Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposal/Suggestion

Norwalk's infobox

Norwalk, Connecticut
City
Aerial view of Norwalk Harbor and vicinity
Etymology: Point of Land
Nickname:  Oyster Town
Motto:  Latin: E Pluribus Unum
Location in Fairfield County and Connecticut
Coordinates: 41°05′38″N 73°25′11″W
Country	United States
State	Connecticut
County	Fairfield
NECTA	Bridgeport-Stamford
Region	South Western (CT) Region
Purchased	February 26, 1640
Incorporated	September 11, 1651
Consolidated	June 6, 1913
Founded by	Roger Ludlow and Daniel Patrick
Government
• Type	Weak-mayor-City Council
• Mayor	Harry Rilling (Democratic Party (United States))
Area
• City limits	36.3 sq mi (94 km2)
• Land	22.8 sq mi (59 km2)
• Water	13.5 sq mi (35 km2)
Elevation	36 ft (11 m)
Population  (2010)
• City limits	85,603
• Estimate  (2015)	88,485
• Rank	Sixth (6th) in CT
• Density	3,774/sq mi (1,457/km2)
• Est. Den. 2015	3,880/sq mi(1,449.7 km²)
Time zone	UTC-5 (Eastern Standard Time (EST))
• Summer (DST)	UTC-4 (Eastern Daylight Time (EDT))
Zip codes	06850—06860
Area codes	475, 203
FIPS code	09-55990
GNIS feature ID	0209405
Website	Official website

Tentative, thank you! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

We're fine. — JJBers 16:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This does seem excessive. I don't think other articles include two different pop figures or rankings in their infoboxes. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers and Ɱ: Well, I'm fine, too! It's good to see you two made up your mind. An excellent example and use of an Argumentum ad populum, I might add. For me, a lesson learned: 'We're fine' must have a double meaning. Have a nice day! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your rhetoric here, but I didn't make up my mind. I said the above, which is quite possibly refutable. And again, please stop using the template {{Re}} to notify me. This page is on my Wikipedia Watchlist, so I will always see your comments here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't put it in. Just don't put it in after I said that the article really doesn't need this. — JJBers 18:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JJbers and User:Ɱ I apologize if I was bothering you. Would this method (noping) be acceptable to you? I also apologize if my comment above was taken wrong. I must ask you, though, if you had not made up your mind, why did you make a comment, especially if it was refutable? Why did you make the comment we're fine if you did not mean it to be taken as we're fine with that, or it's OK then turn around and revert my edit claiming it had not been agreed upon? If I understood your meaning incorrectly, getting it wrong, then my bad (I apologize). You could have discussed your objections to the edit based on verifiable evidence supporting your objections first. My aim was to improve the accuracy of the article's infobox in order add to the quality--- the readability of the article and to the satisfaction of all. I take no offense in being misunderstood, but please... confine your comments to the article's content, not on or about the contributor! Thank you —→StephenTS42 (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and all. The noping method would be much better for me on this page. And I provided an argument against your infobox additions, but I never said I was completely opposed to them, or that I couldn't be swayed through discussion. I can't answer for JJBers' comment, which I also didn't exactly understand. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm just tired of the population changes, but what I feel, everything outside of demographics is fine. Sorry for my rushed statement. —JJBers 23:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

JJBers: The map change is fine. You should keep "Democratic" shortened to D in the infobox. People with questions can hover or click. Please see the other US FAs for the best way to list both pop actual and pop est. Please don't include city rank in the infobox, it's dumb trivia and promotional, and not counted unless it's one of the top 10 or 20 in the US. And why'd you change the blank parameters? They were fine how they were. And please keep the 'div's on the weatherbox; just because it wraps fine on your screen doesn't mean it does on other people's. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers and User:Ɱ

