Jump to content

Talk:Willimantic, Connecticut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeWillimantic, Connecticut was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 4, 2017Peer reviewReviewed
June 5, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
May 7, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

battle of the frogs

[edit]

I read the part of the article on the legend of the frog fight and realized it is actually historically innaccurate. The battle of the frogs legend did not even take place in Willimantic, but in Windham Center, at frog pond, which is located near route 14 heading towards Scotland. I just saw that it said the frogs were heading toward the Willimantic River, when that is not true. I would reccomeend deleting the battle of the frogs story from the Willimantic page and swithcing it to the Windham page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.187.188 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's seven years late, but most of what you said is true, and has been fixed. If you want to, a page has been created for the bridge, the Frog Bridge.— JJBers|talk 04:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frogs

[edit]

Without having much wish to dive into the battles of frogs, may I note that the external link in the text to the "frog bridge" now points to a page saying that the page has moved. I don't have as much familiarity with Connecticut as I ought and the task of finding the correct link is, at present, beyond my resources. Pete 00:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, that Kurumi site has this sort of thing. grendel|khan 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroin Town

[edit]

Someone deleted the section on Willimantic's heroin trade last November, which apparently slipped under the radar. I've re-added it, this time with footnotes. If someone wants to argue for the section's deletion, please do so here on the talk page rather than just deleting it again. grendel|khan 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

The history section is going under the knife at the hands of unregistered users with very little comment or justification provided...is there some reason for this? A lot of this information (about all the railroads, for example) is really great and really specific, so I get the feeling that whoever is adding it has access to some historical records. Could we please cite this stuff so it can stay in the article? Statements like "This was the beginning of industrialized Willimantic" cannot remain in an article without a citation. Mjl0509 (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notable residents

[edit]

There's been mean battling about notable residents of the town, in which experienced editors "protect" their entries in the list but delete new editors' additions, perhaps because the new ones are not adequately supported. But NO entries were adequately supported, so i have now removed them all. Please don't add back any to the article without a proper Reliable Source attesting to the person's association with Willimantic. The removed items are:

--doncram 22:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Polaron. Please don't be a jerk (to others, the strength of my statement is reflecting a lot of past history with this editor). Please discuss the issue here in a way that others can enter into conveniently. Please do not battle for your preferences about supposedly notable persons, merely by reversions and statements in edit summaries. It is not fair to other/new editors, that you should impose your control over this article to include what you want, without support within this article, while their additions should not be included. I will revert your adding other items to this article now, and, depending on how you respond, I will escalate this appropriately, including perhaps asking again that you be blocked from editing. Your peremptory edits in this and other Connecticut articles constitute edit-warring, unfairly affecting many other editors, in my view.
I did see your assertion in edit summary that some association with the town is mentioned in the other articles. Assuming those statements elsewhere are supported by references, then there is a way forward for you: you may add specific references supporting the items into this article. However, I don't think it is useful to have mostly non-encyclopedic claims about residents, especially unsupported ones, in this article.
Or, if you can get a substantial consensus of editors here, saying they want for there to be unsupported claims in this article, then I will myself back off. If you wish to try for such a consensus, you are welcome to make an objective announcement at Connecticut Wikiproject or elsewhere to attract attention. If you do make such announcements, please note that here. --doncram 16:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, this has pretty much been the standard for all place articles. If you want the current practice changed, this should be a policy-type discussion not picking articles that I happen to revert additions of redlinks to. This section is meant as an easy link to other existing Wikipedia articles. You seem to imply that that I am protecting my entries. None of these entries are my additions. I only delete ones added that have no article. --Polaron | Talk 18:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did raise this as a broader policy-type question, already, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut#vandalism-reversion and other management of Connecticut articles and its subsections specifically about notable natives sections of Connecticut articles. I have gradually been applying the suggestion I made there to more Connecticut articles' notable natives sections, where I see edit warring going on. Sure, let's discuss the broader question at the policy discussion there, instead of specifically here. About the Willimantic persons, however, please do consider their relevance to this article to be challenged. I don't care if the linked articles mention Willimantic or not, though that is good/better than if they did not. That is not a workable criteria for managing the info in this article. What is visible here is that the former entries here had no support here. That suggests to new editors that unsupported info is accepted. Your unexplained removals of their contributions comes across as confusing and mean, I believe. I believe that only allowing supported information is the best policy. You could set an example here by providing supported items. But if you want to just battle other editors adding equivalents to what you protect (whether you added them originally or not), then I for one don't want your "contributions" here or in other Connecticut town articles. (To others again, sorry about the harsh tone directed at Polaron, with whom I have too long experience.) --doncram 18:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, no matter what your history with any editor, I might suggest that the phrase "please don't be a jerk" never has a place anywhere on WP. As to the list, Polaron is correct. These are all notable people (they have articles) and their articles all document the Willimantic connection. If there is reason to believe the Willimantic connection is inaccurate it should be removed first from the subject's article and then here. Polaron did remove one redlink, which is also correct as we don't know if that person is notable or has a Willimantic connection. I've restored the rest. Station1 (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dodd may have born here but was never a "resident".--24.177.0.156 (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Willimantic exist?

