Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut. 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

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

For 2011 WikiProject Connecticut talk.

Connecticut communities topics

There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Connecticut former or current commmunities, villages, town centers or other locations/areas which lack articles. These are listed here in this Connecticut's Principal Communities list, this list of Post Office locations, or this list of Old towns, villages, and districts with no post office, and perhaps even some in this list of Towns and Boroughs having elections

An editor has redirected many of these titles to NRHP-listed historic district (HD) articles, which seems inappropriate to me. The NRHP HD articles sometimes do not at all mention or describe these past or current communities. The usual purpose of the NRHP historic district article is to describe the large-scale historic museum, so to speak, that a collection of houses and barns and other large-scale artifacts make. Not to describe the older history of a village which predated all of the 1800s buildings now in the district. Not to describe current residents or high schools or fire stations or other matters of current importance.

Sometimes these communities are listed in a "Neighborhoods" section of a town article, and they all could be named in such sections. It seems better to me either to create an article on the community, or temporarily redirect to such a section (to show them in a list of districts, and to convey this is a community within X town, and it doesn't yet have an article). Rather than to redirect to a NRHP historic district, as if argumentatively asserting that the NRHP HD article could/should be changed to be about the past or present community.

Disclosure: I was involved in a long mediated process with that editor, involving hundreds of NRHP historic districts, stemming from his edit warring towards forcing mergers of NRHP HDs to communities. It was painfully established that the NRHP historic districts are not the same as the villages/communities. The result of the mediation was that NRHP HDs were upheld as separate topics, and the editor was stopped from redirecting NRHP HDs to the villages/communities. About a year has gone by, and happily many/most of the NRHP HD articles are now well-established. This now is about the flip side, where he has proceeded to redirect villages/communities to NRHP HDs, and signs are that he will edit war to force those redirects rather than allowing them to be redirected to town lists of neighborhoods/districts.

I wonder, can editors here comment about whether they would like to allow for Connecticut principal communities articles to be created, or can those topics only be discussed within a NRHP HD articles (where, frankly, they will not be discussed, because the NRHP HD article is about something else)? Help framing a question suited for a wikipedia-wide RFC would also be appreciated. --doncram (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This relates, currently, to newly created redirects Somers Center and Downtown Waterbury ~~in CT and to North Dennis, Massachusetts~~. It relates to dozens if not hundreds of other inappropriate-in-my-view redirects in Connecticut. --doncram (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This relates to:

where i started stub articles to replace redirects. The editor, who i asked to discuss here, has instead redirected them all, in edit warring mode. I am just documenting this at the moment, and expect that, given the editor's history, that addressing the behavioral issue will require higher level interventions. This editor traditionally provides no evidence and prefers to communicate by redirects and dismissive edit summaries, rather than discussing. Perhaps he will deign to comment briskly here, or maybe not.

There remains the general question of whether community articles or redirects to lists of communities will be allowed, if there exists an NRHP HD article covering anything in the area. Also there remains general need to start articles for any missing CT principal communities. --doncram (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Before this turns into the usual "revert fest", how about we agree to leave EVERYTHING status quo regarding this point for now? No new articles, no redirects et al until we have a consenus or at least talking points?

Also, please provide a link so that we can all read about this mediation. No need to reinvent the wheel! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the "Mediation" that Doncram refers to includes the discussions at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list, Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut/Archive 3, Talk:Poquetanuck (including Talk:Poquetanuck/Archive 1), and several other talk pages. I don't necessarily recall that these discussions led to the conclusion that Doncram describes above, but my memory may be flawed. Regardless, considering the age, complexity, length, and acrimony of the earlier discussions, I think it would be unproductive at this point to attempt to use the earlier discussions as a basis for new discussion. Instead, I suggest beginning de novo discussion of the above items, . --Orlady (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment: Let's keep the subdivisions of Dennis, Massachusetts out of this discussion. Not only is it a different state, but the "source" for the existence of North Dennis as a village separate from Dennis seems to have been original research by a user who has strong views on Cape Cod geography. --Orlady (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for any special mediation links to be provided before commenting fully, but at first glance it would make the most sense to me to have the Connecticut villages articles redirect to the article on the appropriate town, except for particularly notable villages such as Mystic, Connecticut. It doesn't sound like the historic districts are the best redirect targets. –Grondemar 14:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue with the redirects. If one reads the nomination forms for the historic districts, it is quite clear it is talking about the settlements in question. If one were to fully develop the historic district article, that would essentially be all the encyclopedic information about most of these localities. Is there sufficient distinct encyclopedic information to make a stand-alone village article for these? If someone makes a sufficiently distinct article with substantial information different from what the historic district scope is, then we can split off. Until then, there will likely be more useful information in the historic district article. Remember that the historic district exists only because the village/neighborhood developed. Develope the non-overlapping content first to a sufficient degree before you split them off. As of now, there is not sufficient distinct content to warrant a split. --Polaron | Talk 16:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna disagree with almost everything Polaron claims.

On a point of order, the request to keep some status quo and not to edit war should clearly apply to Polaron as well. In recent edits since those requests were made, Polaron edited at relatively new dab page Spring Hill, Connecticut and at new article Spring Hill, Mansfield, Connecticut, where he had not previously edited, to implement his view. I have not returned to undo Polaron's argumentative redirects that i first mentioned in this discussion. He should not proceed to edit war by reverting/attacking in these other articles. I am now reverting those changes he made on those 2 articles, to return to a kind of status quo.

I will agree that it is not necessary to have stub articles about the villages/communities, if the redirect from their names is deleted. Or if the redirect is switched to point to the Town article which has a Neighborhoods/Communities section that lists the names in context.

A charitable interpretation of a lot of Polaron's past redirects, is that he has "misunderstood" the role of redlinks in Wikipedia articles. He went on a campaign to convert redlinks for NRHP HDs listed in the NRHP county list-articles of CT, to convert them to redirects to towns or village articles. In about 8 big RFDs on batches of these, most of them were dropped, because redlinks are in fact wanted in Wikipedia, are part of how it grows. In a the long mediated process which Orlady provides some links for, ALL the NRHP HDs in Connecticut were discussed specifically, and decision to create merged articles was agreed to in relatively few cases. For the majority of cases, Polaron and Orlady and I agreed to the validity of the NRHP HD topic being a separate topic.

This is about the flip side, where Polaron now sets up and defends redirects from village/community topics to NRHP HDs. I don't see why. Polaron's blanket assertion above that they are always the same, is bunk, which has been proven many times over in Connecticut already. I think in fact it has already been agreed by Polaron and Orlady in these specific cases that these are different. The topics should be redirects to town articles' neighborhood lists. Or better they should be deleted, allowing for the NRHP HD articles and for the town articles to properly show redlinks, indicating that there is a probably Wikipedia-notable topic lacking an article.

It is inappropriate to make redirects from valid wikipedia topics to NRHP HD articles not on the topic, which themselves need to link to those other topics. It is especially wrong to create hundreds of such redirects, and to camp out on them with extreme wp:OWN ownership. --doncram (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Some others are:

I noticed these while reviewing Category:Neighborhoods in Connecticut just now. Each is about an NRHP-listed historic district, not a neighborhood, and i removed the neighborhood category. The presence of a neighborhood category probably indicated someone wanted it to be about a larger or smaller neighborhood, and there are probably redirects from the neighborhood names. --Doncram (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. all of those historic district articles do in fact have inbound redirects from community names not addressed in the articles. --Doncram (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: I notice editor Polaron is continuing, with some frequency, to expand the issue. For example by creating redirect Haddam Center to the Haddam Center Historic District article that i recently started, an article that does not show Haddam Center as an alternative name or otherwise seek to cover the whole community. I'm going to redirect Haddam Center to Haddam, Connecticut now. I presume Polaron will re-redirect it. Could other editors please reverse him on that, or otherwise comment. Polaron, could you comment in this discussion here, and stop with creating redirects that are like this. In the past, Polaron greatly escalated the Connecticut Nrhp articles vs. towns issue under active discussion (the flip side of this discussion) by creating many more redirects. It hugely magnified the issue and what it cost to address it, by the focus of many editors, which was mostly resolved by removing the redirects. I object to the creation of new redirects, as expanding the issue in the vein of making a grander battleground. --Doncram (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, what is the issue with that particular redirect. It is quite clear that the NRHP nomination form (these appear to be the only authoritative sources in your view) freely interchanges the two terms. Let's discuss content and not blindly revert me. --Polaron | Talk 20:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I object to the mindless assertions by redirects and by bland Talk page assertions like that, after hundreds of similar discussions have been resolved establishing that NRHP historic districts are usually not the same as a town/village/neighborhood/avenue/whatever. In this case, quick glance at the NRHP doc shows it is about a 2.5 mile long linear district which happens to run through Haddam Center. Offhand i don't believe Haddam Center refers to the whole long distance, and the historic district article should be allowed to develop, like a museum article, to describe the particular collection of architecture and history that it represents. The article does not mention Haddam Center or attempt to describe it, so that should suffice to say that a redirect would be unwelcome. The redirect plus Polaron's sitting on that on his watchlist and promising to revert all takers, is the problem. It appears, offhand, that this is another case where Polaron, who frequently asserts he never makes mistakes (or at least not deliberately, or at least not in mainspace and deliberately, or with some other lame qualification), is mistaken.

This can be dealt with by an RFD on the specific item, which takes many edits and 30 days and many editors' involvement. Or it can be dealt with by redirecting to the town article (which i implemented). Or it can be dealt with by creating a minimal stub article at Haddam Center, Connecticut and battling Polaron for that to be kept alive as a valid separate topic. I would like to !Vote for Polaron to be stopped from creating these, instead. --Doncram (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You ask me to discuss and rather than look into the substantial matter, you just go and continue with your personal attacks against me. Your belief about Haddam Center is not what matters but what the NRHP nomination form says. If it doesn't distinguish the two entities, why should we? --Polaron | Talk 20:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You mildly surprise me by your not immediately reverting, and by your discussing here. Thanks for that. But, I don't think you are an innocent newbie who needs any charity. You are the most hardened edit warrior i know of, and you have stomped on hundreds of new editors arriving at Connecticut articles, and driven them away from Wikipedia by your own unexplained or terse reversions of their contributions of probably-valid-but-just-not-yet-perfectly-supported information.

I am cumulatively bored by the mindless battling. Note, Haddam Center Historic District was redirected to Haddam, Connecticut by Polaron in the long-ago past, and that redirect was eventually deleted as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 17 discussion on various Middlesex County redirects. The closing editor there commented like other closing editors in other batches of these, that the redirects should be deleted and redlinks should be allowed and support the creation of articles. Eventually i get around to creating the article, then it is tiresome to face new redirect battling, which is argumentatively implying that Haddam Center, Connecticut is not a valid topic and/or that it must be discussed in an HD article. Which we know can include a lot of detail and be completely different than a village-type article. The intelligence reflected in Polaron's redirects has been, well, lacking. It is best to just delete them all without further discussion. Polaron has had years of doing this, mindlessly, and eventually my mind is pretty closed to believing he might finally be applying some intelligence and actually sharing sources.

In this new case, it seems the NRHP document DOES NOT support equating Haddam Center with the Haddam Center Historic District, by my reading. It seems it is about a long district that includes Haddam Center area plus a Wakefield(?) Hill area and various other areas. Even if it was about the same geographic area, it is a different topic, as has been established for many other cases.