FYI

May I point out that the numbers for the Washington D.C. article's population density factors the square miles of land area only; not the total area, which includes water. (e.g. 681,170 ÷ 61.05 = 11,157.57). Secondly, the population ranking as suggested in Template:Infobox settlement (The settlement's area, as ranked within its parent sub-division), which is the state of Connecticut List of municipalities of Connecticut by population; not the entire United States, is remarkable and noteworthy and ought to be included in the infobox. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That's odd, I fixed it, because someone must've changed it between original FA review and now, for Washington D.C. Also I'm removing the trivia fact in the infobox. I only corrected it from Stephen's version. — JJBers 16:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers and User:Ɱ I guess you proved your point. I stand corrected, again. So, why haven't you fixed the Washington D.C. article? Why not remove the trivia fact in that infobox as well? But wait, don't stop there, why not correct all articles within Wikipedia that someone must've changed! Makes sense to put things in order, no? Thank you -->StephenTS42 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers Can you explain how you calculated population density for this article? Thank you ——StephenTS42 (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Really....for the population density I did Population ÷ Total Area = Population Density.
Anyways, this article isn't Washington D.C. Stop. This isn't one of the most populated cities in the United States, it's sixth in one state. — JJBers 15:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers I understand what this article isn't. As for the content of this article, (as well as countless others) the population density calculation ought to factor out areas of water as it should be understood that people do not occupy water! Previously, you wrote in this talk page: 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. and just above you indicated that you did (or used): Population ÷ Total Area = Population Density. The boundaries of many cities encompass areas of water, but people do not occupy water. Should the formula you used be taken to mean that any other article's population density has been written using the formula you used? If so, where are the guidelines, the specifics for its use within Wikipedia? This is not an unreasonable question and don't take it personally: Did you make up (invent) the formula you used? I noticed that you altered the numbers for population density in the Washington D.C. article, I presume you used your formula to do so. I also noticed you did so without discussing it first in Washington D.C.'s talk page. How should that be taken? As far as removing the population ranking from Norwalk's infobox, declaring it to be trivia and comparing it with Washington D.C.s... there is no criteria within Wikipedia dictating the use of population ranking, so whatever This isn't one of the most populated cities in the United States, it's sixth in one state. is to be taken to mean is oblique. Once again, I'm not going to revert anything, however I suggest that in the future any more such deletions ought to be discussed first in the article's talk page and at least backed up with reasoning supported by some viable criteria from Wikipedia. Thank you ——StephenTS42 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: It seems Nat Geo, Khan Academy, and Wikipedia's article on the subject agree that the formula is "The total number of people / area of land". We should be using this for Norwalk and D.C. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Odd, I checked the review for D.C. had the total area density, and someone changed it out of the blue. So I changed it back. —JJBers 21:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I Don't Care What the Article used in 2008. It's Wrong. Nat Geo, Khan Academy, and Wikipedia agree pop density uses TOTAL LAND AREA. Change it back. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses sources, it isn't a source. Anyways, tone it down, your borderline becoming uncivil for no reason. —JJBers 22:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course I know that, just the likelihood that Wikipedia uses the wrong form of calculation for its population density article is less likely than aliens invading the White House tomorrow. Just saying. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No seriously, calm down. —JJBers 22:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers and User:Ɱ So, is there a consensus, an agreement, as to how population density is calculated? If not then how do y'all want to proceed? Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The best path for now is to leave it unchanged. — JJBers 14:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sure. Literally every reliable source lists that it uses land area, not total area, including the US Census Bureau. If you want to know why, read http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2006/summer/article1.html. This really should end this dispute/discussion on the matter. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing multiple articles using the total area, instead of the land area statics. I really feel that a RfC should be carried out, concerning all WP:CITIES. — JJBers 15:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

These articles are written by amateurs. Reliable sources indicate land area is what's used. But if you want to open an RfC, be my guest. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No, this seems to be a larger issue, it's old, but the total area has been used to calculate population density since the start of Wikipedia. — JJBers 16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers and User:Ɱ With all due respect, it doesn't matter how much time it has been, it doesn't matter how many articles there are, the formula that factors in total area is incorrect. I am giving you the opportunity of presenting this in your names to echelons in Wikipedia to be corrected as a peace offering. I am not a crusader, it's just an offering...a suggestion, an appeal to lay off. Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This has gone nowhere. I would say there's no consensus right now. There needs to be a project wide RfC about this sometime soon. I'll draft it up first though. —JJBers 15:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine but I'd really, really suggest you stop making an issue about this. Congratulations, you found a kinda old topic where one clueless user replied to another and that was it. It's outdated, as the Wikipedia article was fixed. It doesn't show or prove at all that this is a disputed issue or controversial, not in the slightest. Do your research like I have; reliable sources DO NOT use total area. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers and User:Ɱ

