Template talk:Connecticut

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates lists and displays all 50 U.S. state (and additional other) templates. It potentially can be used for ideas and standardization. //MrD9 07:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. state templates

message: Hi, I noticed Schzmo recently edited the template and removed certain cities. How do you conclude what is a city and what wasn't? You deleted some bigger ones, Manchester & West Hartford (populations > 50,000) for smaller ones such as Derby & Groton (city) (populations < 15,000). I feel you should start a dicussion in the talk page before making major deletions, thanks. - Sohailstyle July 9, 2006, 16:00 (UTC)
:Most of the time if you look at the official name of the place, you can tell whether it's a town or city, e.g. "Town of Greenwich". Another hint is that a town (in New England; not sure about other places) has a town meeting or town council form of government, while a city (usually) has a mayor. However, some cities are confusingly called "Town of ..." even though they are cities, such as Manchester. So I did make a mistake by deleting Manchester. But some towns are large and still have a town meeting or council form of government, and some cities like Derby are small but they are called "City of ..." and have a mayor. In short, the population of a place does not determine its status as a town or city. Schzmo 18:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a resident and government employee, I can tell you that no, Manchester is not a city.  It is incorporated as a town and is only a "city" in the sense that it has a large population.  What makes people believe it is the City of Manchester instead of the Town of Manchester is that the town uses the term "city" – small "c" – to describe itself.  Even the town seal shows the proper name, which is the Town of Manchester.  You can also see the Board of Directors' website for the proper use.  I hope that helps clear things up.  Beginning 23:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connecticut Cities 

message: I created redirects to Connecticut today for Southwestern Connecticut, Inland Connecticut, Coastal Connecticut, to de-redlink them. I don't mind writing up the articles but I'm confused on something--I'm from CT originally, I can do up something nice for Coastal--easy enough for that. But to me, growing up in Bridgeport and Stratford, "inland" was simply anything not directly on LI sound. Do we really need that as a category/region? It's kind of an oxymoron for a coastal state. As for southwestern, I can write that up as well, as it really should be seperate from the "Gold Coast". 
Thoughts on getting rid of "Inland Connecticut" as a category from the template and simply leaving it as a redirect back to Connecticut? If no one objects in a few days I'll remove it. rootology (T) 04:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  additions/subtraction 

message: There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding standardization of state templates (primarily regarding layout and styling) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates. An effort was made earlier this year to standardize Canadian province templates (which mostly succeeded). Lovelac7 and I have already begun standardizing all state templates. If you have any concerns, they should be directed toward the discussion page for state template standardization. Thanks! — Webdinger BLAH | SZ 22:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardization of state templates 

message: I've redirected all county templates to the state template and added all towns to it, following the Nevada, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island model.  This is because (1) the county templates were inconsistently used — four were altogether unused, except for the articles on their counties, while the others were used on a smattering of their respective articles; (2) many of the articles on communities other than towns and cities — which, after all, are already listed — were confused and held unusually-formatted names, and it would be simpler to follow these other states' models rather than attempting to link and move all such articles (numbering in the several hundreds, quite likely) to standard names.  Moreover, the small size of Connecticut makes this quite doable, unlike even Massachusetts or Vermont.  Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the way we're going to do it, I would just combine cities and towns together (cities are towns after all) and get rid of boroughs. Boroughs aren't really particularly important in Connecticut. Also, there is now no consolidated listing of prominent named sections of town, which the county template used to do. If the county templates don't exist anymore, these should be added to the county and/or town articles. --Polaron | Talk 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Rhode Island and New Hampshire both list cities separately.  Except for Nevada, which could probably use work, state templates list major cities, or in smaller states every city (for example, Delaware, Maine, and Vermont).  New Hampshire, meanwhile, lists a few unincorporated communities; surely it wouldn't be a problem to list nine more communities on this template.  Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree with getting rid of county templates. County templates are excellent spots to stick in smaller, non-municipality communities. What happens in other states is irrelevant: there is no compulsion to do everything in a standardized way in Wikipedia. I don't know what relationship standard community names has with whether or not a county template should exist. Where is the consensus for doing this? Noroton (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also diagree with adding all the towns and such to the state template and removing the county templates.  First, the general consensus for the state templates is to list to largest cities/towns only.  Listing all towns on the template seems to reduce the usefulness as a navigation tool.  Second, if the county navigation boxes are used inconsistently, they can be added to the articles for communities in each county.  Also, if there are a lot of non-standard names, the goal should be to move these to meet the Wikipedia standards, not change the navigation templates.  I'd like to see the state template be reverted and the county nav boxes be restored.  then the county navboxes can be added to all pages they link to.  Once that is complete, nonstandard article names can be addressed.  VerruckteDan (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you. We seem to have a consensus, at least so far. Noroton (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A big part of the problem was that there were tons of articles without the templates, and there seemed to be no interest in adding them.  It's far better to have it as Polaron's doing, with adding it to all the places.  Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All towns listing 

message: I have added a link to every town in Connecticut in the CT Template. I did this for a few reasons: 1) Some "towns" are larger than many of the "cities" yet did not have a direct link, 2) As a resident of Connecticut, I can speak for the fact that there is no real difference in day-to-day conversation between towns and cities, and many people refer to all 169 municipalities in Connecticut as "towns", and 3) I thought it only fair that every town had a link to it, so as to avoid accusations of favoritism.
If you think there should be any further changes to the CT Template, please respond to this post before making them.
 
- A concerned Connecticut resident  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.120.170.251 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding links to every town