Maybe Polaron has some other source; in other cases he has actually turned out to have another source, but he won't reveal that until he has to. Here, since your first source does not support what you say, do you want to share a partial tidbit of some other information? Please don't shock me by actually fully and promptly sharing a link to your other source, if it exists. Better to withhold and stretch out the battling, and to eventually "win" by proving me wrong if i make a misstatement. --Doncram (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, the Walkley Hill you refer to is an actual physical hill, not a populated place name of any sort. Haddam Center is indeed a linear village as it is constrained by geography. The nomination form does refer to a Walkley Hill section, which has a somewhat different character as that part was bypassed by the construction of the original New England Route 10 in the 1930s and is not as developed as the part of the district on Saybrook Road (which is on the state highway). The entire thing is called Haddam Center, however. It is quite clear from the nomination form that there is no distinction between the populated place known as Haddam Center and the historic district. --Polaron | Talk 00:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

'Tis not! :) Whatever. The point of this discussion thread was towards creating articles on Connecticut villages and other valid community topics, which is not for one editor to decide. --Doncram (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So, what's the resolution here then? Is it the case that under no circumstance can a populated place article be merged with historic district article? Nobody has really discussed the substantive points unique to each case. As I mentioned above, in the absence of substantial, distinct content, a merged article will provide a more whole picture of the topic. We can always split when future editors have written a lengthy enough content on the difference. --Polaron | Talk 02:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think redirects from valid topics to other articles which don't directly discuss that topic, hurt rather than help, because they confuse matters. Redlinks make the correct suggestion that an article is needed. Polaron, you have over time identified many valid topics for Connecticut articles. Could you add to some list of Articles needed, instead? In fact any Articles needed list would be messed up by the redirects, because it would show bluelinks for the topics you have visited. A rule of thumb that i propose is: a redirect should not be created unless the target article shows, in bold, the topic name, as being covered there. The coverage there should be stable, too; there should be some consensus of editors, or at least no opposition, that the target article can properly cover that topic. In many CT articles that are targets of redirects, the article should naturally include an outbound link out to the topic. However adding such outbound links is weird when the link redirects back to the same article. So we need to clear out the redirects and stop creating more. Per wp:REDLINKS, "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."

Starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Connecticut communities now to begin to list out the CT communities with and without articles, and needing articles or needing renames. A next step will be a big RFD to clean out the tangle of redirects obscuring what needs to be done. --Doncram (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

From the first 10 or so, it looks like there are a lot of articles needed for "Principal Communities" as determined by the state of Connecticut! Help needed developing out this workpage list. --Doncram (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

None of the first 8 principal communities have articles, as far as i can tell. Tentative proposal, based on first 8 principal communities somewhat analysed:

1. Delete 4 associate redirects Abington, Connecticut, Allingtown, Connecticut, Allingtown, Amston, Connecticut.

2. Add redlinks for Abington, Connecticut, and other 7, from town articles Pomfret, Connecticut, etc.

3. Revise corresponding dab pages Abington, Addison, Allentown, etc. to include the same redlinks, with properly supporting bluelinks using the town articles (complying with MOS:DABRL subpart of MOSDAB guideline).

4a. With redlinks in place, in time Connecticut editors will find their way to creating these articles. With the dab entries in place, Connecticut articles can acquire proper links to the topics by any disambiguation editor clearing dablinks.

4b. Or we could just start minimal stub articles on the principal communities, using the state page as a reference.

Comments welcome. --Doncram (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make content-less one-liner stubs that are better suited for list articles or discussed as part of the town article. Not all of these places have substantial content to deserve their own stand-alone articles, you know. Redirects of subtown locality names to town articles are actually pretty common, at least in New England. If you can make a substantial article, sure, split them out. But otherwise, leave the redirects. --Polaron | Talk 21:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So Polaron would prefer 4a rather than 4b, unless or until someone is going to create more than the most minimal stub. You can have that view, though policy is that stubs are welcome. I happen to think it would be useful now to start an article at Abington, Connecticut already, based on the state listing as a principal community and on some quick Google searching, and then i think it would acquire more substance over time. Any of these places is historical and has many references, at least off-line. I do think that creating redirects or leaving these ones in place is argumentative (suggesting that there cannot be an article at the topic) and is without justification by any sources; Polaron's past practices are to "enforce" the redirects, i.e. immediately to combat any editor beginning anything. The redirect serve no purpose but to support that argumentative stance. The redirects do not serve readers. Without the redirects, readers searching on Abington would easily find their way to the Pomfret article which mentions it, and also to other mentions like at Abington Congregational Church. With the redirects, they are unfortunately channeled to just one article that does not actually describe the place properly. The redirects do not serve interested new Connecticut editors who might add info. Talk pages for such articles are the proper places to allow for identification of sources and development to come into the mainspace articles, but redirecting disallows the Talk to get started. So i don't care so much about choosing 4a vs. 4b in any one case, but I think the redirects should go. --Doncram (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And what is so bad about discussing the village in the context of the town. If all you have in your substub article is stating that it is a village in such and such town. It is no better than adding a blurb about it in the town article. As I said, if you can make a substantial article, go ahead and make one. Otherwise, the substub (which typically lasts years without any content) is not really useful. --Polaron | Talk 15:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration with the Wine Project on Connecticut wine articles?

Hello! For 2011 the Wine Project is doing a new Wine Improvement Drive where each month we focus on an area of articles that relate to a particular theme. In January, we are are ringing in the New Year with New World wine, with a focus on the wines of the Northern Hemisphere-Canadian wine, American wine and Mexican wine. I am going by related projects to see if there is any interest in collaboration between this project and the wine project on the subject of Connecticut wine.
Some suggestion on potential idea include expansion of the main Connecticut wine article as well as Southeastern New England AVA, Western Connecticut Highlands AVA and important grape varieties in the Connecticut wine industry such as Vidal Blanc, Seyval Blanc and Chardonel. Another idea would be creating articles on notable wineries such as Chamard Vineyards and Sharpe Hill. On a smaller scale, there are Connecticut wine related articles that could use some help with clean up or expanding beyond a stub such as the articles on Connecticut Wine Trail and Bishop's Orchards. And, of course, of HUGE help would be the upload of free use photos of Connecticut wineries, wines and wine regions to Commons that could be used to better illustrate Connecticut wine articles. If you're interested in helping, please drop a note at the Wine Project's talk page with the article you're interested in helping with. Thanks and have a great New Year! Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Patchogue

Patchogue currently redirects to Patchogue, New York and Patchogue River is about a river in Patchogue, New York.

But there seems to have been a Patchogue, Connecticut and there is a Patchogue River. I came across it in starting Lay-Pritchett House article. Can anyone else address this (start articles, set up disambiguation)? --Doncram (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's apparently an old name for part of the town of Westbrook, which is also where Connecticut's Patchogue River is located. You will be interested to know that the there is a National Register-listed bridge across the river, at least according to this travel guide. IMO, it would be unproductive to create an article about this alleged place (the article apparently would be based solely on passing mention in that one source, which is a far cry from notability), but the river in Westbrook definitely is notable.
Since the redlink in your article is part of a quotation, it shouldn't be linked anyway, so it should be pretty easy to drop the subject. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be okay with not starting a Patchogue, Connecticut article. By my asking here, i meant i didn't want to start that article myself. I dunno if the Patchogue, New York article to which Patchogue redirects should mention that it was a placename in Connecticut though. I guess there needs to be something like a Patchogue River (Connecticut) and at least a hatnote disambiguation from the other one now at Patchogue River, even if it is not moved to say Patchogue River (New York). --Doncram (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next

Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new WikiProject University of Connecticut

You are cordially invited to join the newly-proposed WikiProject University of Connecticut, designed to promote collaboration and improvement on UConn-related articles on Wikipedia. Specifically, the following articles are proposed to be within the new WikiProject's scope:

The University itself, including the campuses, notable buildings, notable academic programs, and notable professors;
The Connecticut Huskies athletic teams, including the men's basketball, women's basketball, and football teams, their coaches, players, facilities, and history;
Notable alumni, including both athletes and non-athletes.

Currently no one WikiProject covers all UConn-related content:

WikiProject Universities covers only the academic-side of the university;
WikiProject College basketball and WikiProject College football cover only articles from their respective sports;
WikiProject Connecticut does not cover articles related to UConn that are about places or people outside Connecticut (for example: bowl games such as the 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl and alumni such as Svetlana Abrosimova).

WikiProject University of Connecticut, when created, will be a centralized location to coordinate monitoring and improvement of UConn-related articles.

To comment on the proposed creation of the new WikiProject University of Connecticut, click here. To join the proposed WikiProject, click here, as the membership list is transcluded directly on the proposal page. Thank you for your attention, and GO HUSKIES! –Grondemar

–Grondemar 01:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - this a a great idea, Grondemar! I've been surprised that UConn & Yale never had their own projects. Do you intend for this to be a sub-group of CT or it's own project? (I'm good with either.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better if this stood alone separate from WikiProject Connecticut. I've noticed that there tends to be controversy when geographic WikiProjects tag articles outside their modern geographic area (see Talk:Karlovy_Vary#WikiProject_Germany for the example); I'd prefer to avoid any possible drama. I do anticipate WikiProject Connecticut and WikiProject University of Connecticut will always be close sister projects, however. –Grondemar 20:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Parish - Church

Somebody messed up articles and categories related to parish and church. The parish and the church are not the same. Some of them had been renamed to church. The others ones kept in the same category as parishes. Category:Roman Catholic parishes in Connecticut, Category:Roman Catholic parishes of Diocese of Bridgeport. --WlaKom (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for feedback on Connecticut Senate template

Resolved

A few days ago, I created {{Current Connecticut State Senators}}, a template listing all current members of the Connecticut Senate, and placed it on the Wikipedia articles of the respective incumbents. While I had thought about creating such a template for a little while, I was apparently not alone in the thought to create such a template; another user, Jack Cox, was the designer of many templates for other state legislatures already, including the Connecticut House.

On January 28, I created {{Current Connecticut State Senators}} based somewhat on Mr. Cox's other template designs, only I chose to omit certain elements I found undesirable. Chief among them was his style to place party color shading over the names of the senators, which I saw as making the template look overly busy and, frankly, slightly eyesore-esque. Such shading I also saw as making it harder, at least on quick glance, to clearly see the names of red-linked Republicans.

Two other of Jack Cox's designs I omitted when I designed {{Current Connecticut State Senators}}: First, I split two single-line items appearing at the top and bottom of the template into being displayed on two lines for both aesthetic and practical reasons; second, I changed the background color of the main bar of the template to its default color instead of an orangeish-gold used in many of Jack Cox's other templates, which I thought was a rather irregular color scheme.

Unfortunately, less than a day after I placed {{Current Connecticut State Senators}} on Wikipedia, Jack Cox edited it to be in line with his own personal style preferences, negating the simplicity I had desired the template to possess. I reverted the change, but Mr. Cox contended that because he had designed several other legislative templates in his style, it should be used instead. He then changed back to his version.

Since I have absolutely no desire to be engaged in a revert war, I decided yesterday to propose a solution: Since {{Current Connecticut State Senators}} would only ever be used on WikiProject Connecticut articles, I would let the WikiProject decide which style was preferred. I'm pleased to say that Jack Cox replied that he would agree to this being "put up for a vote."

And so here we are today. Below I have transcluded both my design and the most recent design proposed by Jack Cox. Please look them over and post a reply with your preference and your reason for that preference. Whatever consensus decides I have agreed to abide by without any hard feelings or further reverts. I have also invited Jack Cox to participate in this discussion.

