Talk:Danbury, Connecticut

Danbury, Connecticut was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 3, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 5, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Connecticut Top‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I can't say I'm entirely pleased with the Historical population section. It's long, and it's pretty useless information. I can't even seem to find the same information on any other city's page. I've reverted it back to the more appropriate bullet-list version, though (see How to use tables) - Plutor 15:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If I was less tired, I would probably be adding something to this page. 137.99.184.148 10:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Link

The link for the co-founder of Subway restaurants incorrectly sends the user to information on musician Peter Buck. The actual co-founder of Subway is Dr. Peter Buck, and information can be found on the Subway website at http://www.subway.com/subwayroot/AboutSubway/history/subwayHistory.aspx

71.252.209.162 03:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)M. Winter[reply]

Fixed. -- Plutor 11:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Wooster's death

General Wooster did not die "defending the city of Danbury". His leadership, in the capacity as Major General of the Connecticut milita, was formed as an armed response to the general invasion of Fairfield County, CT and the advance of the British troops on the town of Ridgefield, Connecticut. He was mortally wounded in this subsequent engagement to the actual burning of the Danbury stores (the British objective). After his mortal wounding near Ridgefield, CT, he was brought to the Dibble house in Danbury, CT. It was here that he died 5 days later and was buried in the local hospital cemetery. Years later, his body was reinterred in Danbury's Wooster Cemetery where he resides today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wwporter (talk • contribs) 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

When I went to Wooster School, the claim among the student body was always that Wooster, though he had an admirable military career, suffered an embarassing death, (and I quote): "He was riding his horse, and got shot in the ass by his own men." Always wondered whether the specifics were known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.204.66 (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Aliens

The census counts illegal aliens badly, but does count them. The best estimates are from politicians? Jd2718 15:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few GA concerns

There are a few concerns I have over the article and its nomination for Good Article status.

Although it is not a requirement, the guidelines at WikiProject Cities suggest that only one population figure should be cited in the opening. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities#Article structure example for a U.S. City). You have three, plus a two different figures for illegal immigrants. Pick one figure, please. You might want to use the most recent estimate in the lede, and use the 2000 census figure in the demographics section, since all that data is based off of the census.
There are no references at all in the "History" section. There are a lot of statements there that need some sort of reference.
The "Large and distinctive companies" section is roughly analogous to "Economy", and should be moved down after "Law and government". Additionally, ATMI does not have an article. Either a stub should be written up for the company, or it should be removed from the list. Having it listed without a wikilink does not imply any form of notability. Again there are no references in this section, only the external link to the ATMI website.
The "Geography" section needs to be expanded (and possibly referenced). Are there any notable geographic features in the area? Is there weather data on the city itself, or perhaps a neighboring city? It needs something more than a simple set of latitude and longitude measurements.
The "Historical Population" table needs a little formatting, as it runs into some of the text in the main body of the article. It might be a good idea to prune it back considerably (maybe every 30-50 years until 1970, then every ten years from that point on).
The "Colleges and Universities" section needs to be expanded, A single sentence is not sufficient. You could change it to "Education" and include data about local public schools, or educational attainment of the population, or anything else that might apply. Make sure to add references as appropriate.
Prune back the "Sites of Interest". Most of the listed sites have no wikilinks or external references.
"Sports" and "Transportation" both need references.
"Israel Ward Andrew" is a redlink. Consider creating a stub or deleting him from the list.
Reference #2 is to a blog; try to find a reliable source, or consider removing the link and the information that the link supports.

Horologium t-c 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I just noticed--there are two pictures in the history section that relate to some type of disaster (a flood?) that happened in 1869, yet there is no mention of it in the history. If it's important enough to warrant two pictures, it is important enough to mention in the narrative, one would think. Horologium t-c 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, even more) The lede needs to be reworked a bit, and some of the information should be elsewhere in the article. From the Wikipedia style guidelines for introduction sections: Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only. The same page also recommends a lede of two or three paragaphs for an article of this size (it is currently 25.2kb). The last two paragraphs in the lede are not referenced elsewhere in the article, and the first two could be combined into a single paragraph, since short, disjointed paragraphs are discouraged. The history section also has several one or two sentence paragraphs that should be consolidated or expanded. Horologium t-c 16:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA failure

I am going to go ahead and fail the GA nomination for now. Several of the issues I raised have been corrected, but there are still a number of issues that need to be addressed. Once they are fixed, the article should be renominated. Horologium t-c 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Danbury and city seal

Does anyone own a "bird's eye view" image of Danbury, sort of like a picture of the skyline? Secondly, does anyone own a city seal that is in color and not in black-and-white? Maybe they can be found or asked for on the official city site, those images would really help the article. Thank you, AJSDA115 14:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carole King

I could not find any important evidence that shows a relation between Carole King and Danbury. She was born in NY. NyyDave 15:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA fail

I have failed this article for much the same reasons as it failed its previous GA nomination; many of the points in that review are still to be addressed. The History section, for instance, still has no references. Worse, there are at least two {{fact}} tags.