[edit]

As someone who has lived in Willimantic for upwards of 40 years, I'm surprised when other long-time residents claim that because of consolidation in the 80s, Willimantic no longer exists. I say it's on every map, has a mayor, police force, fire department, and a public library, and that their position is like saying that Brooklyn, NY, does not exist since it was incorporated into New York City about a century ago. Of course, the situation is maybe more complicated in the case of Willimantic. The Wikipedia classifies Willimantic as "a census designated place" and also as a "village" in the town of Windham. Neither of these designations is very helpful. A village with a university, a hospital, a symphony orchestra, a theatre, dozens of churches, three of them Catholic, a community college, half a dozen schools, including a magnet school for the performing arts? Some village! Though the designation may be legally accurate, neither residents or visitors would think of Willimantic as a village. The designation Windham is also a problem because it is a town (meaning a township in Connecticut) and also a county, which some will tell you also no longer exists, though it's on all the maps. Though it may not be so legally, everyone thinks of Willimantic as a city with outlying villages all in the town(ship) of Windham. What I find especially irritating is the characterization of Windham/ Willimantic assumed by journalists in Hartford who apparently never have been here. Willimantic is not a shabby, derelict crime- and gang-ridden slum, but a vibrant city known for its historic Victorian architecture, as the Wikipedia article suggests. Jim Lacey (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locally, Willimantic is known as Willi. Wikipedia.doug (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how late I am, but Willimantic is a borough, it exists in a form only found in Danielson, Connecticut in the county. This means that it is technically part of Windham, but has it's own systems. Also, Storrs, Connecticut, a major college town, is just a CDP...of a course with the university, it has basically what you said. Then about the town of Windham, it exists, many towns are located in counties with the same name, just look at Tolland, or New London, or even Hartford, and so on. Also Willi is a local name only used in the immediate area, it loses it use barely as far as Brooklyn or Bolton.— JJBers|talk 04:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JJBers where are your citations that Willimantic is a borough? In my research, I have not been able to find any sources that say Willimantic is incorporated as a borough. In fact-- I've found the opposite. If you visit http://www.ct.gov/dmv/lib/dmv/CT_DOT_OSOW_-_Town_Borough_Village_Listing.pdf, Willimantic is listed as only an unincorporated village, not a borough. Additionally-- the US Census lists Willimantic as a census-designated place and not a borough. If there are no sources that indicate Willimantic is a borough, it should not be listed as such on Wikipedia.— Bkotos 20:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This will need some clearing up. I added a historic source showing that it was a borough in the 1800s, but this may no longer be correct. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willimantic Footbridge

[edit]

The Anne Street pedestrian bridge in Minot, North Dakota crosses a road, several railroad tracks, a river, and a pedestrian trail. The section about it being the only footbridge that goes over a road, a railroad track, and a river. Bugo 01:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

But it's way more notable, and is in the National Register of Historic Places, which has a lot of places, but it does require a large amount of history behind it to be in. Also the bridge you mentioned has very little info.— JJBers|talk 04:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Willimantic, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Willimantic, Connecticut. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Willimantic, Connecticut. 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:

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) 06:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for GA.

[edit]

Noticing that the peer review found no issues and suggested the article was GA-ready as of last year, I've explicitly nominated it. grendel|khan 00:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Willimantic, Connecticut/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 01:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead and infobox summary of population gives a different number (for a different year) than the "demographics" section. The Windham Textile and History Museum is mentioned in the lead but nowhere else. The lead should summarize the content, not provide new information.
  • Name section is entirely unsourced
  • Early history section is almost entirely unsourced. The first sourced claim in the paragraph, "was the first in the world to use electric lighting", appears to copy the same wording as its source.
  • First paragraph of city history is entirely unsourced.
  • The last paragraph of later history is sourced to promotional web sites seeking donations rather than reliable sources, and writes about projects proposed but not built several years ago as if they are still happening.
  • The gallery section violates WP:NOTGALLERY
  • Most of the demographics section is unsourced.
  • Much of the notable places section is unsourced, and many entries such as the prospect hill one are promotionally worded.
  • In the notable events section, some text appears to be both highly promotional and copied directly from willimanticstreetfest.com
  • Infrastructure section is almost entirely unsourced and looks more like an outline for an article than an article.
  • Media section is again unsourced and outline-like.
  • The notable people section is completely unsourced and includes at least one WP:BLP violation (a redlinked claim of someone modeling for Playboy with no source).
  • In the references section, several references are either bare urls or have so little description of the reference that they might as well be bare urls. At least one appears to be an open forum, not allowed as a reference.