FYI

Two days have passed without a reply to your request for comment. I could hardly expect a reply to it by the way it was written: Due to the fact that many articles use various ways to figure out population density, should there be one set calculation to figure out population density?—JJBers 12:04 pm, 20 May 2017, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4) . There is no formula within Wikipedia that is now, or has ever been, that establishes even a guideline for reporting population density within articles, therefore there is no fact that backs up your claim that any article used any formula. How would anyone be able to determine what formula was used to 'figure out' population density if there was no standard method spelled out within Wikipedia? (speculation?) The Wikipedia article itself contradicts the source it cites for the way population density is calculated. The Wikipedia article, Population density, is written: "Population density is population divided by total land area or water volume, as appropriate." while the source cited for this description is written: "To determine an area's population density, you just have to divide an area's total population by the land area in square miles (or square kilometers)." So, if you are waiting for someone to come up with a comment to answer your request, I believe the wording of the request is too vague for a reasonable answer. I might suggest re-wording the request to something that addresses what formula is to be used in Wikipedia to calculate population density in its articles. Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop pinging me, it's getting annoying. — JJBers 17:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If that happened, it wasn't from my end. Maybe its time to check your preferences. Do you have this page on your watch list?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

——→

To all concerned: Excuse me, I may be wrong about this, but it seems the progress of this article is being held up needlessly as one editor awaits an answer to a question that can't be answered. I took the liberty of posing a clearer question in another forum: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. viz. :== Population density formula Request Comment ==

By this request I seek whatever formula is used, if any, for calculation of population density in Wikipedia articles. If there is none, which I suspect to be the case, is there an acceptable and reliable source for such calculation? At issue is whether uninhabitable areas, such as bodies of water etc. which are within the boundaries of a given area are to be factored out as people do not occupy such areas.

Hey StephenTS42. Although routine calculations are, in principle, allowed by our policies on original research, the editorial decision for whether to include something like water is probably beyond the scope of the allowance, and editors should probably defer to whatever research already exists, and allow them to decide what the meaningful metric is. In the US, this would probably [be] the the US Census Bureau. TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Much thanks! With your permission I would like to pass your comment along.

( Note: The US Census bureau does publish population density for municipalities. For Norwalk, CT it is: Population per square mile, 2010: 3,744.7. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/RHI105210/0955990.)

FYI

Thank you ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

More information: Persons per square mile - population and housing unit density are computed by dividing the total population or number of housing units within a geographic entity by the land area of that entity measured in square miles or in square kilometers. Density is expressed as "population per square mile (kilometer)" or "housing units per square mile (kilometer)". To determine population per square kilometer, multiply the population per square mile by .3861.

——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

---

References

Can we work together?

Let's start clean: forget the past! I assume we are all intelligent adults. My request is to take one step back from being 'bold' and work in consensus on this article. It might slow things down a tad, but the outcome may very well be 'bold' after all. I'll do my part. That's a promise.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, why not? M.W.B.A.B. (Making Wikipedia Better And Better) 15:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

One more time: Population density! Suggestion

According to the United States Census QuickFacts Norwalk city, Connecticut, when the last census was taken, (Population, Census, April 1, 2010) 85,603 people were counted as living in Norwalk on 22.86 square miles of land area. From that statistical fact and in the same report on the same page the population per square mile, as explained by the United States Census Bureau to be the number of people per square mile of land area was 3,744.7. This number, also a statistical fact, was therefore calculated using the formula: Number of people ÷ number of square miles of land area = population density. That means 85,603 ÷ 22.86 = 3744.66. Therefore, when the United States Census Bureau published its population estimate for 2016 , (July 1, 2016) the population of Norwalk was estimated to be 88,438. Using the same formula above Norwalk's estimated population density for 2016 was 88,438 ÷ 22.86 = 3868.67. So, is there anyone who who would not agree that these figures are correct and should be the numbers used in Norwalk, CT's article? If there are no objections, may I please place the correct numbers into the article and the article's infobox Thank you——StephenTS42 (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Support, per above. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Waiting now for JJBers —→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral: Personally, I don't really care that much. I opened the RfC to establish a community consensus on the subject. — JJBers 15:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Comment: Protesting against rash editing summaries.

