Talk:Waterbury, Connecticut/Archive 1

This archive includes threads from Talk:Waterbury, Connecticut from the page's creation until December 31st, 2011.

Archive 1

Various edits

I removed what looked like vanity junk:

• Waterbury is the birthplace of Christine Gaspar, it was added by an anonymous IP, has no article, and Google shows squat.
• Added Holy Land information.
• Changed Sears to Macys.
• I added some info on the college campuses. 24.151.79.108 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tommy 21:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Holy Land

This information was just added: "Unfortunately in recent news, a clean up crew was sent to the once popular area. As they were cleaning, illegal drugs were found at multiple locations, hidden under rocks or tree stumps. The clean up was discontinued."

Can anyone provide a source for this information? --Gerry Ashton 21:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Until then it's gone per Jimbo. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WaterburyCTseal.gif

Resolved

 – I uploaded a new image sourced from the city's website with a fair use rationale. New image is a higher resolution too. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:WaterburyCTseal.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination

I am nominating this as a Good Article Candidate. I'd like some opinions. It appears to be lengthy covering many landmarks of the town but some references could use some work--Ted-m (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

The article contains a very detailed account of the historical significance of the city, and appears very well written based on the content that is there. But it is incomplete, as it mostly focuses on the history and historical significance, and not enough on the present and modern day characteristics of the city. There is also a general deficiency in the amount of citations on material in the article, which is also necessary for GA status.

I would recommend looking at the six items listed as criteria for Good Articles. I don't see any major issues with the article with criteria 4 (WP:NPOV), 5 (stability), or 6 (images), but I see several deficiencies with the first three. For example, on criterion 1 (prose), while the writing itself appears very good, there are several manual of style issues; the most obvious of these is the use of several external links within the article text itself. External links should only appear in the section at the end 'external links', and only internal wikilinks should appear in the article text itself. Try also to avoid sections containing bulleted lists of information, favoring actual prose instead. The 'historic happenings' section seems to be the most obvious example here.

As far as criterion 2 (verifiability) is concerned, much of the content is unsourced. I also see at least one 'citation needed' tag, as well as an 'attribution needed' tag, which must be addressed prior to GA status. Reference formatting should also conform to certain standards; for references that are accessible online, you should include more than just the link -- include an author, title, publisher, date of publication, date the URL was retrieved. This is important so that, if the URL ever becomes inaccessible, the citation can be used to track down and verify the source if necessary. See WP:CITE for more information on this.

With criterion 3 (broad in coverage), the article is just not broad. It may be broad in the discussions of the history, as evident by numerous sections that are historical in nature. But the article is called Waterbury, Connecticut, and not History of Waterbury, Connecticut, and should provide more information on other aspects of the city. I think much of the discussion on history could be condensed and paraphrased, and included all within the 'history' section, with a link to a separate 'history of' article. The 'landmarks' section should be included within a section on 'culture', since many of these are actually cultural attractions. But such a section should also have information on the modern day characteristics of the culture as well, such as cultural events, annual fairs, and other things. Try also to avoid including complete excerpts from other sources, like in the 'world war II' section; the section is about 95% excerpt (at least the source was cited) and 5% original text introducing it. The 'geography' section is also an excellent example of the lack of broad coverage -- I think more can be said of the geography than one sentence! What geographical features are nearby? What's the climate like? What kind of neighborhoods are in town?

To give a better idea of everything that should go into an article about a city in the United States, I would recommend taking a look at WP:USCITY, which discusses the major sections and topics that should appear. There's also a wikiproject, WP:CITIES, which might also be helpful.

