Talk:Burlington, Vermont
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
 |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] Incorporated city
I'm not certain that the part about Burlington being Vermonts first incorporated city is correct. I'm finding other sources that give that to Vergennes. -Loudergoodmonkey
I don't know who originally put the distances to other cities in the area, but they were pretty off. -jd4508
[edit] Church Street Marketplace
I can't believe the pedestrian mall wasn't mentioned! It's what keeps drawing me back, as a Montrealer (especially for the coffee at Uncommon Grounds). It's called the Church Street Mall, right? Anyway, that's how I entered it. Shawn Feb 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.239.169 (talk • contribs).
- Church Street Marketplace. Loudergood 03:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay, so now one of you has to be bold and update the article with this new datum, right? (Hint, hint) And don't forget to go upstairs to Bernie Sanders' office next to the bong shop and make a contribution. ;-)
-
- Atlant 15:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links
I am involved in a new project, WikiBurlington, which is a collection of interconnected articles about the people, places, history, events, culture, and folklore of Burlington, Vermont. Does anybody object to this being added to the "External links" section? Also, we're looking to recruit some more contributors. Any Wikipedians interested? --Bradley Holt 17:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fibre cable network
Wired 11.12 (Dec '03) says that the city is rolling out its own fibre cable network. How is that going? How many houses are connected and who is funding it? 218.101.96.169 05:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Burlington Telecom rollout is underway in the Initial Service area, and provides not only cable service, but also high speed internet, and also phone. The network is privately funded, with no taxpayer contributions. There are about 130 subscribers as of the beginning of April, 2006, as reported by WPTX Channel 5 (read the article). Check out the Burlington Telecom website for more information. (Disclosure, the writer of this entry is an employee of Burlington Telecom.) --Jason Pelletier 14:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Civil Union vs. Census
New change suggests census data of 2000 took into account couples living in civil union. The law was passed in 2000, are we sure that data is included? I'm looking for it on the Census website, and it's not readily apparent. Just want to be sure data is accurately represented. Thoughts?--Jonashart 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not getting a response on this. I'm going to research and change it if that's what is needed. If, in fact, the 2000 census actually took into account civil union, I'll leave it.--Jonashart 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed the civil union reference. As far as I can tell, there is no data suggesting civil union was included in the 2000 census data. If there is, let me know.--Jonashart 14:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Atlant 15:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, ok. However, these numbers are not from the same data set as referenced in the article. The point is, the numbers referenced in the article are taken from the 2000 US Census. That census did not include civil union. That is not to say civil unions did not exist, but rather they were not counted. The CU law was enacted that same year, so it makes sense that the federal government did not get around to including those numbers. Now, referencing the site you've provided as addition information would be fine. We just can't stick "civil unions" next to marriage when those numbers were really not inclusive. Doing so becomes a political edit, not one based on the cited numbers.
The cited #'s come from here (at least, as far as I can tell...the citation doesn't actually lead here, I had to dig for it): http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US5010675&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP2&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on
Again, this isn't a pro-vs.-anti issue. Simply one of making sure our citations match our presentation, or vice-versa.--Jonashart 15:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding today's additions/removals of an external link
Today, 75.69.65.217 has three times added a link to [1] and I have twice removed the link as violations of WP:EL.
For the record, I'll note that this user just contacted me by phone at my home, objecting to my actions and stating that:
- I was incorrect in removing the link,
- That I left other similar links standing on the page, and
- They would seek to have my actions reviewed by other administrators.
I once again pointed the user to WP:EL, reminded the user of the statement on my user page where I remind folks that "Just because I didn't remove their linkspam doesn't mean that your linkspam gets to stay", and encouraged them to contact other administrators if they felt they had been treated unfairly. The user also once again claimed my actions were "vandalism" and I once again reminded them that content disputes are not vandalism and that we both should be cautious of violating WP:3RR. The user replied that WP:3RR did not apply to my "vandalism".
At this point, I suggested that the appropriate place to discuss Wikipedia issues was here, in public, on Wikipedia and not on my home telephone. I've add these same notes to the user's talk page.
Atlant 23:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- User Atlant has been informed that this link is NOT chatspam and is includable under WP:EL Section 4., "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."
- He has pointed out Section 10., "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET." under "Links to Avoid". Since the link is none of these things, the rule does not apply. Since Atlant is aware of this, and has threatened me with a violation of [WP:NPA] for critizing his arbitrary decision, I have no other choice than to refer to this action as abuse and vandalism.
- "Content disputes are never vandalism, and I'd suggest you not label them as such unless you want to risk running afoul of WP:NPA" -- Atlant
- 75.69.65.217 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- The link falls under section 10 of WP:EL since a yahoo group is a networking site and/or discussion forum. It should be removed for the page as thus. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- In this case, it is a news forum, like many others listed on the wiki, sorry. 66.252.244.140 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Sorry, that Yahoo Groups is a discussion forum and/or networking site first. Anything from that would never pass as a a reliable source, so it can't be used in WP:EL in that way. 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Sorry, you don't get to decide what a reliable source is. Every news item on that page is accurate. 66.252.242.150 01:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
It doesn't matter if the news is accurate. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. In that respect, I kindly ask you then to read and understand WP:V and WP:RS, especially WP:V#SELF, WP:RS#Aspects of reliability and WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sports
I like the new section. However, I think it can be argued that the UVM hockey team is a bit more 'notable' than the baseball team.--Jonashart 15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