Overall I don't think that the number of references is adequate for an article of thie size, and there are too many lists that ought to be converted to prose. The amount of work still required to get this article up to GA standard is considerable I think, so I decided to fail it rather than put it on hold. Please feel free to renominate it when the necessary work has been done; there is no minimum time between GA reviews.

Good luck with developing the article. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Low importance

I think our city should be classed in some other category than, "Low Importance". Low importance! This is a slap to anyone and everyone who lives in this city! Does the fact that I live here mean nothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.75.149 (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To help Wikipedia contributors find other contributors with the same interests and articles that they would like to edit, some contributors decide to form "Wikiprojects", which identify all articles that fall into one subject area. Such is the case with Wikiproject Cities, which tries to cover all cities in the world. Having an article identified as "low importance" does not mean the city itself is unimportant; it means that, to Wikiproject Cities, improving the article about the city is less urgent than improving the article about, say, Hartford, Connecticut or Delhi, India when the goal is to provide encyclopedia-level coverage of every city on Earth.

This does not mean the article is unimportant to Wikipedia as a whole or to other Wikiprojects- as you can see, Wikiproject Connecticut finds it of "High" importance. And, if you feel strongly about this city, Wikipedia strongly encourages you to help clean it up. Liquidluck✽talk 06:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British or Tories?

"the British under Major General William Tryon burned and looted the city ... the destruction caused by the Loyalist army troops." British, Loyalists or both? I thought Redcoats and Tories were separate (but allied) forces. Art LaPella (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huge deletions

Recently, editor ScrapIronIV deleted a huge amount of material from this page. You can see the material deleted here.

I asked them to restore the content. We'll see what happens.

I also opened an incident case at ANI here, to ask for community intervention.

While technically the editor may be correct about most (not all) of the material being unsourced and therefore subject to WP:CHALLENGE in a technical, letter-of-the-law sense, it still feels unfriendly and very poor community practice to delete such huge swaths of material in this way.

Of course, anything could be sourced and added back, but this is still the deletion of a lot of accumulated community knowledge. Some of it may be cruft but really, this is a town's article. It contains townie things.

Sorry for this happening. SageRad (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at WP:ANI. I've gone and taken the middle road, restoring and then tagging stuff that needs fixing. If after a reasonable amount of time (on the order of months or more) if the uncited material is still in the article, it should probably be selectively removed. But per WP:V, ideal behavior is to tag before removal for non-contentious material. --Jayron 32 19:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I have already add a couple of references that were in linked articles. -- GB fan 19:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)At what point is "Tarrywile Park – Recreation park on 722 acres (2.92 km2) with 21 miles (34 km) of hiking trails. Mansion is a community center available for rental, more information can be found at www.tarrywile.com" notable? Additionally, it is promotional content. Not a single "park" is a notable park, wikilinked to an article. Just a list of names, with no context other than "park."

The list of businesses in the economy is covered in the chart below it, which was actually sourced.

Glover Teixeira Light Heavyweight fighter for the Ultimate Fighting Championship is the owner & trainer of a kickboxing & MMA fitness gym located at 16 Beaver Brook Road in Danbury Connecticut. Glover Teixeira MMA Training Center - This is completely promotional, and an inappropriate use of external links.

"Danbury High School carries a strong athletic tradition. They are perennial powers in wrestling, boys and girls track and field, boys cross country, baseball, tennis, basketball, and football. The wrestling, cross country, and track teams have all numerous state titles and New England championships. All three programs are considered to be nationally ranked annually." Unsourced claims of standing. Makes a great story, but worthless without a source

The list of trivia is completely... trivial. Somebody mentioned Danbury in a cartoon, so it belongs in an encyclopedia article?

And I did not touch any of my accuser's edits; the list of notables was actually one area that looked well maintained.

I stand by every edit I made; the material was challenged for cause. Well, at least the WP:BLP violation was left out in the restore. Thanks for that. Scr★pIron^IV 20:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ScrapIronIV, i do agree with all those specific texts that you note. I would say Tarrywile Park is notable but needs a source and needs to be made not promotion. I did in fact look at the kickboxer today and made a note to check that out and probably delete it, as promotional. The Danbury High School athletics is surely self-promotional. I will edit those particulars right now. I am sorry for the allegation of the appearance of following me to delete this material. I hope you can understand how i might have thought that. I fully understand that i cannot know what is in your mind or what you were thinking, and i try very hard to assume good faith. I am glad there is some resolution that actually might improve the article greatly because of this. Thank you for this list of the most flagrant cruft. SageRad (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very thankful to the editors and admins who helped out with this. It feels very positive to feel like we are a community with the intention of improving articles, and working collaboratively. SageRad (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To all the other editors who may work on this page:

As a result of the ANI case, much of the deleted content was added back, with the addition of many "citation needed" tags. Much that was unsourced will need to be sourced to reliable sources, in order to establish notability and significance. I am sure there is some material that really is "fancruft" or otherwise fluffy or non-encyclopedic, and can be deleted, but hopefully on a much slower basis, one-at-a-time way, than the huge clear-cutting of the article. I will help out with this as i get time, and i hope others will help out who care about this article. SageRad (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor indiscriminate restoration of material by Jayron32, in my opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which restoration do you object to? this one or this one or this one? Do you have any intention of helping find references or pare down the article with care and consideration for the final product, or are you just here to cast aspersions from the sideline and not actually do anything to article text to make it better? --Jayron32 20:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - This one. Adding back in cruft without care is not improving the article but I'm glad to see you're taking steps to fix that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am also helping to fix it. I appreciate that there is/was cruft here, but i feel it can be worked with better in the article, and with the new citation-needed tags, there is more impetus to do so. SageRad (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's a lot more work to do. You're invited to pitch in and help. NeilN, your commentary from the sidelines doesn't do one thing to improve the article text anymore than the indiscriminate and wholesale removal of uncontentious information which started this original thread. --Jayron 32 21:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        ScrapIronIV thank you for your "indiscriminate and wholesale removal" of spam, redundant content, and unsourced puffery. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the kind words, NeilN. So far I see at least 70% of what I removed in my initial evaluation has been validated as reasonable editing, by being removed a second time. I really don't like the drama involved. I know I am a heavy-handed editor, and not always as soft-worded as others, but I generally mean well. Scr★pIron^IV 21:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have to take a break, but others are invited to continue the work. I've gone through and cleaned up a bunch of the notable people section by making an initial run and removing a bunch of people without referenced, prose discussion of their lives in Danbury, or with ephemeral connection to the city (such as dying in the local hospital). Any additional work to improve the article with care and deliberate work is quite invited! --Jayron 32 21:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Montessori School still exist?

I added refs for all schools, but couldn't find one for Anderson Montessori School which was at Tarrywile. Is it still operating? Please, anyone, if you know about it, add the ref to the article. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed seemingly promotional copy

I removed these lines from the sports section:

American Top Team has a gym on 13 Barnum Court. American Top Team is an MMA gym.
Glover Teixeira Light Heavyweight fighter for the Ultimate Fighting Championship is the owner & trainer of a kickboxing & MMA fitness gym located at 16 Beaver Brook Road in Danbury Connecticut. Glover Teixeira MMA Training Center

They seemed too promotional to me. Please discuss if you disagree. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved former inmates to the talk page of the article on the prison itself

Please note, i moved the information on former inmates of the prison to the talk page for the prison's article. If anyone wants to go ahead and move that into the prison article itself, please do so. It would be really useful. I just don't have the time or desire to do it. I just didn't want the good knowledge to be lost from the mass deletions that happened yesterday. SageRad (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, actually, Jayron32 already did that so we duplicated information. Great minds... anyway. SageRad (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Danbury, Connecticut/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

article contains nice graphics, many useful wiki links, good resources, spelling, grammar, wikipedia standards, etc. could use some work on updating some key areas, but overall it has a great core to it. --DMW 22:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Danbury, 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Danbury, 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://factfinder2.census.gov/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160629133105/http://www.danbury.org/oldquarry/ to http://www.danbury.org/oldquarry/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Danbury, Connecticut

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Danbury, Connecticut's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USCensusEst2016":

From Manhattan: "Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 Population Estimates - New York County, New York". United States Census Bureau. Retrieved June 11, 2017.
From Stamford, Connecticut: "Population and Housing Unit Estimates". Retrieved June 9, 2017.
From The Bronx: "Counties Population Totals Tables: 2010-2016, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016". Retrieved June 10, 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Danbury, 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Danbury (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content related to John Oliver

I am continually removing content from this page related to the recent exchange between John Oliver and Mark Boughton, and would urge others to do the same. This content was based on a short social media exchange that constitutes a negligible and unimportant effect on the history and significance of the city. Longtime residents are aware that such exchanges and publicity stunts are typical of the local government, however the evidence makes it clear that this topic is a drop in the bucket of the city's content and is something that *should not* monopolize as much of the real estate on this page as recent edits have made it to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:1240:1083:704C:3623:7586:FABA (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation

@Magnolia677 believes the charts in the transportation section should be removed with their reason being “this isn’t a travel guide” However there needs to be a consensus on whether there notable enough. I personally believe they are, it has valuable information for anyone who is learning about airports in our area. Not to mention the lead of the section alludes to it. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]