Hope this helps! Good luck! Dr. Cash (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stan iris moviep.jpg

Image:Stan iris moviep.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

War with Indians

A change from French and Indian War to King Phillips War was reverted on the grounds that KPW lacked an article. However, Metacom's Rebellion, about a hundred years earlier would have fit the time frame stated in the article, for which the FIW was far too late! King Philip is the usual spelling of the American Indian war leader, and King Philip's War (correctly spelled and punctuated) is the lk that was clearly intended, and in the absence of contrary documentation, clearly the accurate info. I've created another Rdr, but once i can find what the blacklisted lk obstructing my unrelated edit is, i'll bypass the rdr by correcting the spelling.
--Jerzy•t 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist

In an edit at 01:47, 16 March 2008 the site books.lulu.com was blacklisted for spam concerns. I remedied the inability to edit the accompanying article by removing a lk to one of the blacklisted site's pages. The system will prevent any edit that readds the lk, in the absence of measures discussed at the MediaWiki Extension:SpamBlacklist page.
--Jerzy•t 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Waterbury Family

Does anyone know if there is a connection between the Waterbury family (Who settled in the CT, MA area) and the town of Waterbury? I'm descended from the Waterburys, and I'm doing a report on my ancestors. Thanks. Thhhh (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Town historical sign

Does anyone here know where the town historical sign like the one here for Waterbury is located? Does it still exist? I've looked in the Green and in the vicinity of Library Park (the obvious places) but couldn't find it. Any information would be appreciated. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Polaron, now that you say it I dont think Waterbury has one of those signs. As a life long resident I've probably covered every square mile of this city and never seen one. I'll keep my eyes open, let me know how you make out. Good luck! Mossimo203 20:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I know the city as well as anyone and never saw such a sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.133.78 (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

An answer

Waterbury does have such a sign, as every one of the 169 towns in Connecticut recieved one in 1976. Apparently, one Thomas Fatone of Shelton has spent 12 years and has photographed ALL of them, finishing in May 2010. I find that interesting because two Stratford brothers did the same thing in the 1990s and published a small-run book on the subject as well (no, I don't have a copy nor do I recall the title). I personally do not know the answer for where the Waterbury sign is, but I'm willing to bet that the Waterbury library has a picture of the sign or has the town record for where the sign is located. Most (if not all) CT towns created some sort of "bicentennial record book" (or included it in their record for that year) when their sign was put up. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Another Answer

I would suggest that you write to the Phil Benevento the City Historian. He can be reached through the mayor's office, at 203 233 1775 or philbenjr@aol.com. MR2David 22:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MR2David (talk • contribs)

References

World War II

Under World War II, someone changed the referenced and quoted section from Ken Burns' documentary The War. These are quoted copyrighted words from the documentary, they cannot be edited and changed to reflect someones personal opinions or preferences. I changed it back to the original.Mossimo203 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like an awfully long quotation from a copyrighted source. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Boulder Dam location?

In the history section, second paragraph, the artical references the 'Boulder Dam' in Colorado. It would seem based on the link it would mean the Hoover Dam in AZ. Either the dam is incorrectly specified, or the location is simply in correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.150.23 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Boulder Dam was the original name of the Hoover Dam. I am thinking they ment to say that it is on the Colorado river not in the state of Colorado — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambirchfield1 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference currently states 'Boulder Dam in Nevada.' It should read 'Hoover Dam'. Because the bridge over the dam spans the state line, either Arizona or Nevada could be correct.

The reference to the Timexpo Museum leaves much to be desired. It mentions almost nothing about Scovill and Ingersoll. The timing mechanism on thousands of bombs dropped during WWII had Ingersoll timers, Timex watches came from the original Ingersoll, and the Timex museum is there, and because the explorer Thor Heyerdahl was a personal friend of Ingersoll, Heyerdahl's museum exhibits are there.MR2David (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Placement on Map

I noticed that Waterbury's location on the map of Connecticut is wrong--the placemarker is clearly in Litchfield County when it should be just over the line in New Haven County. I'm not sure how to fix that but I figured I would point it out. Rockfender (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

----Good find, I noticed this to, but don't know how to fix it.... Iepeulas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.212.119 (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The map seems to have been fixed. MR2David (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Karen West Pettit

An anonymous editor (3 IPs, only edit is to add this back in) seems to think that "Karen West Pettit, noted chef, international Charades champion, renowned kayaker" is somehow notable, though they keep citing only "WaterburyObserver.com". Please stop this silliness. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@Jimintheatl: This has been discussed before 5 years ago and we can discuss it again now if you would like. An online search of Karen Pettit reveals almost nothing of note whatsoever. While the criteria for qualifying as a 'notable person' in a Wiki article is arguably subjective, we need to be reasonable about this. Karen Pettit doesn't appear to be notable enough for much of anyone to publish any information regarding her exploits. That she may be mentioned very briefly in perhaps one obscure webpage does not qualify her as a "notable person" for the sake of this article.

