Talk:St. Johnsbury, Vermont/Archive 1
This is an archive of past discussions about St. Johnsbury, Vermont. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
CDP change
These CDP changes really should be discussed first because it is a lot of change to the overall flow of the article. To me it reads like technical jargon rather than an article about the town itself. Monsieurdl 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- And the CDP article is not technical jargon? It is, in fact, nothing but technical jargon and will never be anythin but technical jargon. Personally, I'd rather see the CDPs for town centers deleted as many people in New England do not usually think in terms of CDPs but whole towns. Only if the CDP corresponds to a well-known village should they remain separate. Merging is something I did just so no information would be lost, but, to be honest, the CDP demographic data is useless (you can see it pretty much matches the town). --Polaron | Talk 17:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it is the header that really cuts it- there must be a better way to merge the information without getting too deep into the technical language. We can work this out I'm sure. Monsieurdl 18:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the headers to something less technical. How about a single paragraph for demographics with the corresponding CDP data in parentheses beside the town data? --Polaron | Talk 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it is the header that really cuts it- there must be a better way to merge the information without getting too deep into the technical language. We can work this out I'm sure. Monsieurdl 18:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe while it is fresh in your mind, you could point (reference/link) to the CDP boundaries? Student7 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- While I used GIS data for the information, there is a good map here that should be the same. --Polaron | Talk 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe while it is fresh in your mind, you could point (reference/link) to the CDP boundaries? Student7 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Aside from demographic data, what is the point of the CDP article? Who are the notable residents of the CDP? What are the points of interest in the CDP? What is the history of the CDP? What is the industry of the CDP? If the answers are the same as for those of the town then there is no point ot the CDP article? The demographic data is already here. Some people are still treating the town as purely a minor civil division instead of an actual place. While there are unincorporated villages in New England, how come only some unincorporated villages are CDPs while others are not? You'll be hard pressed to find people in New England that think of places in terms of CDPs. Some CDPs seem to be just the dense part of town without regard to the actual communities within. --Polaron | Talk 19:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm disconcerted by the fact that the CDP seems to have more households and more families than the town. AJD 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- There as an error in the town numbers. I have fixed those. All the rest of the town's data should probably be checked too. --Polaron | Talk 20:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was asked to comment on this by Polaron. I think that in the past I've opposed merging CDP articles into the related "container" article. But that was mostly based on my experience in the midwest where there are relatively few CDPs that correspond to town centers with the same name as appears to be more common in NE. But with the limiting criteria that Polaron mentions, I've no problem with the proposal. My main concern would be that the demographic data might get lost, but the current revision of St. Johnsbury, Vermont preserves the demographic info and explains the CDP designation as well. So long as the CDP and the town have the same name and there is a close identity between the town and the population center, then I think it makes sense to have a consolidated presentation. I'd be a little cautious about cases where the town contains multiple population centers though -- that is where the various population centers might have distinct histories which all contribute to the overall context of the town. older ≠ wiser 00:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a bit dismayed by the detail of the boundaries, which of course have to be in there to explain why the CDP census may not match other data. I may have (probably have) missed the point here, but I would rather see the CDP info "forked" to its own article with it's own boundary descriptions. I think that's what Polaron is ssying, too. I hope. Student7 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing of a fork for the CDP; it's been there for some years, and the debate is whether it should be merged into the town: something proposed, not opposed by Polaron. Nyttend 02:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to be so out to lunch. I would rather see it remain in it's own article. Maybe with a more obvious pointer from the town/village article. The boundary description just seems to clutter. We don't describe boundaries of cities/towns/villages generally. Seems like a bad precedent. Student7 02:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- But there are no "boundaries" as such for CDPs -- they are completely artificial entities created entirely at the whim of the U.S. Census Bureau. The demarcations used by the Census Bureau are extremely transient and subject to revision with each and every decennial census. older ≠ wiser 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Grant your point, although it's amazing how often some municipalities change their boundaries so rapidly as well. It's an example of why no entity should have its super-specific boundaries listed under normal circumstances. Nyttend 03:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree about the limited usefulness of including excessively detailed boundary descriptions -- a map is worth a thousand words in such cases. But the difference with municipalities is that their boundaries are defined external to the Census Bureau and do tend to have some permanence. New England towns are a somewhat unique situation, in that it is rare for there to be an incorporated municipality with the same name as a town and there appears to be little expectation that population centers will incorporate to become independent of the town. In the midwest, it is fairly common for there to be incorporated cities and villages with the same name as an adjacent or surrounding township. older ≠ wiser 03:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this argument is going, but it is actually fairly common. The incorporated village of Orleans is in Orleans County. St. J is in St. J. town. Troy (unincorporated) in Troy. Derby in Derby, etc. If this tends to undermine moving the CDP descriptions out, I deny everything! :) Student7 03:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are 19 such cases in Vermont where an incorporated village has the same name as its parent town. There are 4 cases in Connecticut where a incorporated borough/city has the same name as its parent town. Those are the only cases in all of New England. And the trend is for these dependent sub-town municipalities to disincorporate and revert to town control. Because most of New England (except Maine) is