I look forward to this issue being resolved quickly and fairly.
--Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Original version, created by Sgt. R.K. Blue

Design proposed by Jack Cox

Sgt. R.K. Blue, I would actually like to revise the design below to show that I have decided to make a changed based on your concerns I would like to see if this would be enough to maybe change your mind.--Jack Cox (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed that no one from the WikiProject decided to comment on this matter as of yet. Regardless, I see your recent redesign proposal as a respectable effort for compromise, and while it is not 100 percent of what I would have done myself, I think it's the best I'm going to get on a wiki. Barring any opposing comments by the Connecticut WikiProject, I accept the changes to the template and declare this matter resolved. I'll even update {{Current Connecticut State Senators}} to reflect your redesign as soon as I'm done with this message. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Voting

Original version. I prefer the top entry, as red is not generally considered a Connecticut color. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

New contest

Contest is OPEN and rules are posted HERE on main page

I have an idea for a new (non-photographic) "contest for barnstars", regarding improving CT articles and would like everyone's opinion on:
1) Do you want/will you participate in another contest?
2) Should it last from (say) next week until the end of February? Some other time period?
3) Anything else to consider?
Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Could the drive be focused upon, or give points for, bringing stub NRHP articles in CT up to Start quality? I could provide stub articles in a WikiProject Connecticut workpage for some or all of the remaining NRHP-listed places in Connecticut. It would be great if editors would adopt the ones in their area, or of interest to them, and use the linked NRHP nomination document plus additional websearching to develop them up to Start. Also many NRHP articles already created that are still rated Stub, which might now be rated Start upon review, or which could be brought up to Start with work. In a contest, editors could get separate credit for either bringing an article up to Start quality (say 8 points), or for doing the rating to Start on other editors' work (say 2 points).

Related to what i mention above in another section, I'm involved in a big discussion (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#2nd break) about creating stub NRHP articles, about which some other editors have concerns and wish to impose a Start level quality requirement. It would be a big help to me to test out my providing stubs for CT editors to bring up to Start. The kind of stub i can provide ready would be like this version of one in Tolland County, which doesn't adequately explain why the place is significant, but it consists of all coherent sentences and includes the NRHP nomination document to work from. --doncram (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Logistically, the contest could use a temporary template that editors could put in their "submission" articles, which would put in a temporary category for them all as a group or a temporary category for each editor. The number of articles in any category can be displayed on the project page, with code like this: 5,329 for # of Start articles in WikiProject CT. --doncram (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doncram,

If you want to run that as a contest sometime, feel free! :-) The NHRP articles aren't any more important than (say) Aviation articles as far as Connecticut is concerned, so I really have no desire to do that. Now, if the articles you choose for my contest just happen to be NHRP also, that's fine. The contest I'm planning will actually allow for multiple CT barnstars, not just a special barnstar for having the most posts/edits like the CT Photo contest has. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the NRHP articles often provide very good info for further development of town / village and other CT articles, because the NRHP nomination documents provide a lot of useful background history on people and places. So, doing the NRHP articles early might help develop a lot more about CT's history everywhere, at least regarding events > 50 years ago. It would be crazy to edit a CT town article without checking out the NRHP docs for any historic districts or other NRHP-listed places within the town, IMHO. :)

But I'm just asking if the contest rules could recognize/reward editors' work of this type, which it sounds like it might. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot more to Connecticut than history, but I understand your point. Yes, as long as the article has a CT tag it will be acceptable. I'll post the rules when we have a few comments as to timing. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Without full details on the proposed contest it's difficult to comment, but I'd recommend starting it January 1st so that we don't have to worry about any coordination during the holiday season. The length of the contest will naturally depend on the nature of it. Tentatively I would be interested in participating; I feel bad that I completely whiffed on the last contest! –Grondemar 14:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll just post the contest today with an end date of 31 March 2011. That way everyone will have plenty of time to work and maybe people can earn those multiple stars. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Post creation discussion

We can't just ourselves change an article's importance status to High, and make it a candidate? Assuming not, the candidate articles are those in Stub and Start rows, in Top and High importance columns, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Assessment. But, I can't get to see all of those. There should be 130 Stub/High ones viewable at here, but it doesn't let you go to the 2nd 100. You can also only see the first 100 out of the 263 in Start class/High importance status. Something is broken. I think it has been this way for a while. For the contest, can u get it fixed, and/or provide an explicit list in a separate contest page? --Doncram (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bug reported at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#cant see next 100 items. U can, however, get to see the other items if u change the Results per page field at top right from 100 to 300. --Doncram (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The bug was fixed, and i was thanked! --Doncram (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That would defeat the purpose... if you're looking to update just 1 for the solo CT star, you might have to actually take OFF your NRHP hat and act like you're part of the CT wikiproject. If you want to do 3 of any importance rating, there are 3000+ articles to choose from, I'm sure there are at least 3 NRHP co-tagged articles (heck, there are 3 in Trumbull alone...).

IDK what browser you use, but in both Opera & IE, I get the rest of the list by clicking "generate list" after clicking "next 100" on the prior page. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The only candidates i can find which are NRHP-listed are the Cornwall Bridge, and of NRHP-listed ones that are National Historic Landmarks, there's Old State House (Connecticut) and Yale Bowl. The Connecticut Governor's Mansion is a contributing property in a historic district, but there's not much available about it. Neither has pics. There are 3 other bridge articles: Commodore Isaac Hull Memorial Bridge, Derby-Shelton Bridge, and Gold Star Memorial Bridge, which seem to be non-NRHP-listed and less important than many NRHP-listed ones. All of the individual NHLs in the state seem more important. I suggest each individual NHL should be given High importance and allowed in the contest.

Suggestion taken, considered, and discarded. Sorry, the point of this contest is to improve CT articles. If you want to run one for NRHP, be my guest! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Could list-articles be allowed into the contest? They are not given Stub or Start ratings, but they could be brought up to wp:FL Featured List status. Out of high and top importance list-articles, I notice there is List of National Historic Landmarks in Connecticut and the top level National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut. But each of the separate county- and city-level NRHP list-articles are given lower importance ratings. (Oddly, Historical United States Census totals for Tolland County, Connecticut and corresponding ones for other 7 counties are given High importance.) I'd be interested to work with anyone else on the National Historic Landmarks list-article or, better, one of the smaller city list-articles (such as New Haven's or Bridgeport's, as a collaboration within the contest, if that would be allowed. Please? :)

To make it easy for the evaluator (Markvs88), for the contest i suggest that a list-article needs to be improved to FL status or attaining "Pretty good list" status. That means it would have to go through the formal wp:FLC process successfully, or, if denied FL there due to some dumb technicality (which happens), then at Markvs88's discretion, reviewing the FLC discussion, it could nonetheless be accepted or not as being a "Pretty good list" for CT contest purposes. Any CT list-article should be eligible, including Bridges of the Merritt Parkway. Note any regular article brought up to wp:FA Featured Article status would naturally be accepted as meeting Markvs88's rating standard for contest credit. --Doncram (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting a List to FL is far easier than getting a stub to B or GA, and it's not really an article. So I'm not interested in dealing with that, sorry. Again, you can choose to improve 3 "co-tagged" NRHP Starts to B and still earn the solo CT star. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true at all, that list-articles are easy to bring to FL, or that they're not really articles. You might not have seen a good one, as there are no well-developed list-articles in Connecticut, at all, AFAIK. There are only a handful of historic sites list-articles at FL, world-wide, and any recent ones are at an awesome quality level requiring hundreds of hours of work.

Well, i am not that interested in the Old State House, the Yale Bowl, or the concrete Cornwall Bridge. :(

I woulda considered working on the Connecticut State Capitol, the Portland Brownstone Quarries, the Litchfield Historic District, the Prudence Crandall House or other NHLs which are more important to Connecticut than those three, and more interesting to me. But which arbitrarily have not been given high importance by ur rating efforts, perhaps because they are not well enough developed yet to make their importance clear. Maybe their being included in the NHL list-article, which is given high importance, is why u so far choose not to give them importance individually. Like the Prudence Crandall House article tells nothing about how this woman, faced by a ban of her including a few black girl students in her school, closed it and rather bravely reopened it as all-black school, in the face then of even more virulent opposition. But okay, say u just want to rule out almost all the most historically important Connecticut places, as have been deemed by Connecticut and national historians. And rule out the list-article of all of these places, too. :(

Whereas Area codes 860 and 959 and Professional ice hockey in Connecticut and Phineas C. Lounsbury and United States Senate election in Connecticut, 1988 are rated eligible for the contest. I dunno. Is anyone else looking at the candidate articles? Can anyone else comment? --Doncram (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, I've been evaluating CT articles for going on two years now, with little help other than some co-tagged articles here and there. The guidelines for rating articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Assessment) has been spelled out since March with no comments by anyone, and hardly any assessments ever been questioned (Desiree Bassett being one of the few that comes to mind.) But I'll tell you what: if you can name a particular article that you think is as important a topic to the state as a High or Top in the ratings criteria, I'll take another look at it. Just bear in mind that the article will be considered in terms of state importance, not NRHP. I still hold that List articles are not valid for this contest, sorry. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

First let me say i think u have done a great job, virtually all on your own reviewing all CT articles and giving them importance and quality ratings. I've been very glad to see you doing so, when u touched NRHP and other articles i've been interested in, all along. I never much paid attention to the definition of importance ratings, and have only done so now because ur contest gives it meaningful importance (I really wanna win a barnstar within this program :) ). In reviewing the contest-eligible Start and Stub articles, I did actually see a pretty clearly consistent job was done by you. And looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Assessment, what you wrote there is reasonable and seems to have been systematically implmented. Great job, really!

But, with my Connecticut hat firmly scrunched on, I submit that the other 58 out of 60 CT NHLs also meet the stated High importance rating criteria. "The designation of a property as a National Historic Landmark means that the property is recognized as being of national significance and 'possesses exceptional value or quality in illustrating and interpreting the heritage of the United States.'" (quoting from here for just one statement of what NHLs are). These are important on a National level, even, so perhaps could meet CT's Top importance criteria, but High would be fine by me. I grant that Jonathan Sturges House article, say, does not yet adequately explain why it is of great national and state-wide importance; u have to read the NHL nomination linked or come in with prior/other specialized knowledge to see that it might be really important. The NHL designation cleanly separates the exceptional ones from the other NRHPs, mostly of local importance. Many NRHPs may have national importance but are not be well-preserved or have other deficiencies relative to NHL status ones. Note, out of hundreds of historic districts in the state, it only Litchfield Historic District and the New Haven Green Historic District are NHLs, which seems appropriately stringent; those two really are exceptional districts. It includes no bridges at all, frankly i agree no bridge in CT is so very exceptional, historically. It includes just 5 ships, including USS Nautilus (SSN-571), the world's first nuclear submarine and a major visitor attraction. I think it is just best to accept the Connecticut- and national- experts' assessment that these are of high importance, and put the pressure on me and others to make their articles explain why, by means such as this good contest. --Doncram (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thank you!

Second: I'm hard really pressed to give a High or Top rating to any individual church, house or ship in the state unless they're something iconically "Connecticut". Simply put, I can't reconcile that many of these things on the list is as important to the state as (say) I-95 or the governor. Locally important (low)? Sure. Maybe even regionally (mid), but places like the John Trumbull Birthplace just aren't of much importance to most Nutmeggers. The fact is that a place can be a National Historic Landmark and really not mean all that much to the state vs other things. New Haven Green Historic District is of less importance to me (personally) than Modern Apizza, but it IS of greater importance to the state (which is why NHGHR is a mid and Modern is a low). Likewise, while I've seen about half the places on that list... most people can live their whole lives in Connecticut, never see the (for example) the Edward W. Morley House and be none the poorer for it. The CT project is not below the NRHP or US wikiprojects, so just because it's a national landmark doesn't automatically "bump it up".

If you want to pick a specific article (because I keep getting the vibe that you want to work on just one instead of three of any importance rating), then you'll have to pick one and tell me why specifically it is of greater importance to Connecticut than whatever it currently is. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well thanks for offering to accomodate in that way. I don't want to press any further; i do think you have set up a good contest geared to encourage development of the higher importance CT articles, and that your importance ratings seem generally okay. I was mostly interested in doing a collaboration (on 3 Top or High importance Start or Stub articles). I see ur contest rules allow me to do, solitarily any 3 Start or Stub, of any importance. I'll do a town/village/CDP article, for the 'ell of it, and 2 NHLs; signed up. Maybe u'll see from these NHLs that they shoulda been rated High, but i'll make my case for that by developing the articles themselves. Thanks for chatting. Is anyone else considering joining the contest? --Doncram (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and sure, it's always a possibility for an article to get a higher importance rating as well as a class rating as it improves, of course! Great, I look forward to seeing them. I hope so, I like handing out barnstars... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I hasten to point out that it should be possible for an article to be "top" or "high" importance for one Wikiproject but "low" importance for another. It's not a question of how important the article is, but also of how important it is in the context of the particular Wikiproject. --Orlady (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Orlady, that's what I wanted to say in that "Second:" section in a nutshell. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Contest over?

