would be the best choice. I want to avoid any conflicts and show good faith regarding my intentions. If there are any objections to this please let me know before I begin. Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend a city closer than San Francisco, as the fact that their cultures/lifestyle are dramatically different. If you're going to still do that, at least cut out the history section. —JJBers 13:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Providence, Rhode Island seems like a good place to start. It's much closer to Norwalk, and is a featured article. —JJBers 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: Good suggestion! How about a combination of characteristics from both city article layouts?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Not the best idea. The Providence article was promoted in 2007, a decade ago by now. At that point, FA reviews were much more shallow, and this also lacks a few more modern standards and details. I might use this in conjunction with newer FAs. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The only city I found promoted after 2010 was a city located in Europe, which isn't really the greatest thing as well. —JJBers 16:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you see the link above? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I skimmed over the list before, and now that I've read it, I still think Providence is the best article to use, possibly with parts from Cleveland. —JJBers 16:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

(←) Geographic location should be one of your last concerns. Look to see that an FA is recent enough, with a thorough review or reviews, and still roughly meets the FA criteria. Regardless, we should erally be using WP:USCITIES more. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated, but can someone re-write part or all of the history section. All it is a copy-paste of the 21st century section from the History of Norwalk, and the Name origin. —JJBers 16:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, copy paste works. There's nothing illegal or immoral about that,copyright and Wikipedia allows it. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I still feel that a summary of the history of Norwalk is more appropriate than a copy-paste of the most recent century. —JJBers 16:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Churches

We shouldn't list every church in the municipality. No good municipal article does that. Should I cut to just the blue-linked ones, or Stephen do you know or can you find out which ones truly are notable? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I cut out the unlinked ones for now, and added a reference to one of them. If anyone wants to go ahead and re-add them, please add a ref too. —JJBers 16:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ and JJBers: With all due respect to you: I believe all places of worship are notable. Many religious organizations are in Norwalk that represent their corresponding congregations. Some do not identify their place of worship as being a church. I believe they are all important and notable, especially to those who attend them. I don't want to go into a patriotic song and dance here. But if any municipal article leaves out even the smallest congregation within its borders then that article becomes notable for doing so and ought to be corrected. If they are listed in the yellow pages or on a map, they have a reference. Thank you!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: Wikipedia is not a directory. While you may feel that all places of worship are notable, truly, only a handful are noble enough to be listed. —JJBers 16:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Stephen, no other good article lists every single church. At that point, you might as well list every garden club, private and public school, lgbt center, junior lacrosse league, and poetry club. We're not a directory; just because an organization happens to be in Norwalk doesn't mean it needs to be listed here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers and Ɱ: That is your opinion: your point of view. I continue to hold your opinion in high esteem. However, Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article The Norwalk, Connecticut is not a directory article. Excluding, or removing, information regarding places of worship within the Norwalk article is an editorial bias and does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, specifically Religion——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