To quote Wikipedia's guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

If we are honest in evaluating her against this standard, Karen Pettit simply doesn't qualify. —Jgcoleman (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I could not locate any mention, anywhere. I can find full lists of the history of the 1996 Olympic teams (here for example). Looking back at the article history, the description has changed from "renowned chef and adventurer" to "renowned chef, international Charades champion and survivalist" to "renowned chef, international Charades champion and famed pond/lake swimmer/kayaker", and finally to "member of the 1996 Olympic kayaking team", which would be a curious omission from the previous claims. This seems like simple childish vandalism at this point, and I've exhausted my good faith. I'm going to block Jimintheatl until he can explain himself. Kuru (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Metro New York?

I also grew up in Waterbury. Waterbury is a lot of things, it's possible that it's within commuter range, but it is not part of Metro New York. I checked the reference at city-data.com, which is owned by WABC New York. Waterbury and New York are, at best, 91 miles distant. This can hardly be called part of Metro anything. Particularly because it is across state lines and half a state away. I couldn't find any support for the claim that Waterbury is part of Metro New York. MR2David (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Waterbury is a part of the New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Areas (CSA), better know as the NY Metropolitan Area. Waterbury is also the last stop on the Metro North Railroad operated by the NY Metropolitan Transportation Authority. As a former commuter to the Bronx (which is part of NYC) I could attest to the fact that the mileage is 77 miles from Waterbury. Mossimo203 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossimo203 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Public safety departments

I have again reverted the tremendously over-detailed section on the fire department.

Please try to understand that this is a general article about the city, not a repository for any and all arcane facts about it.

Settlement articles are to be written to an audience including the entire English speaking world. They are not for the population of the community covered by it. Do you really think that Kumar in Bhopal or Mary in Memphis gives a hoot where the fire stations are or what rigs are parked where? 95% of the people in the world couldn't tell you what the difference between a fire truck and a fire engine is. I personally am a railfan, but I wouldn't expect to see the make and model of all the locomotives that switch the industries here, or a complete schedule of train times for the commuter and passenger trains.

I am going to go one step further and say that a public safety section is not appropriate at all, and the same would be true for most settlement articles. A good settlement article highlights what is different about the city. Every city has a police and fire department. In the few (very few) cases where those departments are notable, some of the arcane details could be included in the article about them, but it still has no place in the settlement article.

Actually, one of the few cases where a section on public safety would be appropriate is if for some reason the city did not have either a police or fire department, such as Kalamazoo, Michigan, which has a public safety department (when a fire alarm goes out, an engine operator pulls a rig from the firehouse and responds, as do the sector patrolmen, who pull up in the squad cars and change into their turnouts to fight the fire.), or Pontiac, Michigan (which has disbanded its fire department for economic reasons and contracts with a neighboring township for fire protection), or any of the numerous communities nationwide that contract police services to the local sheriff or a neighboring city.

It is of some bearing on this discussion to note that the city article guidelines do not mention a section on public safety at all. John from Idegon (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Admirable zeal

In their admirable zeal to shoehorn into this article every park bench, doorknob, roof gutter, notable speed can-opening champion and historical vacuum cleaner repair shop to be found in the city of Waterbury, its editors have barely spared a breath to consider the overall effect of its somewhat exuberant aspect. I fixed a couple of formatting tags whose absence or garbling or spurious appearance made the bulk of the article practically impossible to read ("Multicol end" was rendered as "multicos" etc.). Some knowledgable but also sober, disinterested person needs to take the time to bring some harmony and una poca de gracia to the source. Rt3368 (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

On excessive detail regarding Waterbury Industrial Commons

@BptKid:: I reverted your previous edit because, while accurate, it introduced a level of detail that was excessive for the context of this Wikipedia article. Things like the project manager, purchase price, CEO name and credentials, etc simply constitutes more detail than the typical reader would find relevant. In truth, everything of genuine relevance that needs to be said about Waterbury Industrial Commons could probably be condensed into two sentences that briefly describe the scope of the project with a completion date and perhaps job figures.

