Talk:Blue Hills, Connecticut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hey[edit]

Hey all, I'm the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article. If feedback is what you want and need, come to my talk page and give me a holler! --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 01:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved per consensus here on US naming conventions; close without prejudice to RfC. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Blue Hills (Bloomfield) → Blue Hills, Connecticut — Moves of 17 CT CDP articles to comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) which states "The canonical form for cities, towns and census-designated places in the United States is Placename, State (the "comma convention"). Those places that need additional disambiguation...". Note: the Blue Hills article was recently moved from a different name with edit summary referring to a "Connecticut place naming convention". It has been clarified in several other discussions (including 1, 2, 3 and 4) that there is no such convention (no general discussion supporting that, no consensus, no drafted guideline or policy or convention statement). I think this is all of the CDPs that were just now appearing in Category:Neighborhoods in Connecticut (besides the CDPs already having ", Connecticut" in their names). Doncram (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all of these cases, the requested new name is currently a redirect to the current name, so it seems the new names would not be ambiguous, so using Name, Town, Connecticut format is not needed for disambiguation. I am not sure whether all CDPs are always within one town. There are many CT village/neighborhood articles which do span more than one town, though, which would make using town names more cumbersome. Perhaps the 6 whose names currently show a town name (Byram, Kensington, Long Hill, Oakville, Southport, Thompsonville), should be moved to Name, Town, Connecticut format? Perhaps such further clarifications could be considered individually, later, if there is not enough info provided by others' comments? --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all - All of these are CDPs, so the "City, State" form is appropriate, consistent with U.S. naming conventions. Additionally, from my personal knowledge, I recognize several of these (specifically, Byram, Cos Cob, Oakville, Riverside, and Thompsonville) as places that are generally treated as Connecticut place names (e.g., Thompsonville, Connecticut), not as subsections of a town -- the fact that a Wikipedia user has decided that they need names in the form "Thompsonville (Enfield)" does not make that form "correct." The fact that I don't recognize all of these places as Connecticut place names may simply indicate my ignorance. Finally, since there's apparently only one place in the state called Simsbury Center, there's no need for the parenthetical disambiguator in Simsbury Center (CDP), Connecticut. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all EXCEPT one - Long Hill, Connecticut is a (historic) town now mostly within Trumbull, Connecticut. (see subsection below). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose of the moves of Branford Center, Broad Brook, Conning Towers-Nautilus Park, Cos Cob, Old Greenwich, Old Saybrook Center, Saybrook Manor, and Southwood Acres per WP:PRECISION: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed." None of the proposed additional precision for any of these articles is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name. Also, the U.S. guideline at WP:PLACES is disputed and under discussion, and apparently no longer has consensus support. Certainly many disagree with the practice of predisambiguation.

    As to the other articles, neutral to the moving from NeighborhoodName (CityName) to NeighborhoodName, CityName, at least for those communities in the group that are commonly referred to as CommunityName, StateName in reliable sources, which appears to be true for at least some of them, like "Byram, Connecticut". But they're also fine where they are. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on how the RFC is going, I don't sense that the U.S. guideline is going to be changed. I expect it will end with No Consensus to change. It is the guideline now, anyhow, and it trumps your argument regarding wp:PRECISION. You should use that argument in the RFC (and I believe you have) about why you want to change the guideline. --Doncram (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC discussion about guideline wording does not follow the AfD no consensus rule (no consensus means no change, or "keep"). Guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus, and if the consensus is not there, then the guideline does not have consensus support. Right now, at best, it's a guideline in dispute, and is tagged accordingly. Anyway, it does not trump the precision wording that can be found in policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - An added wrinkle to consider in this discussion is the fact that (thanks to Polaron) many articles about other sub-town places in Connecticut now describe those places as CDPs (e.g., Glenville (Greenwich)). Apparently the Census Bureau will treat them as CDPs for the 2010 Census results. GNIS already lists them as CDPs, but Polaron has not been able to supply any sources other than the cryptic entries in GNIS. --Orlady (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the idea of getting them consistent with each other and with places names across the country.   Will Beback  talk  10:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the following: (1) Conning Towers-Nautilus Park (not a village but a combo CDP of a military base and some housing outside the base) -- there is certainly no use of the term "Conning Towers-Nautilus Park, CT" from non-census based data sources; (2) Southwood Acres -- again not a village but a complex of condominiums for elderly care. Weak oppose for unique names: Broad Brook, Cos Cob, Saybrook Manor, Old Greenwich. Neutral for those needing disambiguation. --Polaron | Talk 19:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertions about facts for the two items you oppose are not supported by their articles, which you have edited occasionally. The entire lede of the Southwood Acres article is:

Southwood Acres is a census-designated place and village located in the town of Enfield in northern Hartford County, Connecticut. The population was 8,067 at the 2000 census.