To:User:Ɱ and User: JJBers Please stop reverting my edits by attempting to justify your reversions in your edit summaries. May I refresh your memory of what is recommended for the use of editing summaries?
What to avoid in edit summaries
•Avoid misleading summaries. Mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important. You could add something like "and misc." to cover the other changes.
•Avoid vagueness. While edit summaries can be terse, they should still be specific. Providing an edit summary similar to "I made some changes" is functionally equivalent to not providing a summary at all.
•Avoid inappropriate summaries. You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack.
•Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don't's" of the Wikipedia Civility policy.
Use of edit summaries in disputes
•Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial. If the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert ("rv") in the edit summary.
•Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself.
In the event you hadn't noticed before: the article: Norwalk, Connecticut has many references that are categorized as being unsourced which I was attempting to clean up and which you have restored by your reversion. For the time being, and since all of them can be found from sources on the web and to move the progress along I am using 'cite web' which you may, in your opinion, have found to be 'inappropriate'. Therefore, I protest the rash use of such reversions first before bringing objections up for discussion in this talk page. What would happen if I did the same to your edits? Thank you→→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about but I didn't revert anything. I simply changed one reference to match standards of this article and others. Please use "cite news" for all news, online or offline. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: If you want to talk about us, please use our user talk pages next time. — JJBers 15:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

To: User:JJBers... Instead of reverting edits, how about lending a hand and help out once in a while. →StephenTS42 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: What I'm trying to do is make the article better. If you get something incorrect, I'll try to correct it, reverting is just one way to do it. — JJBers 18:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Page Protection

Hello all. Per a request at WP:RFPP I have protected this page for a few days due to edit warring. I have also warned a number of users that they are edit warring (and from looking around, others have also been warned for violating WP:3RR.) At this point, it matters less who "started" the edit war, or who is "right" but rather determining a consensus to move forward. Please take this time to civilly discuss and seek a wider consensus from the broader community (and not just those actively involved in this particular article) about what the content of the infobox and article should contain. Mifter (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! That's being reasonable... if you ask me. I have buried the hatchet and am willing to work with, any or all, who be reasonable. That, of course may be an expectation bias on my part as well. Nonetheless, I will keep an open mind and remain civil and respectful. I will listen first, then do my homework, research and offer suggestions for discussion. StephenTS42 (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong city website

Someone put a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics web page as the city's official website. The correct official city website is [1]. Could someone please fix this? 32.218.152.237 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed -Mifter (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Can someone just remove it altogether, it's already linked at the bottom of the infobox. —JJBers 21:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Standard on USCITIES and FAs is to include it once in the infobox and once as an external link. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the flag icons in the infobox per the MOS guideline, WP:INFOBOXFLAG. —JJBers 18:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: are you sure that is consistent with the part of that guideline which says 'Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes' ? MPS1992 (talk)

¡Ay, caramba! ( Don't they teach reading comprehension in your school?) Please read (again): Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. To wit :Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes. However, physical geographic articles – for example, islands, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, swamps, etc. – should not. Thank you ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah you both are somewhat right. Take a look at FAs and the policy very carefully. They don't want county/surrounding town/borough flags, as they're barely recognizable anyway (even I can't remember my county's flag), but the US flag is perfectly okay to use. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't even think counties of Connecticut have their own flags. —JJBers 22:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To JJBers: You are correct, but why did you bring that up? Do you see any county flags in the article?

FYI

The policy has been spelled out to you. No one is or is trying to be right (somewhat or otherwise), no one is trying to correct you; no one is trying to win here. Please co-operate!→StephenTS42 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The first-level administrative subdivision would be the state, not the county. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I was just responding to the comment above me... —JJBers 23:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

So was I. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok then... —JJBers 23:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop. please... all of you (me too!) just stop! Suggestion

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

---

As you can plainly see the article is protected as a means of ending a mindless editing war. Please take the advice of the administrator who did so. Take a break, walk away, do something else... please! All of your opinions are valuable, but up to now we appear to work together not. Take the time away from editing Norwalk, Connecticut to look inward and try, as I will, to be more co-operative and less domineering. None of us are experts and none of us have the authority to tell any other of us what to do. Please stop, just stop.  Thank you very much!!—→StephenTS42 (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Norwalk, Connecticut article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Please try to discuss improvements to the article. —JJBers 23:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

One more time. If you do not understand what the words mean--please ask! Please stop. Take a break: do something else. Walk away:take a walk. Cool off: cool down! Watch a movie or have a talk with someone new, or someone you know. Phone someone. Exercise! Teach yourself how to cook something you like. Go to your local library and talk to someone you don't know or try reading something different from what you ordinarily read . Visit your church when there is no service; look at the ornate art or architecture in or around the building. Bring a camera and take photos then learn how to edit them with whatever software you use. But whatever you do, please stop focusing on this article. Please!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Economy

Could the empty "economy" section be removed, and List of Connecticut locations by per capita income moved to a "see also"? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'll try to expand it when the article is unprotected. —JJBers 00:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop! You are only sustaining a mindless editing war.