Also, you marked your edit (which added over 1,000 characters) as a "minor" edit. Please avoid erroneously categorizing large edits as minor, as this makes it more difficult to review edits. The "minor edit" classification is generally for things like fixing punctuation/typos or rephrasing a sentence. —Jgcoleman (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

Waterbury as Part of New England

@Magnolia677:With regard to your removal of New England as a subdivision in the infobox, I think we're both sort of correct here but approaching it from different angles. You're correct that "New England is not a subdivision of a local county", as you mentioned in your previous edit to the infobox. New England was certainly nested in the hierarchy incorrectly. However, that doesn't change the fact that New England is a valid (and relevant) region of the United States and consequently deserves a place as a subdivision here. Rather than removing New England altogether merely because it was out of the order, the better edit would be to simply rearrange the subdivisions so that New England nests appropriately in the hierarchy, which would mean moving it directly beneath United States. I was going to do as much, but ended up accidentally committing my edit too early before I had the opportunity to actually make my edits. —Jgcoleman (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jgcoleman: Although Template:Infobox settlement does allow "regions" to be added to this parameter, it is an awkward and seldom-used addition to an infobox. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:I would say that "New England" is probably about as perfect an example as any of what would constitute an infobox "region" subdivision, so it's entirely within guidelines. And, to be fair here, the assertion that including New England as a regional subdivision is "awkward" isn't based in any sort of objective measure, but is purely a matter of personal opinion. New England is not an obscure or inconsequential region of the US, as evidenced by the quite extensive article on the region here on Wikipedia. So my plan is to re-list it in the infobox, this time in the corrected position in the hierarchy, unless you have any other explicit objections. —Jgcoleman (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jgcoleman: Adding a local region to the infobox adds unnecessary cluter, and the purpose of an infobox is to provide key information: "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose", per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Moreover, "New England" is not an administrative region. New England does not make laws, run school boards, administer police or fire departments, collect taxes, and so forth. The "country...state...county...township" model used on nearly every US article provides key information most efficiently and without confusion to readers. I do not want a precedent set here, enabling other regions to appear in US city infoboxes such as Appalachia, Ark-La-Tex, Dixie, Old South, Tornado Alley and so forth. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It adds unneeded clutter to the infobox. Magnolia has stated well why. It doesn't belong. John from Idegon (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:No requirement is present that a regional subdivision be an administrative region. Your explanation is once again based entirely on your personal opinions and not on any actual adherence to the guidelines. And clutter, eh? A single line with a region that is significant enough to have a substantial article constitutes "clutter"? Look, your initial claim that New England "is not a 'subdivision', per Template:Infobox settlement' was simply incorrect, as regions are indeed acceptable in accordance with the template guidelines. But instead of simply conceding that you misread the guidelines, you've just dug your heels in with any number of further objections and created a moving target that I'm not going to sit here and chase. Very well, you get to strong-arm me on this one, I guess. Bravo. —Jgcoleman (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:On second thought, no... I'm going to remain firm on this and re-instate New England. I suggest you move for arbitration if you find that problematic. 'New England' is found as a subdivision on the articles for countless notable New England cities: Montpellier, VT; Boston, MA; Concord, NH; Hartford, CT; Springfield, MA; Providence, RI; Burlington, VT... to name only a few. Your claim that its "seldom-used" is baseless, though that hasn't stopped you from making it seem like it's seldom-used by systematically deleting these entries at every turn. For example, "New England" was present on Portland, ME; Bridgeport, CT; and New Haven, CT until it was recently removed by none other than yourself. I object to your unilateral decision that these long-standing, plentiful and sensible inclusions are suddenly to be deemed needless clutter. I will be editing this article accordingly. I suggest you cease similar activity on other New England city articles until this has been examined by more editors than just you and Mr. Idegon. —Jgcoleman (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

And I reverted you. Do not do that. Resolve it here. You've got two editors disagreeing with your position and no one supporting you. You SHOULD just drop the stick. However, if you choose not to, you will follow proper WP:DR procedures and restoring disputed content isn't part of that. It's ironic that you are calling out Magnolia for acting unilaterally, when it is clear you are. This content isn't sourced, and there is no consensus anywhere for its inclusion. John from Idegon (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