It would be nice if u chose to update, with sources, those articles. Are you claiming knowledge but withholding documentation? Nonetheless, the guideline is clear, if those are CDPs, which you don't dispute (and perhaps u put in those assertions of CDPness originally). --Doncram (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I share Polaron's view that "Conning Towers-Nautilus Park" is an abomination. This is hardly the only case where the Census Bureau has created a CDP that is not recognizable to actual humans associated with the actual on-the-ground place. However, since it's a geographic entity that has meaning to the Census Bureau and has published demographic data, it qualifies for an article -- and its article might as well be named according to the same "city, state" naming conventions as are used for other CDPs. --Orlady (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that CDPs that encompass military bases are currently typically not named using the "locality, state" convention but just by "locality" (There are a few exceptions but most of them do not have the state name appendage). The CDP guideline therefore already has exceptions. I think that if a neighborhood is not a postal address (the only reason why the state name appendage is common), we should treat it as a general article and disambiguate only if necessary. --Polaron | Talk 06:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list any such exceptions please? I don't believe that there are many at all. If there are any in Connecticut, they should be added to this multi-move request. --Doncram (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of examples that support Polaron's perception of the naming convention for military base CDPs, but I do know that Fort Campbell North, Kentucky is a military-base CDP that uses the "city, state" style. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only other example in Ky. is Fort Knox. There are around 90 military bases that are coterminous or mostly coterminous with CDPs. Currently, majority of them use the common name (i.e. no state name appendage). --Polaron | Talk 15:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fort Knox is entirely in Kentucky, but Fort Campbell straddles the state line. The article about the CDP Fort Campbell North, Kentucky is separate from the article about the base. --Orlady (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there are any others in Connecticut, and Polaron has not disagreed. That should suffice for this move discussion. (About elsewhere, I simply don't believe the flat assertion that there are around 90 in total, or that the majority of them use no state appendage. Polaron, perhaps you could list them at the central naming convention RFC or somewhere else. It doesn't matter for this discussion though.) --Doncram (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further followup: Polaron separately tried changing the central Naming convention guideline to exempt CDPs that include military bases. I reverted that change as undiscussed there (and note consensus here seems to be that such a change would be wrong). --Doncram (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Additional comment: Blue Hills is actually a neighborhood straddling the Hartford-Bloomfield town line. The CDP excludes the portion in Hartford. Should we make separate articles for the neighborhood and the CDP? Should we treat the two Blue Hills as two adjacent places of the same name or one unified place? --Polaron | Talk 06:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That kind of ambiguity is reminiscent of the multiple uses of "Las Vegas"... they are all covered in one article... Las Vegas... so I suggest one Blue Hills article as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like support for the proposed move, because the current article covers material in both Bloomfield and Hartford, which is no problem if it is moved to "Blue Hills, Connecticut" as proposed. It could further be a potential split proposal, to split what will become Blue Hills, Connecticut into an article about a neighborhood in Hartford + Bloomfield, vs. a CDP in Bloomfield alone. That can wait till after this Requested Move is over. It seems the current article is unclear in what it is about. Polaron, u do seem to know a lot about these places in terms of information not reflected in sourced statements in these articles. Offhand, resolving the info in this article (or proposal to split it) can be left to later. --Doncram (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally oppose - those that don't need disambiguation shouldn't be disambiguated, and those that do are more helpfully disambiguated by giving the name of the town/city they are part of, not the state (except for those that aren't clearly a part of a town/city).--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preliminary count of !votes This is somewhat confused above and now partly split to below. I count 4 votes for the whole proposal, 1 vote mixed, and 2 opposes.
  • Of these 1 vote for is from "local" editor Markvs88
  • Of these 1 vote for and 2 opposes are from "policy-page" editors Will Beback, Born2cycle, Kotniski
  • Of these 2 votes for and one mixed vote are from editors who are both "local" and "policy-page" editors Polaron, Orlady and myself.

By "local" editors i mean editors who frequently edit Connecticut place articles such as the articles covered in this move proposal. By "policy-page" editors i mean editors who have commented some or a lot at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)‎

I think the weight of arguments is for the whole proposal to be accepted. I don't terribly want to bring in a zillion policy-page type editors. I think we could assume that, if invited to vote here, other policy-type editors would vote largely according to their general views expressed in the RFC going on at the Naming conventions Talk page. Voters there for "C", affirming the existing naming convention (which is so far "winning") would generally vote for this proposal (which is to apply the naming convention). Voters there for "A" would be split, as they are for changing the naming convention. Some "A" voters would say the naming convention applies here, and support the proposal, while still wishing the naming convention itself would be changed. More extreme "A" voters would argue the convention should not be allowed to govern here.