virtually incorporated, town boundary lines are unlikely to change since there's nothing left to annex. The most recent town boundary change in Vermont happened when Winooski village was chartered as a city in 1922 altering Colchester town. Boundary changes at the town level are extremely rare in New England. --Polaron | Talk 04:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is hard to get this group discussing readability. That is, user friendliness. We get annoyed when computer programs aren't user-friendly, but then write articles which aren't and claim that "It's legal" or whatever we feel like. The description of boundaries suck. They are boring. They are unecessary. They are tendentious. City/town/village articles do not have boundaries in them so far. That makes the rest of them readable, but not this one. Can they be forked into another article? Can we discuss how readers would like this instead of how the constitution reads? Or the US census mandates? Student7 02:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever do you mean about the constitution or the mandates? Nyttend 02:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- I thought we were putting it in because "it was a legal document on the census" and therefore it had to go in lock, stock and barrel, regardless of what it sounded like. The arguments I'm reading above do not apply to readability, but to who's doing it and their rationale. Student7 02:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's what I've been trying to say, but look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont to see that I'm the only one on that page arguing for a separate CDP. Nyttend 02:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think there's agreement to not include detailed boundaries for the CDP in the town article. --Polaron | Talk 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm very interested in how this works out, because we're considering doing the same thing in New Hampshire (where the job appears to be easier, because there are fewer cases of multiple villages in towns with CDPs). I made a change at the beginning of the "Town center" demographics section, so that "CDP" is defined again. This will help people like me who jump to the center of the article and may not ever discover that "CDP" is defined in the opening paragraph. It still seems overly verbose, so improvements are always welcome. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why it needs to be rementioned in the demographics: if the CDP is judged insignificant enough and little-known enough for its own article, I don't really see why we would expect people to care much about it. If you really think that an explanation belongs down below, please don't put it in the demographics information text, as that might confuse bots in any future rewordings of demographics sections. It's much better to have it as a separate piece of text, listed above the statistics. Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
RfC: Shire town
Obsolete discussion on shire towns
|
---|
Because the word "shire" is obsolete, I think that "county seat" is more understandable. Student7 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
(removing indent) I don't know the template syntax to add a Vermont variable. The objection to using the usual word: that's not what it is. I found a reference for it being the shire town; can you find me a reference for it being officially the county seat? And besides being official: what makes something the county seat or shire town or anything else except official designation? Nyttend 04:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Lots of stuff in the constitution that we don't use. I'm sure "shire" sounded quite modern when the drafters met in the 1700s. UVM has an extensive name that no one uses. "Superior Court" judge and "County judge" probably have long-winded formal names that aren't used. This is typical in any language. "Hammer, claw, metal handle, 14 inches" is not a type of term confined to the military. We would still call it a "hammer." And we wouldn't have to have a prolonged discussion about it either! Legislatures often give ponderous names to things that aren't used. Lawyers! I just asked my wife, who is fairly well-read what a shire town was. She said she had heard of it but couldn't tell me off the top of her head. She has visited Vermont for 50 years. And she could care less about my discussion here, BTW! :) Student7 19:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of regionalisms like this, as you've discussed exhaustively above. The official titles of Virginia and Pennsylvania are Commonwealth, and the term is used extensively in both places, but nobody would argue that they are therefore not states. The lede for both articles uses the official title, followed by: ...is a state". I think "shire town" should be mentioned, but it's still the county seat. In Louisiana, it would be the "parish seat", but an outsider could be excused for calling in the county seat. Acroterion (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
(removing indent) Does anyone else here LIVE in Vermont? I do. I know that it doesn't matter especially, but if we're trying to achieve consensus, I'd go with "shire town (county seat)" because that's what it says on the signs here and people in Vermont know them as both. Jessamyn (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Response to RFC
|
Not notable BUILDING
An editor has removed "Catamount Film & Arts Center" from any mention because it is "non-notable." I'm putting it here so it doesn't get lost. Maybe something will happen here. Student7 (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty notable, i will look for sources but it has played host to many great performances and is a very unique location in town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditorsarenazis (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Dog mountain?
Is the dog mountain, pictured here, in St. Johnsbury? Engender (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on St. Johnsbury, Vermont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106022904/http://home.att.net/~local_history/Caledonia-Co-VT.htm to http://home.att.net/~local_history/Caledonia-Co-VT.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616120324/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3675/is_199608/ai_n8754402/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3675/is_199608/ai_n8754402
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518070059/http://www.stjathenaeum.org/docs/archive%20guide.pdf to http://www.stjathenaeum.org/docs/archive%20guide.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Typo in paragraph "17th century"?
This paragraph:
In the mid-17th century, St. Johnsbury became a minor manufacturing center, with the main products being scales — the platform scale was invented there by Thaddeus Fairbanks in 1830 — and maple syrup and related products. With the arrival of the railroad line from Boston to Montreal in the 1850s, St. Johnsbury grew quickly and was named the shire town (county seat) in 1856, replacing Danville. The oldest occupied residence in St. Johnsbury was built in 1801 and is located on Clarks Avenue.
..seems to be talking about the mid-19th century, not the 17th century (time period 1601-1700.) Could someone please correct this?--184.100.209.185 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've changed it to 19th century. AlexiusHoratius 04:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)