Talk:Middlebury, Connecticut

message: What am I missing about this voter data source... I don't see where the census data references voter registration at all?  Where are you getting the numbers from? Drhamad (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Voter Registration

message: A pushpin map was added without out consensus, obviously cluttering the infobox for no reason. —JJBers 00:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pushpin Map 

message: You have twice removed a map that had been added to the infobox.  With both reverts, you failed to leave an edit summary.  Please explain why you are removing this map.  Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Above... —JJBers 00:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus was reached by the editors who created Template:Infobox settlement to include four perimeters for pushpin maps.  Two editors have attempted to add this map, and there is no consensus or policy prohibiting its use.  You write that the pushpin map is  "cluttering the infobox for no reason".  First, could you point to a consensus or policy which defines a "cluttered infobox"?  Also, pushpin maps have been added to thousands of articles, likely for a good reason.  Magnolia677 (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What? I'm using the discussion on WP:USCITIES talk, not the infobox. The result of that was no consensus, and since the adding editor had no real backing for continuing to add them in into the articles in Connecticut, I reverted it. This was also done without consensus beforehand. —JJBers 01:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, you wrote that the pushpin map is  "cluttering the infobox for no reason".  Please point to a consensus or policy which defines a "cluttered infobox".  Also, you singlehandedly reverted two editors.  How is that not a consensus?  Magnolia677 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of map 

message: |(non-admin closure)There is rough consensus for including a pushpin map in the infobox.- MrX 16:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, who signed this? —JJBers 01:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, unusual mistake for me, fixed. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 01:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

text: This version of the article shows a PNG state map on top, and a pushpin map below it.  This RfC is asking if the pushpin map should be included, as it is in dispute.  On various US city articles, either or both maps are included.  Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I had considered this option, and if this reaches a strongish consensus based on a broad rationale (i.e., not that this article in particular is too short), then that's probably the logical next step. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about pushpin map in infobox 

message: # Support - There are four parameters at Template:Infobox settlement for the inclusion of pushpin maps, and both examples shown on the template page include pushpin maps.  Particularly on lesser-known locations, pushpin maps give readers a perspective of the location on a full US map.  Also, many featured articles, such at Kent, Ohio, use a pushpin map.  I also support the inclusion of pushpin maps, even when a local map is also included.  Magnolia677 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose The infobox parameters shouldn't play a role in this dispute. Anyways, the image map should be able to fully cover what is needed in a map sense. If there is no image map, the push-pin should be able to fulfill it's role until one is created. The map of it's location in the United States is unneeded at best, and at worst, over lengths the infobox to the point that it disrupts the flow of the article. There is no point to keeping the push-pin map if another map already fulfills it's role. — JJBers 13:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, who signed this? —JJBers 01:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, unusual mistake for me, fixed. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 01:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: *As a note from a relatively uninvolved editor (I'm just following some breadcrumbs) this is based on a series of edits by a set of editors who feel that a pushpin map is simply too much for the infobox (and has removed them on various similar pages). Similar discussions about this have happened here, here, here, and the section above this one. This (I gather) is the reason for the RFC. Primefac (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This version of the article shows a PNG state map on top, and a pushpin map below it.  This RfC is asking if the pushpin map should be included, as it is in dispute.  On various US city articles, either or both maps are included.  Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I had considered this option, and if this reaches a strongish consensus based on a broad rationale (i.e., not that this article in particular is too short), then that's probably the logical next step. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Middlebury, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sots.ct.gov/ElectionsServices/lists/2005OctRegEnrollStats.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128061321/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ct/Press2004/20041223.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ct/Press2004/20041223.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Middlebury, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150523034651/https://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2014/SUB-EST2014.html to https://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2014/SUB-EST2014.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)