What we're referring to isn't a notability guideline. We're referring to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is an English Wikipedia policy. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: OK, I understand that Wikipedia is not a directory! I was replying to JJBers comment above. Lists are not directories! A list of places of worship within Norwalk's article is no more a directory, nor any different, from the list of neighborhoods, attractions, notable places on the National Register of Historic Places, Films, Television, Utilities and so forth. Anyone reading the article now, the way it stands, might very well be led to believe that Norwalk has nothing but Roman Catholic churches! The absence of a complete list of places of worship is an editorial bias that does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view regardless of whether they are notable or not! So, that's it! I said/wrote my piece, I will not restore the list. Have a nice day! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42:
If they are listed in the yellow pages or on a map, they have a reference.
You just stated if they're on the Yellow Pages, a directory, they should be listed. That's just on border-line WP:COPYVIO, and clearly making it only for directory reasons. —JJBers 13:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers and Ɱ:I am not ignoring your comment above. Please allow some time for me to analyze or research this. Thank you!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: I don't see how you were able to misconstrue If they are listed in the yellow pages or on a map, they have a reference. to mean (You just stated) if they're on the Yellow Pages, a directory, they should be listed. It's OK if you don't want yellow page listings used as references. I'll go along with that! However, so long as the source of a reference is properly attributed, then there should be no objection to using it. There are other sources as well, I was just suggesting yellow pages or maps as they came first to my mind. As far as listing all the places of worship in Norwalk... you might find this helpful Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. Thank you and have a nice day! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks? I mean, I looked for references for some of them, but I couldn't find much outside of the main page of the church. I can see how the Yellow Pages can be used as a basis, but the places themselves need to be notable. —JJBers 15:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: So, if you found main pages of the places of worship (only some are churches) in Norwalk why was it necessary to delete them? Wouldn't a place of worship be notable (which by the way does not apply to content within an article) based on its history alone? Is there nothing notable about the uniqueness of each of their architectures or how they were built? Did any of them change ownership hands over the years? Did any of them burn down as a result of the British invasion? Take a look at St. Paul's on the green in Norwalk. You might be surprised to read how about notable each of them are. Thanks again and have a great day! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, 1st party sources, like the Church's main page, isn't as useful in applying notability than independent sources. Anyways, that looks more like guessing if something is interesting, instead of it is. — JJBers 16:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN: the burden is on you Stephen to provide a reliable source or sources indicating notability before restoring content. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers and Ɱ:Since the material was removed without giving me, or anyone else, any time to provide any references, and since no effort was made to provide such references yourself, and since no effort was made to tag the material Citation needed first before removing them, I object to your claim. Futhermore, I have already written that I won't restore the list and in all due respect I believe any restoration work is now your responsibility. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(←) Did you read BURDEN? It's Policy. It doesn't require a CN tag, nor anything else. I actually only posted this comment here and didn't remove them; that should be fair lead warning enough, however the content has been on the article for years, so there has been plenty of time to provide sources. The burden is on the restorer, end of story. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you... —JJBers 18:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers and Ɱ: You need to pay attention! I'm not trying to, no will I, restore anything. I never wrote I was going to do anything of the kind. I buried my hatchet, why can't you? If you want to delete the whole article: go ahead. You won't get a peep out of me. But, if you ask my opinion, then that's what you'll get. Nuff said. Have a nice day... anyway! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to pay attention, I was just clarifying, that's why I said the burden is on the "restorer", not on "you". And stop pinging me already. This article's on my watchlist, so pinging me further is just disruptive. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I have no idea which of you are conversing to to me. Pinging? For that I apologize. Can either or both of you drop this? I have offered a truce. I have stopped my previous behavior and yielded. Whomever restores anything, it won't be me. Please lay off!! I have kept and will keep my promises. I am showing respect to you: why can't you reciprocate? Please, just let it go! I'm out of the way now, so go in peace.———→StephenTS42 (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Population density formula: Request for consensus. Suggestion

According to the National Geographic Society the formula for calculating population density is: number of people ÷ the area they occupy = population density. The current population density in the Norwalk, Connecticut article is 2,437.6/sq mi (941.2/km2). That would work if the area total for Norwalk, 36.3 sq mi (94 km2), and the estimated population, 88,485, were factored in: 88,485 ÷ 36.3 = 2,437.6. However, Norwalk's area total includes 13.5 sq mi (35 km2) of water. People do not occupy water, at least not so far.
The numbers that ought to be used are 22.8 sq mi (59 km2) land and either the estimated 88,485 (2015), or official 85,603 (2010) population numbers are used. Estimated population: 88,485 ÷ 22.8 = 3,880; Official population: 85,603 ÷ 22.8 = 3,754. So, either the estimated population density is 3,880, or the official population density is 3,754. I request a consensus on which numbers should be used in the article in hope there will be no further editing conflict about this as I too will abide by the consensus. Thank you!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, stop the the population density issue. The calculation used is the same as any other article, due to the fact that not every city is half on water. —JJBers 13:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: To what calculation formula are you referring? If population densities for all municipal articles are calculated with only one formula then that is an error, not an issue, that needs to be reckoned with. If you have any pull with the upper echelons in Wikipedia it might result you earning another badge on your user-page for doing so. Thank you!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: Stop disputing for the fun of it, and stop forum shopping. It's clearly annoying people, which can, and will lead to blocks. —JJBers 04:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers:You are getting too personal here, this is an article talk page... please confine your comments to the content of the article; this is not a forum about me! Lay off me! I'm not disputing anything: I am peacefully and respectfully asking questions! In case you haven't noticed I have stopped reverting your edits and now choose to ask questions instead. If you disagree with how I seek answers (forum shopping?) how about answering my questions to you once in a while? If you won't answer my questions, I will look elsewhere. Instead of trying to find ways to have me blocked (again), how about thinking outside the box, spending time giving a hand and help out. I'm no expert in many subjects, but I'm willing to learn. I thought that's what Wikipedia is about: learning! Have a nice day anyway!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Asking the exact same question that got you blocked, and has been agreed on is being disruptive. —JJBers 16:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)