While I was not a participant in it, with the recent and unexpected retirement of Markvs88, I assume that this winter 2010-2011 contest will no longer be moving forward. Accordingly, I have removed its mention from the main page of our WikiProject. Should anyone disagree with said removal, feel free to revert my decision. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Connecticut state parks

Hey, is there a definitive list somewhere for CT's state parks? The List of Connecticut state parks list-article is labelled as being incomplete, and i've come across a good number of parks with no articles while working on NRHP articles. There's a featured list which provides a good model, List of Pennsylvania state parks, by the way. Maybe this list should be the subject of a future article development drive? --doncram (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know for sure that it's complete but this DEP page has a drop-down menu of state parks and forests. DEP also has a map and menu. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's something to start with. Certainly all the dropdown ones should be included, although there might be other state parks not featured there. --doncram (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to add that there are other parks located in CT that are designated by either the towns ie( Roosevelt Forest in stratford or by private organizations ie devils den in weston designated by the nature conservatory) all of these should be added to the Protected areas of Connecticut and Trials of Connecticut temples —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.130.89 (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Connecticut naming "convention" for neighborhoods

In some recent edits Polaron has asserted there is a "convention" for formatting of names for Connecticut neighborhoods articles, and editor Born2cycle has joined in making some page moves.

Disclosure: I disagree with these moves, and I reverted some of P's moves previously (which he has all reverted to his position i think), and I today reverted one out of about 5 or 6 of B's moves with request to B at his Talk page to stop with any further moves. B has the decency to open a requested move about it, rather than just edit warring.

Now a Requested move is opened at Talk:Marion, Connecticut#Requested move. Please consider commenting there. --Doncram (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Until a few minutes ago, I had no idea about any of this discussion here. What happened today was that I noticed an edit summary in Polaron's history that said he was moving an article to make it consistent with the CT convention for neighborhoods. So I looked at that article, found that it belong to a category of CT neighborhoods, looked at that category, and found three (not 5 or 6) more that were out of compliance, and moved them to be in compliance. Then Don appeared with comments on my talk page and at an unrelated discussion at WT:PLACES (which is about U.S. city naming - not neighborhood naming). Don's strong reaction makes a little bit more sense now that I see the discussion above, but even then I'm having trouble following much of the reasoning expressed here. There is very little reference to naming policy or guidelines, so it seems to mostly amount to a WP:JDLI rationalization... not very helpful. Anyway, as Don noted, I've initiated a WP:RM discussion for the one neighborhood article which Don reverted at Talk:Marion, Connecticut#Requested move. I too encourage everyone to participate, but please don't just express your personal preference; please provide arguments based in naming policy, guidelines and conventions. Thanks. All controversial moves should go through that process. Please do not move war. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, it looked like more than 3 articles moved by Born2cycle at first glance, but i guess it was just 3. There were 8 page-moves of CT articles in Born2cycle's immediate contribution history, but some were Talk pages and one article apparently moved twice. There woulda been more, i expect, if I hadn't objected and Born2cycle hadn't then stopped.

The wikipedia formal "convention" about city naming in the U.S., a consensus which looks a lot like a formal guideline or policy page, is very relevant, because I and (i think) most others think the U.S. neighborhood naming should be consistent with that.

Recent moves by Polaron include:

Fairfield Beach, Connecticut moved to Fairfield Beach (Fairfield)
The Flats, Woodbridge moved to The Flats (Woodbridge)
Hattertown, Connecticut moved to Hattertown

Born2cycle moved The Flats one, and Marion, and Blue Hills (Bloomfield).

Yes about using Requested move service and about avoiding move wars.

I'll open a Requested move now about the Blue Hills one which should be at Blue Hills, Connecticut. It is a CDP and is explicitly covered in the city neighborhood convention, which applies to CDPs. Please see Talk:Blue Hills (Bloomfield)#Requested move. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. That request is being expanded to be about a total of 17 Connecticut CDPs which should be renamed to Name, Connecticut format from various other formats. --Doncram (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Polaron just moved Hattertown, Connecticut again and i restored it to that name again. There's no way a move like that, against the trend in the bigger Requested Move, should be implemented unilaterally. Born2cyle and others, would you please watch and/or comment? --Doncram (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Under what guideline are you contesting this move? This is not the subject of any requested move. This area is commonly known as Hattertown. It is neither a post office name nor a CDP. It is a neighborhood of the incorporated town of Newtown. There is currently no guideline for neighborhoods hence we default to the Wikipedia-wide convention of using the most common name for the title. In this case, there are no other articles with the name Hattertown so no disambiguation is needed. --Polaron | Talk 00:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Polaron, you have been repeatedly asked by others besides me to please not make moves, or to use the Requested Move service, for moves you know are contested. Please do that. FYI, by "the bigger Requested Move" i was referring to Talk:Blue Hills (Bloomfield)#Requested move about 17 others. --Doncram (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

But Hattertown is not part of that requested move. There was a stable (though undocumented) neighborhood naming convention used in Conn. until a few months ago when there was a small number of unilateral moves to the "neighborhood, state". You will note that majority of them still follow that convention. I would argue that adding the state for subtown places only makes sense if they are also post office addresses. --Polaron | Talk 15:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read what i said. Again, please don't unilaterally implement moves for articles whose names you know are contested. Use the nice Requested Move service, instead. You might want to please see the two pending Requested moves, about Marion and about 17 other Connecticut places. Enough here! This is not a Requested Move discussion, here. It is more than sufficient discussion, though, to establish clearly for you that a move of the Hattertown, Connecticut article would be contested. Or, its edit history. Or the fact that your Bold move was reverted, should also be sufficient to tell you that. Okay? --Doncram (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

vandalism-reversion and other management of Connecticut articles

Editor User:Markvs88, who visited all or most WikiProject Connecticut articles to rate them during the last several months, is one editor who has done a lot of vandalism reversion, but has announced his/her retirement from Wikipedia. Hopefully Markvs88 will benefit from a break and hopefully might consider returning at some point.

But, either way, there is a lot of vandalism of Connecticut articles, particularly of high school articles and of town/village/city articles. I don't think Connecticut articles are going to be over-run with vandalism immediately, with Markvs88 withdrawing, but maybe in fact they will. Is there any way this can be managed, without leaving all the reversion work to one or few over-worked editors?

Relatedly, I happen to think that one problem, actually, is how heavy-handed the editorial control over some of these articles has been (really not meaning Markvs88's edits). In many cases, I've seen tentative small contributions by new editors get erased, abruptly and rudely, when it would have been better to contact the new editors and encourage them as editors. Too much control can drive such new editors to become passive-aggressive vandals, i think. Better to provide some tips on formatting, on use of sourcing, etc., in polite discussions at their Talk pages or at the Talk pages of articles. In some cases I've done a little google searching and found justification for restoring the new editors' contributions, but usually I think the damage is done, that they've been given a rude, non-welcoming experience. I think it's possible that Connecticut articles get more vandalism than do articles in other states, because of this history of too-bureaucratic, too-controlling behavior. --do ncr am 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on my experience, the vandalism problem is not unique to Connecticut. IMO, Wikipedia policy is too liberal with respect to letting "anyone" edit. As a result, good volunteers spend far too much of their time on inherently unproductive activities like reverting petty vandalism and combating POV-pushing sockpuppets. Sorry to see another good volunteer get discouraged... --Orlady (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there's vandalism everywhere. I happen to notice very little vandalism on over 10,000 articles on my watchlist (mostly historic sites), though, and I perceive there to be less vandalism on high school and town articles in some other states.

The recent changes to CT high school articles (a report based on articles linked from List of high schools in Connecticut) shows a fair amount of back and forth editing on high schools and town articles mentioned in that article. Would editors here be willing to split up the high schools and town lists, and "manage" parts of the whole problem? Separate, clean worklists of the high schools and of the towns/villages/neighborhoods articles in each county, say, could be made up, which would be easy to monitor. --do ncr am 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If editors would volunteer to take on management of some sets of articles, it should also be possible to ask for and get some administrative help, to help keep that manageable. Like, e.g. I notice an IP editor repeatedly vandalizing in Madison, Connecticut article history; an IP-specific or IP-range block could possibly be set up to stop that. And there could usefully be some guidelines on how to handle additions of alumni names to high school articles, where I would think some sourcing is needed. It's confusing to treat some additions as vandalism, in individual high school articles where other entries are not sourced, in a state where in general there is no sourcing of that stuff. Some better state-wide policies and practices, and some central guidelines, could help in bringing the workload down, I would think. --do ncr am 22:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You apparently lead a sheltered existence, Doncram, probably due to your focus on National Register listings. As a general rule, articles about high schools, neighborhoods and towns (also counties, in places where counties have relevance) get a lot more attention from vandals and civic promoters than articles about old buildings and historic districts. Vandalism like that in the Madison, Connecticut, article is unfortunately common, and usually is detected by automated processes. In that case, the IP ended up being blocked, but the block was brief and the vandal is likely to return. It's not worth the effort to ask editors to pursue that kind of thing manually. Vandalism like the stuff that Markvs88 was dealing with at Holy Land USA is far more insidious. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I do watch a good number of town articles and some high schools in various states. Good to learn more about the processes addressing that IP editor (and i notice a bot automatically reverting another recent change by that editor), and to see that several editors including yourself got involved in addressing that Holy Land USA article.

I was just wanting to ask editors here to consider taking on the vandal-watching task for chunks of the Connecticut articles, in Markvs88's absence, and perhaps making it easier for Markvs88 to consider returning. Is your point that everything is under control? Is it worthwhile or not, to try to get several editors to split up some Connecticut articles to watch? --do ncr am 23:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I got a bit off-topic. I was reacting to your assertion that Connecticut articles are subject to an unusually high level of vandalism, and that regular contributors were somehow at fault for this high level of vandalism -- I disagree with both assertions. I do hope that all project participants appreciate your effort to call our attention to the absence of Markvs88, and that people will respond by stepping up their efforts to monitor articles that interest them. --Orlady (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

notable natives

How about starting by removing unsourced "Notable natives" sections from Connecticut town articles. I just did that for Meriden, Connecticut, in fact moving the unsourced items to Talk:Meriden, Connecticut#notable natives needing reliable sourcing. I noticed edits going back and forth adding and deleting unsourced items, which seems mean to newbie editors who might in good faith be adding items. If no items have sources, why would new items need to be proven? So, better to remove all unsourced items and start over in a simpler, Wikipedia-policy respectful mode requiring sourcing for all. --do ncr am 02:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennessee#Notable Natives, a discussion on same topic for Tennessee town articles, in which Orlady participated. Seems like WikiProject Tennessee began withdrawing all Notable Natives mentions, esp. non-verifiable ones about celebrities supposedly having a house in a suburb, but restoring items about truly substantial residents where sourced. Looks like good work there. --do ncr am 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've edited some Connecticut town articles to remove unsourced notable resident items, and in each case provided comments at Talk pages such as:

The above are 4 Connecticut town articles where I have noticed opposing edits adding and subtracting assert-to-be-notable-and-local persons. I think it is new and/or non-logged in editors adding items, which are unsourced just like the existing items were, and being reverted by experienced editor(s) committed, for whatever reason, to removing those additions. I have so far just been doing this where i noticed edit warring. Would others agree this is worth doing Connecticut-wide now? Comments from WikiProject Connecticut members welcome.... --do ncr am 21:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There are just 2 editors, Polaron and Orlady who are not wp:CONN members, responding to my improvement of sourcing, and removal of unsourced notable person assertions at Talk:Branford, Connecticut#unsourced assertions about notable persons. Could some wp:CONN editors comment, please? I would really like to help develop some consensus among Connecticut wikiproject members. I think it is important to try to stop the churning on CT town articles, in particular the entrapment of new editors who seek to add comparable information to what is present in the articles, only to encounter bad treatment. --do ncr am 09:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a few thoughts on the talk page of the Branford article. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Your comment there is very helpful. I appreciate learning that there is sourcing present in Milford, Connecticut's corresponding section. And i agree that the long-standing unsourced assertions should be vigorously pared. For new additions, especially by new contributors, I think we should make a big effort to help solidify an entry that might have merit, including doing some quick research. I recall one new editor adding a good item to the Noank, Connecticut article that was reverted heavy-handedly a few times, where the solution involved starting the Wikipedia article on the Noank native, a sea captain and local character having national/international coverage. It was quite a good addition to the Noank article to have the person mentioned there. I think the new editor, however, was turned off by the rude experience though; the final restoration of the item after a bit of a battle was too late of a remedy. I am hoping that we could change the atmosphere and work positively with such editors. --do ncr am 18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding "Popular pages" to U.S.-related projects

A very interesting tool of the Wikimedia Toolserver is called WikiProject Popular pages lists. These lists are similar to project-related article lists like U. S. article lists used for generating assessment statistics. The Popular pages lists include the rank, total views, average daily views, quality and importance ratings for the listed articles. Here is the full list of projects using popular pages lists. An FAQ also is available at User:Mr.Z-man/Popular pages FAQ.