My edit followed entirely sufficient reasoning and was also backed up by precedent as can be found in the noted Wikipedia articles. My edit hardly constitutes an unsupported one-off. I have supplied valid reasoning and I will re-instate it. That two voices have appeared on this discussion making claims which I've demonstrated to be tenuous, at best, doesn't mean this matter is settled or that a 2:1 split means that you two are advocating for the more productive edit. Please refrain further edits that aren't constructive. —Jgcoleman (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• WP:OSE. Precedent is irrelevant. Wikipedia is full of clutter and useless newsy localist content. The article at hand is a prime example. Things get fixed when they get noticed. In this article's case, they've been noticed. John from Idegon (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• • As it is clear that you don't understand WP:DR, your next step is to post neutral notifications at the projects that follow this page. After that, WP:RFC. John from Idegon (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Clearly this change is contested. It should remain out, as the status quo, until (and if) a consensus is reached here to add it.

My opinion is that it does not add anything useful to the infobox, just as, for example, East Coast of the United States would not be a useful distinction. Country, state, county, metropolitan area is enough. Meters (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Fine then... let's break this down and fully examine it. I'll begin with your comment on precedent being "irrelevant", as you were content to generalize earlier. Because, to be fair, if you review the comments I was tasked with rebutting made by @Magnolia677:, his/her own arguments seemed ironically to hinge quite a bit on precedent as being very relevant. For example, the editor used the assertion that New England was a "seldom-used addition to an infobox" as justification for its removal... clearly just leveraging precendent by a different phrase. That editor went even further later on, stating that: "I do not want a precedent set here, enabling other regions to appear in US city infoboxes such as Appalachia, Ark-La-Tex, Dixie, Old South, Tornado Alley and so forth." So much for precedent being irrelevant, huh? This sort of double-standard in supposedly objective, unbiased discourse is where frustration and anger understandably take root.

Now, even though I believe it to ultimately be in vain, I will endeavor to submit point-by-point counter-argumentation for the laundry list of complaints leveraged against the simple inclusion of New England as a relevant subdivision in the infobox here.

1. The original claim made at the time of deletion was merely that 'New England is not a "subdivision"'... a claim which clearly reflected a lack of familiarity with infobox guidelines, as they explicitly permit the inclusion of regions. Imagine my surprise when, upon pointing out this misstep and presuming an amicable agreement would be reached afterwards, I found myself suddenly defending against several more unrelated arguments against its inclusion. Forgive me if I couldn't have foreseen the trajectory this edit would travel, so very far astray of its original stated intent. Maybe the editor should've launched a talk discussion first if he/she had such extensive issues with it. (Note also that said editor really shouldn't be unilaterally and systematically stripping all mentions of New England from infoboxes on various New England city articles without first offering it up for a broader, holistic discussion.)
2. Adding New England as a region is "awkward". Perhaps this argument might be of consequence if there was something blatantly and undeniably peculiar at play here. But that clearly isn't the case in this instance. The assertion that including New England as the containing region is awkward -in fact, awkward to such an extent that it necessitates exclusion- is truly a hyperbolic non-argument which serves merely to inject fluff into what should be a focused, facts-driven discussion.
3. Adding New England introduces unnecessary clutter in the infobox. A really quite bewildering claim given that the infobox mentions such arguably minor technical details (arguably clutter) as major highways, commuter rail, area codes, zip codes and elevation figures... to name only some. That we would single out a one-line mention of a Waterbury's major containing region and condemn it as 'clutter' in this context is an assertion that's honestly tough to even take seriously. That's why it's all the more frustrating that this is being accepted out-of-hand by a couple of you, as if it's a bullet-proof argument. Plainly astonishing.
4. "New England" is not an administrative region. Entirely irrelevant. The infobox subdivision guidelines do not explicitly state that the region subdivision category is intended for administrative regions, nor does it so much as even imply that to be the case in the least bit. A non-argument.
5. The "country...state...county...township" model is used on nearly every US article. And yet, isn't it ironic that editors here are leveraging pure precedent as justification when it suits their opinion, but dismissing precedent when it doesn't. Again, a delightful double standard.
6. And for the record, in the way of precedent, numerous New England cities of note include New England as a subdivision in the their infobox: Montpellier, Boston, Concord, Hartford, Springfield, Providence, Burlington... the list is likely substantial, though I can't possibly look up every instance. Point being: I'm hardly the only editor that has seen fit to use the infobox in this manner for New England cities, so the sundry assertions to the tune that "this just isn't really how people use infoboxes" is not accurate with respect to the particulars here and not a legitimate justification for removal of New England.
7. Appalachia, Ark-La-Tex, Dixie, Old South, Tornado Alley don't belong... why should New England?. This is a poor attempt to analogize New England with other regions that are simply not of the same nature. Most of these examples aren't as well-defined as New England (being hazy topographical or climatic areas instead), don't have the same broad modern usage or don't match the same strict congruence with state political boundaries as New England. It's just not the same; I don't really know how else to say it.
8. Adding New England is no more meaningful than adding East Coast of the United States. On the contrary, New England is a deeply-rooted and well-defined region of the United States with provenance and regional identity that is significantly more meaningful than a mere broad directional/geographic description of a part of the US landmass. This argument represents an entirely false equivalency.