If i were not involved, i would just close this now with judgement that the complete proposal is basically valid according to the naming convention policy that is in effect, and supported by local and other editors, and pass it. --Doncram (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I count it as 5 Support (Dough4872, Will Beback, Markvs88, Doncram, Orlady) 3 Oppose (Polaron, Kotniski, Born2cycle). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, i had missed Dough4872. Polaron's statement is opposing for just 6 of the 17, that's why i termed it mixed. --Doncram (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Until the Naming Convention for the United States is changed, these proposed moves are in line with the convention. If there is subsequently consensus to change the convention, then they can be moved later to agree with that change. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Long Hill[edit]

(this section was moved out of the main discussion in refactoring by Markvs88, intending to clarify the discussion above. i elevated its section level to further separate it. I think this sub-discussion is done. --Doncram (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

  • Support all EXCEPT one - Long Hill, Connecticut is a (historic) town now mostly within Trumbull, Connecticut.
    • [1] : Long Hill has 3 fire stations.
    • [2] : Long Hill used to have a post office.
    • [3] : inventor Harvey Hubbell was from Long Hill.
    • There are at least half a dozen signs for "Long Hill, Connecticut" in Trumbull, I can upload one if desired.
    • Old Mine Park Archeological Site is in Long Hill.
    • The Trumbull Historical Society has more information at [4].

Therefore I propose Long Hill (Groton), Connecticut be used instead. I've been meaning to write a Long Hill (Trumbull), Connecticut article for awhile now but got sidetracked on all the Bridgeport stuff of late. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to use a parenthetical at all. Would Long Hill, Groton, Connecticut be okay with you for the CDP one? I think that is most compatible with the nation-level convention.
BTW, I started Long Hill, Connecticut as a disambiguation page just now for u. I would suggest the Groton CDP one be moved to Long Hill, Groton, Connecticut, and your article not yet written to be at Long Hill, Trumbull, Connecticut. I notice that Long Hill disambiguation page shows Long Hill, Fairfield County, Connecticut and Long Hill, New London County, Connecticut as different versions of the same options, though. Why not just start your article as a minimal stub right now, to help settle matters. The 2 disambiguation pages will need to be updated when this is over. --Doncram (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like Doncram, I'd prefer to see these articles use the comma convention instead of parentheses. This is generally consistent with the way ambiguous article names like Midway, Pickett County, Tennessee have been handled. --Orlady (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the comma version is fine with me. Thanks for the disambig page too. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "Support" the proposal. You may be referring to three new redirects that Polaron set up on 31 December, which are not part of this proposal, although it seems to me that they shoulda been discussed by Polaron as part of this proposal, rather than simply implemented. This (amended) proposal specifically suggests moving Long Hill (Groton) → Long Hill, Groton, Connecticut (NOT moving it to "Long Hill, New London County, Connecticut"). Polaron apparently prefers the names for Long Hill places in Connecticut to use the county in the name, by his setting up redirect from "Long Hill, Trumbull, Connecticut" to "Long Hill, Fairfield County, Connecticut". Markvs88, u then started the article at Long Hill, Fairfield County, Connecticut, but i am guessing that u hadn't noticed the redirect and that u believed u were then starting it at Long Hill, Trumbull, Connecticut. I suggest you just move it, based on having some discretion as the article creator. If Polaron wishes more discussion, he can start a new move request about that. Offhand i agree with using towns "Groton" and "Trumbull" rather than using counties "New London County" and "Fairfield County" in names for those. Again, by "Disagree", i think Markvs88 means "Support". --Doncram (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly prefer Long Hill, Groton, Connecticut and Long Hill, Trumbull, Connecticut over the versions with parentheses and the versions with county names. As Markvs88 says, counties are essentially meaningless in Connecticut -- although the federal government (National Weather Service, NHRP, Census Bureau, etc.) uses them. --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was disagreeing with the name Long Hill, Fairfield County, Connecticut, not with anything else. No, I hadn't noticed the redirect, so I've reverted it as (as I think everyone knows) I really dislike county usage for anything CT related. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, basically good. But you shoulda just moved ur article from "Long Hill, Fairfield County, Connecticut" to "Long Hill, Trumbull, Connecticut" over the redirect. You probably were able to do that without administrative help. If u couldn't do it yourself, it would be properly addressed as a Requested move, i.e. added to this requested move. Rather than doing a move by cut-and-paste steps, which loses the edit history. But since it was just ur own edit history of a few days, i agree it doesn't matter so much. Done with that. --Doncram (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since it was only one edit to the page, I figured it didn't really matter. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying that I did not create the article with the county name. Whoever first created the article did it with the county name. I merely created the redirect with the town name. --Polaron | Talk 06:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved the Groton one to "Long Hill, Groton, Connecticut". And i see the Trumbull one is at "Long Hill, Trumbull, Connecticut". And there is dab page at Long Hill, Connecticut. I think this Long Hill stuff is all done and should be stable where it is. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blue Hills, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_Hills,_Connecticut&oldid=1200203975"