I recently added links to lists of popular pages as shown below to the U.S. Portal - WikiProjects box and the nominations sections for each of the selected articles boxes.

Portal:United States/Projects/Popular pages

Because this project was not included, I am bringing up the popular pages tool here. This tool makes it very easy to track three of four balancing dimensions when selecting articles for showcasing at a portal - quality, importance and popularity. When tracking the fourth dimension, topic, the related article lists tool (such as for U.S. article lists tool) also might be useful by filtering on categories of interest.

If you do decide to use this tool, feel free to update Portal:United States/Projects/Popular pages as well.

Regards, RichardF (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate: United States

Portal:United States is a current featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. -- RichardF (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability of General Assembly districts

A question for the WikiProject: Would each district of the Connecticut General Assembly (36 in the Senate, 151 in the House) be considered notable enough to have a district-specific article? So far, the state's 7th and 8th Senate districts have their own Wikipedia articles, as do 26 of the House districts (see Category:Connecticut General Assembly for specifics).

While Congressional districts are notable enough for all of them to have articles, I'm personally neutral when it comes to each district of our state legislature. Districts are small and not really covered in the news as much as the elected officials that represent them. Still, I'm not totally against the idea either, so I submit the question here to be pondered by fellow Nutmeggers. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My first reaction was that it was a bad idea to have articles for individual state assembly districts, but after I actually looked at the articesl I changed my mind. These articles are a good way of organizing the history of who-served-when. I think they are a good idea. One thing I might add is a discussion of changes in district geography over time. When an article lists the people who represented the district for more than the last 10 or 15 years, it should tell about changes in the district during the period covered -- the geography included in the 33rd district in 1946 might be radically different from what's included in 2011. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that if the districts are worthy of having their own articles, their geographical changes ought to be mentioned. I'm not sure what an easily accessible resource for this type of information may be, however. When the state conducts its legislative reapportionments based on the 2010 Census for both state and congressional districts, (timeline here) I'm fairly certain there will be a fair amount coverage and resources pertaining to the changes. As for the reapportionments of the '60s, well, that's another story, let alone 75 or 100 years ago. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that the past districts are documented in then-contemporary editions of the Connecticut Register and Manual. Also, old newspaper stories are valid references for Wikipedia. Not all sources need to be currently available online. --Orlady (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

New tools

In browsing around the other day, I came across some interesting article tracking devices over at WikiProject Conservatism that I decided to snag for our WikiProject. I created a subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Latest article changes and just added a link to this page on our main WikiProject page.

The devices are scrollboxes that transclude from other sources to help keep tabs on changes, assessments, alerts, and deletion discussions related to our articles. Unfortunately, I'm disappointed with the one which tracks recent changes, as it only tracks the recent changes of articles that have recently been assessed or reassessed. I've looked into ways that all articles maintained by a WikiProject can be included on such a list, such as they are at WikiProject Iowa and WikiProject Minnesota, but such methods appear to require a subpage listing all articles in the scope of the WikiProject to be manually created and updated – I can't find a bot that covers this task instead. In addition to being labor intensive to start up, by the look of the page histories of the subpage at WP:IOWA and subpage at WP:MINN, updates to the list by members are few and far between, a testament to the tediousness of the task.

However, the tracking tools page I set up I think is at least a start, and I welcome improvements, additions, and anything else you may have to offer. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a good start! And elegantly done. I was previously saying, elsewhere on this Talk page, that there oughta be a list of the Connecticut towns/villages/neighborhood articles which could be watched. That would cover much of the more controversial articles, i.e. where there is the most editing back and forth. --do ncr am 22:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The recent changes to CT high school articles (a report based on articles linked from List of high schools in Connecticut) shows a lot more recent changes. --do ncr am 22:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Lionel (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Update

After having recently stumbled upon the existence of Femto Bot, operated by Rich Farmbrough, I'm pleased to say that the ability to track all recent changes to WikiProject Connecticut pages (and their respective talk pages) now exists and has been implemented. In fact, just two minutes after adding its transclusion to our Latest article changes subpage yesterday, I preformed a revert of unconstructive material as I began to browse through the recent changes listings. While the recent changes can be seen on the above-linked subpage through the limitations of a transcluded scrollbox, you can access its full potential at Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Recent changes tracking. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, nice job R.K.! This will be invaluable in the seemingly endless fight against page vandalism. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

new user help needed

I notice a new user, contribution history here, unfortunately encountering tough editing on a Connecticut town article. Experienced editor Polaron removed the new editor's unsourced contribution, in favor of other subjective, unsourced writing. I think this is a lousy way to treat a new editor. So far 100 percent of the new editor's contributions (all one of them) have been reverted. Can anyone help welcome and advise the new user? --do ncr am 23:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a common type of situation for newbies. I've provided a templated welcome message, with an explanation of the revert, on the new user's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You have? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh -- I sure thought I did! It was a long message and it looked very nice when I previewed it. I hit save, but apparently it didn't take. (Lately, I often don't see my edits after I save them.) I guess I need to write it all over again. --Orlady (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Now I've rewritten the message and added it to User talk:GrewUpInMFD. --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop WP:HARRASSing Polaron, Doncram. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a long-term pattern of bullying of new and experienced editors on articles about Connecticut towns, villages, places, other. I could name or not name editor Polaron, when I see that going on and it is Polaron being the one reverting new editors' contributions; I don't think Polaron's feeling will be hurt either way. I think it is right to call attention to the pattern and to seek constructive resolution that does not turn off the new editors permanently. --do ncr am 13:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP changed "It has a good school system" to "Its school system has been marred somewhat in recent years due to the relatively high turnover rate of Superintendents in its Board of Education. Since 2006, two Superintendants have been replaced due to legal troubles and/or disagreements with the BOE.", which is uncited negative BLP information. Your characterization of the edit above is misleading to the point of disruption.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

notable residents sections

Could editors here please consider commenting in general, again, about notable residents sections of Connecticut town articles. Or specifically comment about supposedly notable residents of Groton, Connecticut, at Talk:Groton, Connecticut#Notable residents - require references. I noticed edits adding and removing supposedly notable residents in the Groton, Connecticut article, and, examining, see no support by references to any. I removed all to the Talk page. When I look further into a few items, I see no reason those items should be included at all in the Groton article. I'll watch here for discussion, but then plan to re-remove the notable residents section there. (In other discussions here at wt:CONN or linked from here, I believe the emerging consensus is that notable residents sections are to be avoided, or, if present, are to be sourced and encyclopedic. It is general Wikipedia policy that unsupported material can be challenged and removed; I do challenge the Groton residents information.) Other comments about how to address the same issue state-wide, perhaps by removing all notable residents sections now, would be welcomed. --do ncr am 13:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a state-wide issue, though -- it's something that potentially affects all city/state articles. Maybe a discussion at the Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) would be better? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Or even better, Wikipedia talk:Famous Residents? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As SarekOfVulcan has said, this is not an issue specific to Connecticut but affects hundreds (maybe even thousands) of place articles. What I've noticed is that Doncram is selectively picking out a handful of articles in which I personally have reverted additions of red-linked entries. He has not, to my knowledge, challenged any other article in which I have not reverted red link additions in the past few months, so my feeling is that this is more of a dig against me rather than a genuine concern for these types of sections in place articles. He has not brought up the issues at WP:USCITY or similar projects for example. Hopefully, his concern is indeed Wikipedia-wide and he will start challenging other articles I haven't been involved in or would open a Wikipedia-wide discussion soon. But until a decision to change current practice is made at a wider level, these sections are fine as they function more like "See also" sections to existing articles. --Polaron | Talk 21:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Geocoordinates: Thanks!

As of right now, Category:Connecticut articles missing geocoordinate data does not have a single article in it. Empty.

On the 3rd of January, there were 358 articles in that category. Including those that have passed through since January, there have been about 450 articles.

I'd just like to take a moment to thank those who have helped me. In particular, Sphilbrick, who has done an admirable job dealing with the recent slew of church articles.

Let's keep up the good work! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done and congratulations!! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow (to you) and thanks for noticing.--SPhilbrick T 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar template

After recently awarding a user with a WikiProject-related barnstar, I noticed that WikiProject Connecticut did not have, as far as I could tell, its own barnstar template, as some of the other state-specific projects do. Inspired to fill the void and by my having done some recent experimenting with PNG files on my computer, I decided to try to create a barnstar template for us. The result is {{The WikiProject Connecticut Barnstar}}, which incorporates the shield of our state flag over a star of the flag's color. I'm not sure if the yellow portions of the shield blend in too much with the yellow of the barnstar box, but the latter could be adjusted. Someday, when I get the time, I'd like to also design a second barnstar template incorporating Connecticut-related items into its image (similar to WikiProject Illinois'), but for now I like that we at least have something to work with. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice job! – Lionel ^(talk) 12:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done R.K! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn

This lady is surely one of CT's most famous residents, but she's not included in your wikiproject? Just thought I'd let you know, I imagine you'll want to add her. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wethersfield vs. Windsor churning

I notice churning of the Wethersfield, Connecticut article in which an IP editor is making a change alternating with experienced editor Polaron making an opposing change, again and again and again. It seems to be about whether which town, Wethersfield or Windsor, Connecticut (possibly also being changed back and forth), is the oldest in the state. Could other editors possibly please take a look at Talk:Wethersfield, Connecticut#Wethersfield is Connecticut's oldest town, Windsor is the states oldest English trading post. and help to settle the issue. I don't have opinion about the historical facts; i oppose the edit warring which I suspect is turning off that IP editor, and perhaps others, from becoming regular contributing Wikipedia editors. --do ncr am 22:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir Edmund Andros

The sole governor of the Dominion of New England, Andros was infamous for trying to seize the CT charter. His article is currently C-Class. Is it possible to review it for a B? DCItalk 17:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

link to article. Looks good on a cursory look; you could maybe get that to A-class, GA, or even FA without too much extra. Best of luck! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember this one. The various other projects had it at Start, and I tagged it for CT and rated it up to C about a year and a half ago. I didn't rate it up to B at the time for two reasons:

There are four pictures in the article, but two of them are of other governors and really aren't relevant.
While the article is well cited, only half of them are unverifiable without a trip to the library. While I don't doubt that they are accurate, I simply didn't put the time in to proof the article. I'm not opposed to it going up to B per se (it does otherwise pass the good article checklist), but I didn't want to make the call. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me such a long time to respond, but I've been working on two other projects and was caught up in them. The picture of Simon Bradstreet might be irrelevant, but Francis Nicholson figures prominently in Andros's life and should be kept on the page. The sourecs (at least some of them) can be found on Google Books, and Samuel Webb (1676 and Lord Churchill's Coup) uses Andros as a central figure in his histories of colonial times. DCItalk 03:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Long overdue: Connecticut article guidelines

Would anyone (or everyone?) be interested in working on a Connecticut set of Article guidelines or Manual of Style? Many wikiprojects have a framework such as WikiProject Universities or Wikiproject Hawaii. The goal would be to have a standard list of article sections, things not to include, valid and invalid sources, state resolved issues (Wethersfield vs. Windsor as first settlement comes to mind...) et cetera. Thoughts? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection in theory, although I don't know if there is as much a need to do this for CT articles compared to HI articles (no unique spelling rules, etc.) Feel free to write up a draft; I look forward to seeing it. I think this would be a good idea for WP:UCONN as well (but that's another topic). –Grondemar 04:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Grondemar, I've made a start at Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Connecticut article guidelines, hopefully we can get some energy behind this and commentary at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut/Connecticut article guidelines. I agree, it could also be useful for the UConn project too. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

BUMP! Is anyone else interested in commenting? If no one objects by 15 February 2012 I'll assume acceptance of "The Draft"... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Connecticut will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Connecticut's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WP Connecticut in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Connecticut for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Idea for March collaboration - Wikipedia:The Core Contest

I recently came across Wikipedia:The Core Contest. Apparently Casliber (talk · contribs) is putting together a three-week contest in March to drive improvement in core articles. One of the articles on the contest's core list is Connecticut. I was thinking that, if members of the project are interested, we could do a collaboration as part of the contest to improve Connecticut, maybe up to GA status. It would also be a good opportunity for teambuilding among project participants. Let me know if anyone is interested in this. –Grondemar 23:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm in! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings from GLAM-Wiki US

Invitation to join GLAM-Wiki US

Hello! This WikiProject aligns closely with the work of the GLAM-Wiki initiative (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums), a global community of volunteers who assist cultural institutions with sharing resources with Wikimedia. GLAM-Wiki US is a new community initiative focused on organizing cultural collaborations within the United States. GLAM organizations are diverse and span numerous topics, from libraries and art museums to science centers and historic sites. We currently have a backlog of interested institutions- and we need your help!

Are you interested in helping with current or future GLAM projects? Join→ Online Volunteers

We hope you'll join the growing GLAM-Wiki community in the US. Thank you!

-Lori Phillips (Talk), US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator

For more information visit→ The GLAM:US portal or GLAM-Wiki on Outreach

Portal:New England was nominated for Featured Portals

Here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achowat (talk • contribs)

Peter Stuyvesant

Is Peter Stuyvesant within the scope of your project? -- 70.24.245.196 (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Project Status?

Is there anyone actitively involved with this project? I've added my name, made some edits but I don't see anyone else adding anything to here. Hobbamock (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Active. Take a look at the log for assessment activity, and the watchlist for recent edits on project monitored pages.Greg Bard (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks! Hobbamock (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in the Americas may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated John Mayer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When? June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Image redlinks

These article have missing images:

Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Fairfield train crash

I've started the Fairfield train crash article, but it needs putting into American English. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Roxbury, Connecticut

Could one of you fine folks please take a look at the above article? I am not very knowledgeable about your fine state. As a matter of fact, the only reason I even know how to spell it is because I grew up on Connecticut Street in Indiana. But in looking at the above article, I noticed there is a problem with the notable people section. It appears that over half the people on the list have no connection to the city mentioned in their Wikipedia biographies. It is also listed as a high importance article on your project and seems very under-referenced to me. I apologize for not being able to fix it myself, but I figured you guys and gals would be better suited for it than I would be. Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

New England Wikimedians website

Hey all. I would just like to let you know that the New England Wikimedians user group now has a website. If anyone would like to get involved in an event or suggest hosting something, please let us know there, as we are trying to increase our events in areas outside of Massachusetts and would love to have help organize and host events in the region. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Images

Anyone in Connecticut able to obtain photos of National Register of Historic Place listings? Ideally, I'd like each listing to have a photo, but hundreds do not and Ashlawn was incorrect and had to be removed. I've been working extensively in the area, but I do not have access to these properties so many. I'd like photos, galleries especially historical districts, and the desire is to make comprehensive articles. Connecticut is neglected and surrounded by the two dominate NRHP states, but there is no reason it can't be just as well-covered. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: We might be able to help as part of the user group listed below, as I am sure that it wouldn't be hard to direct some editors in that state to help out, especially since there is a Wikimedia chapter to the west and it is included in a user group as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of NewsBank for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NewsBank is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsBank until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Connecticut articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Edwin Adams (politician), Dudley Ely, and Walter C. Quintard

Greetings folks,

I took a lot of time and effort to do research and create articles for every elected official (state representatives, senators and mayors) for my hometown Norwalk. I am pretty sure, that given the size of the city, they qualify under the notability guidelines otherwise I would not have bothered. Now we have someone proposing to delete several of them. Please do take a look at the situation before they decide to make more proposals. Greg Bard 205.172.173.250 (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Quintard is the most difficult one... I only found his role in presenting evidence in the murder trial covered in The New York Times. The historical society records certainly would meet the GNG and N guidelines, but that is difficult to do. Wish I could help more, but I chimed in on 2. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello all! I was curious if anyone else thought it might be a good idea to make a (nonbinding) guideline on how all the individual US state WikiProjects should organize themselves, to help standardize them. I originally put this suggestion in the WikiProject United States talk page, so feel free to look there if you're interested. It's pretty empty though; basically all they said was to see what each of the individual projects thought about it. Please tell me if you have any concerns with this idea; hopefully we can find a way for everyone to love it! Also, I'm new at making proposals, so please forgive me if I do anything silly. :) Hope that you like this idea! JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Connecticut to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 03:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Missing Connecticut Supreme Court Justices

Drafts have been created for dozens of missing Connecticut Supreme Court Justices at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices#Connecticut. Please feel free to complete these drafts and move them to mainspace. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412:, I found a list at User:Gregbard/CT. Some of those names seem to be missing but do they look like they belong there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The current set of drafts only cover the court after 1808, but any other missing justices from before or after that period should be added. bd2412 T 03:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Law of Connecticut and template

Hi! I just created the {{Law of Connecticut}} template and the article Law of Connecticut, which I will continue to add to and build upon. My goal is to reorganize and patrol the CT law-related articles. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 06:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

US 50,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more states than they might otherwise work on. If there's the interest I will start 1000 State Challenges like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of states regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for the US and your specialist/home state like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every state, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any state sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thankyou.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving

I believe that WikiProject Connecticut should be added to the USA roster, since it is a state, and part of the USA. I would like to see what would members think.--JJBers (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Anschluss of various projects by WikiProject United States has been debated many times. Aside from tagging articles ridiculously, the actual WikiProject United States doesn't actually improve articles all that much. What is wrong with you people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.179.18.69 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Connecticut/Archive 5 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Outreach

I have been contacted by a reporter for the NH Register who wants to write a story about Connecticut's Wikipedia editors. If you would like to be interviewed, please contact me and I will direct you to the reporter. Jehochman ^Talk 14:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

WikiProject Connecticut participants may be particularly interested in the following: Cannabis in Connecticut.

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Archive 5/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Connecticut, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hartford Hawks lacrosse

Hartford Hawks lacrosse was saved from Speedy Deletion yesterday. Hopefully, the brand new editor will return to finish the article (if he hasn't decided after the CSD that Wikipedia is not worth the effort). In the meantime, I've done what I can, but I know nothing about lacross or the Hartford Hawks. If anyone else can make a few edits to save this article from a future threat of CSD, it would be beneficial. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Pushpin maps

Please note that there is currently a discussion regarding the use of pushpin maps at Talk:Middlebury, Connecticut#RfC about pushpin map in infobox. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

On whether the Newtown, Connecticut template should be mentioned in the Sandy Hook shooting article

Please see: Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Newtown, Connecticut template WhisperToMe (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

New London County photos

There are some excellent historic photos of New London County, Connecticut located here. If you need help uploading let me know. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there any interest in adding Connecticut wikiproject page template to the template {{WikiProject United States}}? It wouldn't change anything about the project, just the template itself. It seems like a useful template for regional articles that are of interest to many states. I'm working on some botany pages that span multiple states, and I'm hoping to not have to add separate banners for states that aren't in the template. @Magnolia677: it seems like you might be the only person active in this project based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Connecticut, is that correct? -Furicorn (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Furicorn: Is there a bot that could do it, or does it need to be done manually? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: So it can be done pretty simply, even without a bot. First, amend {{WikiProject United States}} to have two new parameters |Connecticut= and |Connecticut-importance=, plus aliases |CT= and |CT-importance=. Then convert {{WikiProject Connecticut}} into a wrapper, see for example {{WikiProject New Hampshire}}. If you really do want a bot to carry out replacement, amend {{WikiProject United States}} but {{WikiProject Connecticut}} should be converted more along the lines of {{WikiProject Utah}}. Looping in @Redrose64:, who is the source of this information. -Furicorn (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This again? NO. WikiProject United States should focus on improving articles and not trying Anschluss other projects just to "get bigger". Why can't you people learn from the Kumioko incidents? It hasn't even been a year since the last time this was proposed.

[[1]]. -Markvs88  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.22.160.194 (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't work in WP:USA, my interest stems from work I've done on ecological articles that span multiple states. @Magnolia677: I don't know if you've worked with the editor above? A different IP claiming the same signature commented on this issue last September, and there is a user with that name on the membership list, but I can only see that this IP has made than 5 edits in the subject area in the last 90 days. -Furicorn (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I've never edited or worked in any technical way with templates. I wouldn't be much help with it. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's an option if you'd like to pursue it. Sorry though, it still wasn't clear if you have worked with the IP claiming to be Markvs88, or are familiar with them? Thanks. -Furicorn (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed updates to the Pitney Bowes article

On behalf of Pitney Bowes, a Connecticut-based company, I've proposed an expanded and updated article as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I've saved my draft in full here, and submitted an edit request at Talk:Pitney Bowes to update the infobox and add the proposed "Overview" section. Given my conflict of interest, I will not edit the article directly and seek uninvolved editors to review the draft for accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability. I will be submitting additional edit requests to address the article's other sections later, but for now I'm wondering if a WikiProject Connecticut member may be willing to help with this initial request? I can answer questions on my user talk page or on the article's talk page. Thank you, Inkian Jason (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Connecticut

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 14:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

There were only 11 articles listed by this tool for CT topics so I ran through them and fixed them. There is one link to disambiguation page which is intentional and therefore preserved: Israel Putnam correctly links "including eight counties" to Putnam County (disambiguation). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thats great thanks.— Rod ^talk 17:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Connecticut userbox templates

New Connecticut userbox templates are now available at Template:User WP Connecticut and Template:User WP United States. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 22:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Laura Ingraham

There is a discussion at the Laura Ingraham talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Charles Morgan (businessman): GA-review

I nominated this article for GA and it has been claimed by WikiProjects Connecticut. The review is currently on hold. Talk:Charles Morgan (businessman)/GA1. FWIW, Morgan left CT when he was a teenager and lived in NYC for the rest of his life. I will post when the review is taken off hold. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on election/referendum naming format