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

---

I am begging you to please stop. There is nothing constructive being accomplished here. Maybe you are right, maybe you are not...that's not what Wikipedia is about. Please stop supporting this mindless editing war! Please! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Infobox settlement parameters

To JJBers: Please explain your reasoning for your recent deletions/edits to Norwalk, Connecticut

FYI

City limits... Etymology... Template:Infobox settlement Thank you.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason for removing the stuff is to cleanup the article. It's in bad shape until some major cleanup can happen. —JJB^ers 23:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I asked you. Removing stuff from an article without establishing consensus is Vandalism. —→StephenTS42 (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

No, thats called being bold. —JJB^ers 02:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of categories

For what it's worth, I had no objection to most of the categories @StephenTS42: added. My reasoning (which did change positions slightly) as expressed on his talk page is as follows:

As a first general observation: not every location needs or can sustain every possible category. To pick an unrelated example: Buford, Wyoming, shouldn't have an equivalent "People from Buford, Wyoming" category (since there is only one possible member of that category). The question that needs to be asked for any such categorization question is: Are there already enough existing members of each? That is, are there articles already on the site that would fit into a "People from Norwalk, Connecticut" (or any of the other proposed) category(/ies)? Fortunately, this is an easy question to answer for some of them. Norwalk,_Connecticut#Notable_people has 13 bluelinks, so that's probably good category. "Buildings and structures" I would suggest should be limited just to the ones listed in the Norwalk,_Connecticut#Notable_places_on_the_National_Register_of_Historic_Places section and the museums like the Maritime Aquarium and Lockwood-Matthews House. The other two are more problematic. A "Companies..." category would have only two members, so that's not really necessary. The "Geography" category is also not very useful- not every neighborhood deserves its own article, after all. That's my view, but you can also get the views of the Wikiproject on categories at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. I hope this helps. 14:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

...I was hoping that it was also implied that the People and Buildings and structures categories, being ones that had legit members, should be on the article and the other two should not. You are correct, though, that I should have made that explicit. In any event, I would recommend adding Category:People from Norwalk, Connecticut and Category:Buildings and structures in Norwalk, Connecticut to the article and that Category:Geography of Norwalk, Connecticut and Category:Companies based in Norwalk, Connecticut should not only not be added but also be cleared out and removed. 15:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

...Ok, having taken a closer look, let's try to establish where there's agreement and where there might be questions:

1. I think that we agree that Category:People from Norwalk, Connecticut is a good category and adding it to the list of categories at the end of the Norwalk, Connecticut article is both improving the article and not problematic in any way. Am I correct in thinking that?
2. Category:Buildings and structures in Norwalk, Connecticut does indeed have more than what is listed in the "Attractions" and "Notable places on the National Register of Historic Places" sections of the Norwalk page (I guess we can thank railfans for all the Metro-North stations). I think we agree that adding it to the list of categories at the end of the Norwalk, Connecticut article is both improving the article and not problematic in any way but I would not suggest adding any individual members to the page that are not there already.
3. I think we disagree on Category:Companies based in Norwalk, Connecticut. Many of the members of this category are either not actually based in Norwalk (e.g., Bear Naked, Inc. is now actually based in California), only a local or regional business (e.g., Cervalis interestingly, I actually know their owner), a victim of corporate restructurings (e.g., GE Commercial Finance) or they have no existence at all anymore (e.g., Cameron (automobile)). This is what I meant about the categories should be "cleaned out". I would not add such a dodgy category to the main Norwalk article. It would not improve the article in any way.
4. I was probably wrong in my earlier evaluation of Category:Geography of Norwalk, Connecticut. Adding it to the list of categories at the end of the Norwalk, Connecticut article is both improving the article and not problematic in any way. I believe you probably agree with that statement. 01:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Every entry in the category Category:Buildings and structures in Norwalk, Connecticut should, by definition, be either a building or a structure. Norwalk, Connecticut -- the article under discussion -- is not a building or a structure. Adding this article to that category, as proposed, is therefore not appropriate. The same logic applies to category Category:People from Norwalk, Connecticut. Every entry in that category should be a person, either living or dead. MPS1992 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. I believe that adding a link to a category in a "see also"-type manner is not violating any rules about categories, however. Feel free to direct me to the relevant policy or guideline if I'm mistaken. I freely admit I'm not an expert on the categories area. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you -- and thank you also for your considerable energies in trying to calm this dispute -- but that's not what has been proposed. MPS1992 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)