I conclude that this is very far from meeting the reliable sourcing (criterion 2) and neutrality (criterion 4) conditions for good articles, and has significant problems in other areas as well. As such it meets WP:GACR quick fail criterion 1, "It is a long way from meeting any one [in this case two] of the six good article criteria." —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your time and effort! This is an excellent worklist, and I'll see what I can do to address it! grendel|khan 05:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the issues raised, and started a new nomination. (Diffs here). grendel|khan 01:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A not-very-encyclopedic thought.

[edit]

While revising the article in the hopes of getting it through the GA process (great big diff here), something struck me. In the late nineteenth century, Willimantic was a mighty crossroads--three major rail lines ran through it, and the Hotel Hooker was the jewel of eastern Connecticut. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the highway network--the modern equivalent of the railroads--doesn't come within ten miles of the town, and the Hotel Hooker was primarily known for heroin and prostitution. It's striking just how the wheel can turn. I can't make that sound encyclopedic, but it jumped out at me and I wanted to write it down somewhere. grendel|khan 04:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US 6 is a alright highway to get around. I do wish I-84 was completed to Providence, but I guess you can't get everything. —JJBers 17:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas for improvements.

[edit]

Just so this is written down somewhere outside of my own notes, here's my current set of ideas for what to do with the article.

  • The 'History' section is over-large, and contains subheads, which the guidelines say is a bad sign. Move the details out into the rest of the article, especially the economy section. (Who are the top employers, exactly? Here's a county-level list, but it's semi-anonymized.)
  • When did the Hotel Hooker close, exactly? I'm still waiting on my newspaper archive library card to activate to figure this out.
  • {{Infobox UCR}} seems useful; some of the history section could move into a new 'Crime' heading.
  • Compare the school district to the rest of the state in some contextualized way. (Some rankings here, but maybe this isn't the right way to go about it?)
  • Add a section on parks: Memorial Park, Rec Park (Windham Recreation Park), Lauter Park (is Whittemore Park a real thing?), Jillson Square, Guild Field and maybe the baseball fields at the American Legion--are those public?
  • Add a map of the city; maybe something sourced from OpenStreetMap? Most city articles don't have city maps, but I think delineating the major roads, the rail lines, the river, the major landmarks, would really help illustrate what the article's talking about.

grendel|khan 05:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got the top employers.
  • Windham Hospital
  • Willimantic Waste Paper
  • United Services
  • Hampton Products
  • General Cable
Secondly, I might start on the park writing sometime this week. (Don't hold me on that) And lastly, I'll add in a map. —JJBers 02:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Willimantic, Connecticut/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bolter21 (talk · contribs) 12:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Possible copyright violations:
    • From the article:In 1983, the city and the town consolidated and became one town again. This sentence is entirely copied from the source. Should be rephrased.
    • Article: "...vintage railroad buildings and a six-stall roundhouse reconstructed on the original foundation." original source: "...as well as vintage railroad buildings and a six-stall roundhouse reconstructed on the original foundation."
  • Some topics I think the readers would want to know are:
    • The natives who lived here before.
    • When exactly was Willimantic established? The first thing we learn about Willimantic is that it was industrialized in the 1820s and incorporated as a borough in 1830. What about its establishment? First settlers? Early struggles? Reason to settle there in the first place? Who owned the land? Early industries? Agriculture? It seems like a huge gap and the answers are probably found in the sources above.
    • Some more information about the industries between 1898 and 1985?
    • History of the education system in the city?
  • The Economy section should be merged with the History, as it is quite small and is mostly historic, maybe as a subsection.
  • The paragraph about the Willimantic Food Co-op seems rather unnecessary. I don't see how "Willimantic is home to the only storefront food cooperative in the state" is sourced, and the only source whatsoever is the website of that store, so saying it is a "point of interest" is a problem, unless better sources are found.
  • Willimantic is the home of the Willimantic Footbridge. Built in 1907, it is the only footbridge in the United States to connect two state highways, as well as crossing all three major forms of transportation: road, rail, and river. where is the source for this?

This is my initial review, when these points are met, we could go further, but as I see it, the lack of information along with unsourced material and copyvios are the main problems.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

[edit]

Bolter21, it's been over two months since your review and nominator Grendelkhan's last Wikipedia edit was two days before said review, on January 24. I pinged their talk page on February 19, and there has been no response. At this point, given the significant issues with the nomination, the thing to do is probably to close it. You've been more than generous, letting it run all this time. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the nominator has halted his wikipedia activity completely. I hope he is doing ok. As for this nomination, we are already in May, so it is safe to close this nomination.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 06:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then, I'll close it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Willimantic,_Connecticut&oldid=1212345598"