An RfC on moving the year from the end to the start of article titles (e.g. South African general election, 2019 to 2019 South African general election) has been reopened for further comment, including on whether a bot could be used move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 5 7 15:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Connecticut AUTUMN 2018 Photo Contest

Hi all, I have decided to try to revive our project's once-regular photo contests. If you're interested in participating, please sign up on the main page! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Page disruptions

I have invited users AirportExpert and JJBers to meet here and discuss the recent back-and-forth revisions of various Connecticut articles such as Hartford, Connecticut. Please state your cases for what's going on so we can come to some sort of consensus, you're both valuable contributors and I hope we can resolve this and set a standard. Thank you, Markvs88 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to merge the region articles that are redundant or delete the non-notable region articles. —JJ B^e ^rs 19:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to create clear consolidation for the Connecticut Council of Governments. Being that CT lacks County Governments, the Council of Governments is the closest governing body and individual councils should have their own Wikipedia page. This includes Western Connecticut and Metropolitan Connecticut, which have repeatedly been merged and/or nominated for deletion.--AirportExpert (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Connecticut. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all, but I'm referring to the edits to infoboxes in CT city and town articles... is that a settled issue? Markvs88 (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The only other dispute I've had is at Hartford, Connecticut like you mentioned. —JJ B^e ^rs 00:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe that airports should be listed in infoboxes for CT cities that have them, such as Bradley Airport in Hartford. This is the case for every other major US city, and should apply to CT cities as well. The Council of Government that each CT town belongs to should also be listed in the infobox for every CT city and town. There seems to be disagreement on this as well.--AirportExpert (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert

Like mentioned in your talkpage, the only reason it is the case is because you added it in to those major cities. —JJ B^e ^rs 17:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who added them (and I certainly didn't add all of them), the point is that they remain there while Hartford does not list the airport. Why have you only attempted to remove the airport from Hartford while they continue to remain on every major city? Either allow Bradley Airport to be listed in the infobox, or remove the airport from every major US city where it is listed.--AirportExpert (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert

Just because it's on other articles doesn't mean it'll fit on Hartford, Connecticut. —JJ B^e ^rs 12:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how adding Bradley Airport (not Brainard) is too much for Hartford's infobox. If you just add BDL to the infobox, I will be satisfied and we can end this little disagreement right now. It won't take up too much space or clutter the infobox, it is simply listing the major airport that serves the city of Hartford.--AirportExpert (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert

Comment AirportExpert, I see that some cities have their airport listed such as Louisville, Kentucky and Chicago while some do not Salt Lake City and ~~New York City~~ Seattle. So I took a look at Template:Infobox settlement and found THIS. Airport is an optional parameter, not a standard. OTOH, some cities like London list half a dozen airports.

Thank you, I appreciate your input on this subject. I'd just like to point out that New York City does list the airports.--AirportExpert (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert

It's not just you & JJBers that have had a dispute on this question, so setting a WPCT standard would IMO help alleviate it. You're right re: NYC. Subbing in Seattle instead. Markvs88 (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

JJBers, we already have the bus-line, highways and railway listed in the infobox, so I really can't see the harm of adding in the two airports. Heck, we have FIPS code and GNIS feature ID in the infobox, whatever they are.

So to me, the question becomes one of standardization as I don't see any "right" answer. I propose we put it up to a vote on the project page (I'll write it if you like), and allow a two weeks for voting to hopefully get some sort of consensus. There are over 20 airports in CT, so I think it would be good for us to agree so that they are all listed in the same way and don't run into this issue again. I will not vote, as I have no strong opinion on this as presented. Thoughts? Markvs88 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with the vote, but I'll add that Airport Expert added all of those to the infobox. —JJ B^e ^rs 18:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with a vote as well, and it's perfectly fine if you mention that I added the airport to a few cities (however it's simply untrue that I added ALL of the them). As I mentioned earlier, I don't see how it matters who added them, just the fact that after I added them they remained there for years without being reverted.--AirportExpert (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert

I feel bad for the readers of Connecticut articles that User:JJBers Public seeks to move them relatively backward in time by deleting vital info from their infoboxes such as pushpin maps that benefit the reader in context of their location in various jurisdictions, such as county, state, and country, and by deleting selective county interactive maps. Continent and world contexts aren't jurisdictional and aren't absolutely necessary — but are indeed valuable. Keep in mind that this is a global encyclopedia, and readers aren't as provincial (or ignorant) as JJBers Public makes them out to be. I don't have the time to invest in this matter for now, but articles should be evolving for the better, not stagnating. What an unfortunate shame and disservice to Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, the interactive map reverts were a accident. Sorry for that. For the pushpin maps, we already had maps for the state and the country, but you were adding in the whole continent and the entire world, which is overkill. I remove some because we already had a interactive map that performs the exact same function with some more interactivity. —JJ B^e ^rs 02:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. It's not overkill. It's perfectly conceivable to think that a reader in Puerto Rico or Ethiopia could be reading about Hartford, or that a banker in Hong Kong or London could be reading about Greenwich or Stamford, etc. Castncoot (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Voting section I've added a voting section on the main page. Go have your say! Markvs88 (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Aaron Hernandez article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Aaron Hernandez#Update. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns Hernandez's sexuality and how much detail to include on it, and WP:In-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Nobody Is Above the Law

Currently, the Nobody Is Above the Law has just one sentence about the recent demonstration in Hartford. Are any project members able to confirm if protests were held in other cities, or help flesh out the existing content related to Connecticut? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion relist

Please feel free to weigh on on the matter of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David S. Cassetti. The article should be sufficient to pass wp:gng but was deleted due to votes on the article before improvement. Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, it is hard to have much opinion without access to the now-deleted article. I am in general an inclusionist and willing to help try to save/recover a legit topic. Since time has gone by, it is probably not a good candidate for deletion review, but perhaps it could be developed a little bit and/or simply restored by a new consensus of a few. Could you request a full copy (including edit contribution history) to be placed in your userspace or WikiProject CT userspace, from the deleting admin, perhaps? --Doncram (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doncram, and thanks for dropping a line about this! Sadly, I feel that it's a lost cause... I spent hours trying to appease the deletionists, and as prophesied a Brent R. Taylor page exists. It kills me that these things happen. I'll make the request but IMO there is a very low chance of finding anything that wasn't already there. Markvs88 (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

My 2019 project

I would like to improve Albert A. Pope and Pope Manufacturing Company. I need to do some more reading on subjects, so I will need to push this project back to 2019. I also browsed the Hartford article. The material on Colt is very long. There is good material there, but it needs improved sourcing, some copy edits, and perhaps some culling. The article fails to mention the publishing industry. That's why Harriet Beecher Stowe and Samuel Clemens lived there. Please let me know if there you are interested in participating. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Oldsanfelipe, i didn't know you had connections/interest in the Connecticut direction. :) I edited a lot here a long time ago, developing a lot of CT NRHP articles, though the list of NRHPs in Hartford and Hartford County was too big to make much of a dent in. The city of New Haven and some smaller counties got articled though. And I had fun competing in a photo contest run by Markvs(sp?), where my win got stolen at the end by some dude holding back on their pix to the last minute, but whatever. :) Hey, it would be great if you developed more about Pope and his company. And to set a 2019 goal that is good. If you don't set goals, ya probably won't meet them! --Doncram (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Tangent I recently tried to hold another contest but it didn't garner enough interest to make a go of it. However, if the two of you are interested and the other editor is still up for it, I would be happy to run another one. As for Pope, good luck Oldsanfelipe! Markvs88 (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It was User:Grondemar who beat me and that was back in summer 2010 and i am still perturbed. :( National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut and much more of CT NRHPs were since developed by User:Magicpiano, especially, with huge number of photos and articles. Hmm, wp:NRHPPROGRESSCT reports just 58 photos needed, and just 95 articles, out of 1595 total CT NRHPs. About a contest for new photos now, I wouldn't be able to contribute myself. --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Audiodude. I for one oppose this until it is explained exactly what this bot is doing and how it will impact the Project, and give us some time to decide if WPCT wants to opt-out. The link provided doesn't answer any of these basic questions. Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Audiodude, I agree with the concerns of my colleague above. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 01:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Markvs88:@MJL:. Sorry, I guess I'm too close to the bot project and didn't provide enough context. The bot is the User:WP_1.0_bot which is already running to provide your WikiProject with it's assessment table. The bot is being rewritten because the current version is outdated, crashes, and is difficult to maintain. I am the primary developer doing the rewrite.

The rewrite so far consists only of a new code path for gathering the assessment table data. So things like "There are 5 C-Class articles, 3 of which are Top-Importance". The part that actually produces the wikicode for the table and updates the table on your project page remains unchanged.

You are certainly welcome to opt-out of this phase of the beta and we won't include you for now. However, be advised that if the beta goes well (with going well defined as the table data not being broken or wildly not making sense) all WikiProjects will be switched over to the new code in the coming weeks anyways. Hope this information helps and please feel free to reach out again if you have additional questions. Thanks, audiodude (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Audiodude, appreciate your reply! I did take a 6 or 7 year wiki-break so please bear with me as I'm not up on who's automated what. Am I to understand that the purpose of the bot is not to rate articles, but is to solely update the table? Markvs88 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Markvs88 and Audiodude:, I always recommended pinging more than one user in this format for a prompt response and reduce time typing. Just my thoughts. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 05:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Markvs88 and MJL: Yes that is correct, article rating is always done by a human. The bot simply collects data on which articles have been rated what (by crawling the appropriate categories) and updates the assessment table with that data. And to reiterate, there is already a version of this bot that has been running for over 10 years to provide this information. I'm simply re-writing part of the innards of that bot and would like to test it on 1% then 10% of projects before proceeding to turn it on for all projects. audiodude (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Audiodude, I support this move! Thank you for all the work you do for the project! :D ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 20:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Audiodude! That makes perfect sense and I have no problem seconding MJL's support. Good luck with it! Markvs88 (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Notification template

Hi, just so you know, I noticed a problem in the "WikiProject Connecticut Invitation" on a talk page. I can't figure out where the original template is from, since it was substituted into the page, so can't fix it. The problem is that it says "Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Connecticut? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related content." — Venezuela should be Connecticut, I think. Thanks! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 18:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer: that one is on me, but I think it is fixed now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Planning for a meetup

There's a lot of awesome people in this WikiProject, so I am planning to get together this summer in New Haven. Is anyone interested in attending or helping set this up? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Syncsort update at Pitney Bowes

Resolved

Hello! I've proposed updating language related to Syncsort within the Pitney Bowes article at Talk:Pitney_Bowes#Syncsort. The current text is factually accurate but does not confirm the acquisition's completion and uses less than ideal sourcing. I'm submitting this request on behalf of Pitney Bowes (which is based in Connecticut), and I'm seeking assistance from editors to review this request and update the article on my behalf. Might someone watching this page be willing to help?

Thanks in advance. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This request has been answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) is being given away in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, including the week ending July 5th dedicated to the US, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. There's a potential £120 to be won in total for destubbing on any subject or region of your choice. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 12:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Quinebaug, Connecticut

Quinebaug, Connecticut Under county lists Tolland, but appears to be in Windham 71.114.127.59 (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a simple mistake on ECTran71's part.^[2] It's now fixed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Image used as Cornwall Town Seal

Hello,

The image used by Wiki for the Cornwall Town Seal, (the one with the covered bridge) is not the official Cornwall Town Seal.