So there you have it. Frankly, that I would even have to write this much out just to advocate for including a legitimate, widely recognized, containing region for this city within its infobox in a slot designed explicitly with regions in mind is really pretty appalling and a testament to the phenomenon of 'boredom editing' spiraling off in truly unproductive directions for no worthwhile reason.

I've said my piece now. The ad hoc consensus which has been hastily cobbled together here in spite of my arguments will invariably prevail, even if isn't coherent within itself and doesn't hold water, but at least I've laid the case bare for the record. I'll be able to be content with that. Carry on.

—Jgcoleman (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: @Magnolia677: @MattCHB: @Stefan01902: . Thank you all for your comments surrounding this issue. I would like to continue this discussion around regions in infoboxes rather than keep having a situation where there are constant edits, reverts, etc.

In terms of the argument that the line is unnecessary clutter I don't really follow that line of reasoning since it is such a minor addition, being one line in an infobox.

New England in particular is not a frivolous addition since it describes a well defined and referenced historical/cultural/geographical region. The argument that “East Coast” does not add anything to the article under “Region” I agree with. Adding something so broad as that does not add any context or meaningful information to the article. This is a regional designation with a complex and deep history. I understand the arguments that adding regions such as “Tornado Alley” is unnecessary, however a region such as New England is more explanative in the sense it is not a colloquialism. New England has unique cultural, political and administrative aspects not usually found in other regions of the US (a shared cultural history and common systems of government, the New England town structure of Selectmen and Open Town Meetings for example).

As I and other editors have said on this page and on others the inclusion of "Region" in the infobox section provides readers with geographical/cultural context to a city/town. I understand that New England is not an administrative region, however the infobox template does not explicitly bar the inclusion of non-administrative subdivisions. I would not like to accuse other editors, especially ones who are experienced and knowledgeable, of deleting additions based on personal stylistic reasoning. My issue is since these edits are not out of line with the template, and not frivolous or uninformative, they should be kept.

In terms of formatting issues with the "Country...State...County...Township" model and “Region” being added at the end I understand the issues raised. If that is the center of the issue I and others have expressed willingness to move these up in the list. If the problem is that it does not fit because unlike the other subdivisions it is not administrative then I don't see why it can't be kept at the end of the list.

Infoboxes are helpful because they provide a compact guide for information on a subject. Whether it be demographic information, historical information, or political information. The addition of a geographical/historical/cultural region such as New England I feel is in line with the role of an infobox. Tpwissaa (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The name Waterbury

Is it possible that the name Waterbury is more likely from the Waterbury surname; a prominent early American family. And a politician in New York. Also there is a Waterbury, New York. I think the name being attributed to the streams of Water is more likely a popular mythology? Avrahum Weisman (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to develop the content of the article. Until you provide reliable secondary sources, there's nothing to talk about. John from Idegon (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)