Best Regards, Jonathan Berry Selectmen's Office Clerk Town of Cornwall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jberryb2000 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I will email you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Census Bureau officially recognizing councils of governments as CT's county-equivalents in 2023

As some of you might be aware, last year the Connecticut government recommended that the US Census Bureau discontinue using the former counties for statistical analysis, and instead use the Councils of Governments as Connecticut's county-equivalents. In December, the Census Bureau released a document stating their intention to implement this change in 2023. IIRC, the only data updates from the bureau come every July, but when should we update the county navboxes, geographic navboxes, stub sorting, and NRHP listings? I have started to work on sorting every populated place into its Council of Government here. I know this update is a long way off, but it's best to be prepared for this. Pinging @Nyttend: and @JJBers: --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know that, you can revert my edit and add that source in. You might wanna fix up the Metro Hartford page though. —JJ B^e ^rs 05:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A dreadful idea. The counties still exist, and everything is based on them. Unless Connecticut legally abolishes the counties themselves (and not just the governments), we have no business tearing up everything that's been done here for twenty years. Also, one little wikiproject cannot dictate the way that everybody does things. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed move of Bridgeport City Hall

Bridgeport City Hall currently describes the building now known as McLevy Hall, and not the current city hall. There is a proposal to rename the article here. Magic♪piano 11:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Fairfield SHU Community Theatre

Hello!

I am a resident of Fairfield, and I wanted to see if anyone was willing to update the Community Theatres article page. It lacks any new information on the re-opening and new ownership, etc.

So nice of you to volunteer! Tiptopper (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Evergreen Cemetery (New Haven, Connecticut)

Would anyone be able to take some pictures of the graves of notable people buried there? I am improving one (Bronisław Malinowski) for GA right now, and it would be a welcome addition. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Improving Connecticut ahead of GAN

I am starting an effort to clean up and improve the main article on Connecticut ahead of a future good article nomination. Any comments, advice, or edits in support of this would be greatly appreciated. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Missing Connecticut Supreme Court justices

Drafts for the following missing articles for Connecticut Supreme Court justices have been initiated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices#Connecticut:

Any help getting these articles finished and moved to mainspace would be appreciated. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Updates to Connecticut-based Pitney Bowes article

Hello! There are some factual inaccuracies in the infobox and introduction of the Pitney Bowes article. As a Pitney Bowes employee, I understand that I’m not able to make edits to fix these details myself. Instead, I posted a request with the specific parameters and claims that need updating on the Pitney Bowes talk page. As a Connecticut-based company, I thought I'd see if anyone here might have interest in helping review my proposed changes? I appreciate any time and consideration editors are willing to give. Thanks so much! MTatPitneyBowes (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:George O. Petrie#Requested move 8 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:George O. Petrie#Requested move 8 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Material Works (contribs) 10:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Class S, L, M, SS, LL, MM

I edit in WikiProject Schools, and I've noticed that in Connecticut school articles, there's a lot of mention of "Class S", "Class L", "Class M", "Class SS", "Class LL", and "Class MM", or at least something of the sort. What does this mean? Looking it up, it seems that it indicates size of the school/team in the same way Class A, AA, AAA, etc. does, but where does Class SS and Class MM fit into this, if at all? And is there a way to clarify this to people outside of Connecticut, like with a wikilink or expansion of acronym or something of the sort? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's probably worth clarifying that the classification you mention is for CIAC sports (http://ciacsports.com/site/?page_id=127). Despite my own broad experience as an athlete, parent, and referee in CT, I've never heard of that classification, but when I googled it and poked around CIAC's website, there it was. Can you provide links where the classifications are mentioned? CountryMama27 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

County Page Consistency

In poking around the pages for historical/census counties, I noticed some organizational differences. Do people see a benefit to updating these pages to have similar sections, perhaps breaking up the history somewhat, or updating the town list to be a chart like Demographic Breakdown (Breakdown being a term I'd like to see changed). Such a chart could show each town's incorporation date and when it was added to the county.

Also some guidance is needed regarding the Major Highways for those county pages that have it. First, if we include all State Routes, we'd have an absurdly long list. I propose we include only the Interstates and U.S. Routes. Second, the term is inaccurate and should then be labeled "Interstates and U.S. Routes." "Highway" is largely a regional term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CountryMama27 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Loosey LaDuca

I've nominated Loosey LaDuca for Good article status, if any project members are interested in improving or reviewing. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hurricane Sandy in New England#Requested move 21 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hurricane Sandy in New England#Requested move 21 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The CoGs are not actually counties

I'm very much against edits like this. We really need to stop propping up the CoGs as if they are actually counties. No one in Connecticut actually treats the CoGs as important as the historic counties, and I see no evidence that (besides the census) they are actually worth propping up as the lead image in every town article.
@AirportExpert: I'd appreciate you reverting until this can be fully discussed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Elli: I know you have thoughts on this you might want to share. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Disagree with you here; Connecticut's ceremonial counties have no governmental function at all and are no longer even used by the U.S. census at request of the state. While switching to planning regions may feel a bit weird; they make much more sense to use than counties at this point. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not on board with treating them as equivalents. While they are a thing and are more useful for planning purposes, nobody is going to tell you they live in the "Capitol Planning Region", they're going to say they live in Hartford County. Unless sources are now using the planning regions instead of counties, we should not be unilaterally deciding the planning regions take precedence over counties. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

According to the Federal and State government, the CoGs are now county-equivalents. The term "county-equivalent" is used to "describe divisions that are comparable to counties but called by different names". There are other states that also possess county-equivalents (such as Alaska's Boroughs and Louisiana's Parishes), and these designated regions serve the same functions as counties but are simply called by other names. Connecticut is unique however, since it is the only state to have "counties", while simultaneously using another set of boundaries (in this case "Planning Regions" aka "CoGs") to represent what are considered counties by the government's definition. The Census Bureau addressed this in the Federal Register, by stating "This decision was made without regard to similar circumstances that may exist in other states and is narrowly focused on this unique situation in Connecticut. Therefore, it should not be taken as a precedent for other situations that may currently exist or arise later". To summarize, the Census Bureau and the State both agree that Connecticut's CoGs will replace Counties by every legal, administrative and statistical measure. Connecticut's historical counties also no longer have important designations such as FIPS codes, which is something that every geographic region recognized by the Census Bureau has. I would encourage you to read these two documents provided by the U.S. Census Bureau for broader context:

That being said, I agree with you that people are probably not going to suddenly start saying they live in the "Capitol Planning Region", or the "South Central Connecticut Planning Region", etc. These terms are verbose, but they are not arbitrary terms that anyone here came up with. They are the legal definition of what defines Connecticut's counties, and should be recognized as such. I think for cultural context it is still worth saying, for example: "Danbury is a city in Fairfield county, Connecticut..." at the intro to each article and to leave the historical county in the infobox, but as far as maps go, it would be inaccurate to use historical boundary maps in each article, when the government no longer relies on these boundaries for anything. As time goes by, boundaries change over time. Being "historically part of something" matters to a degree and is certainly noteworthy, but it should not necessarily be used as the primary definition going forward. I would very much like to discuss this further with everyone before any further changes are made though. --AirportExpert (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)AirportExpert

One more thing to add: the Councils of Governments (CoGs) in Connecticut play an important role in cooperation between municipalities, and act as de-facto county governments in this state, wielding much of the same authority governments have elsewhere. That alone should be enough of a reason for a municipality's Wikipedia page to outline what Planning Region it is in via the map in the infobox. For purposes of transparency and public awareness of how councils of governments work in Connecticut, the map highlighting planning regions is far more useful and informative than a map showing the boundaries of a historic county that has no power to do anything whatsoever. Municipalities use CoGs to apply for grants and consolidate public services. Now with federal recgnition, CoGs have the power to do a lot more than they are currently doing, and the state pushed for this because there are a lot of public services that Connecticut taxpayers pay more for, which could easily be consolidated between municipalities to save money (a common example cited being the hiring of 911 operators for each CoG vs. each municipality). That is a clear example of how a county government works, and why it matters in this context. Should the historic counties still be mentioned and do they matter culturally? Yes. Do they have any real impact on the lives of people in Connecticut or the way the government functions? No.--AirportExpert (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)AirportExpert

It appears that the Planning Regions have been added to CT town pages, perhaps as part of the Census Bureau's phase in from 2022-24.

However, they are not vested with any government function or authority. As per C.G.S. Ch. 127 Sec. 8-31b(b), the 9 CoGs are for planning purposes. All government functions and powers are vested to CT's 169 towns (including its 1 independent city).

CoGs share 10 year plans, participate in grants, and help with some contracting for bulk services like heating oil for public buildings, tourism,, and consulting services (e.g. housing plans). 911 services are provided by either municipalities or regional emergency communications centers (RECCs) - not CoGs.

For true county government functions, look at 99% of the states County-wide commissioners enact their own statutes and regulations to manage core functions of the county and provide services in the town designated as the county seat. Budgeting, taxation, elections, law enforcement, judiciary, parks, zoning, etc. are at the county level whereas most of those, excluding judiciary, are at the town level in CT. Granted, whatever powers a municipality has - town, city, county - varies by state.

Sure, CT has regional services like water & sewer (e.g. MDC), health departments, judiciary (13 regional districts for civil & criminal court), RECCs, busses, but none of them even come close to overlapping with the 9 CoGs. And where towns don't have their own police, they use regional residential state troopers. CountryMama27 (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

They are equivalents, though, and both the state government and census use them instead of the historic counties. The historic counties are still worth mentioning, of course. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying the planning regions shouldn't be mentioned. But I disagree with removing the county maps from articles in favor of the planning regions map (I would be fine with using both). While the historic counties don't really have much meaning for governance, they are significant culturally. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I was going to write a longer response about how technically the historic counties are used for the Connecticut State Marshals and sometimes judicial districts (vs the WP:CRYSTALBALL nature of the CoGs), but I'm fine with just keeping both as well by doing something like this.
@AirportExpert and Elli: Would you find that acceptable? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I support adding both maps with a switcher to all city/town pages, and will be happy to help implement it. This is a good compromise that should satisfy everyone's concerns.

On a separate note, I've been having trouble with the interactive switcher maps on the pages for CT cities. If you look at the pages where I've added interactive maps, you will see that on CT city pages (such as Norwalk and Danbury) the cities are greyed out, but on the pages for towns they are not. I've tried multiple ways to correct this issue, including within OpenStreetMap, but I cannot seem to figure out what is causing this. Does anyone here have any ideas? I appreciate any input on this matter. AirportExpert (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that works, though I wouldn't link "Connecticut" there. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I think having both as you've shown here works well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think given the new county-equivalent designation (which, as an aside, will completely complicate using county census data trends), CoGs should be included in maps and by name where historical county is named, but should be referred to as county-equivalents (CE? a better term is sorely needed!).

As far as terminology? More people that live here refer their town being a part of the "Northwest Hills" (CE) rather than Litchfield or Hartford county.

Let's face it, CT is weird, and the legislature should simply reinstitute, and perhaps redraw, counties and phase in some of the functions without adding another layer of government. CountryMama27 (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@CountryMama27: It really depends on where you live. In Middlesex County, the county is normally used. In the Northeast, they normally call where they live the Quiet Corner. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

County Equivalents

The shift to county equivalents for the state should somehow be represented on the "historical county" pages; as well, do county equivalents need their own pages? Perhaps one to start that lists them and their towns and notes the difference between counties & county equivalents? (I haven't looked to see what's in wiki for CT county equivalents)

Also, should each town page reference their county equivalent as well? CountryMama27 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant now - the planning regions have been added to town pages CountryMama27 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Connecticut Panhandle#Requested move 7 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Connecticut Panhandle#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado GA reassessment

Hi there. As part of the Weather WikiProject GA reassessment, I reviewed Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado, which was nominated back in 2009. I identified some issues with the article, which I left on the talk page. I'll leave the reassessment open for seven days, so hopefully someone could help out fixing it up. Keep up the good work you nutmeggers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Stephanie McMahon

Stephanie McMahon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Problem with town locator maps in municipal infoboxes

So I've noticed on several articles that the expandable map that shows the town on Google Maps or OpenStreetMap show the municipal boundaries excluding any internal CDPs. This is obviously not correct and needs to be addressed. I've noticed it in the articles for Cheshire and Ridgefield as well as others. VulcanTrekkie45 (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)