Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:27, 3 June 2015

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject New Jersey and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
New Jersey This page is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Misplaced Pages feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Categorization of unincorporated communities in New Jersey

Categorization on Misplaced Pages follows the below hierarchy:

• Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey by county
• Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey
• Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States by state

Can you please correct the Category:Stub-Class New Jersey articles you have created by placing them in the correct Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey by county and removing the parent Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey tag? Thanks. Djflem (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't putting anything in that category until User:Thewildone85 (talk) came through and put them all in there. So... yeah, why'd he do that? Famartin (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, clearly he's not alone in adding them if one looks at a brief sampling, such as Ewing (unincorporated community), New Jersey and Croton, New Jersey which you created. Since you know better than anyone which stubs you have created you can at a minimum at least do the ones to which you added the incorrect category, and even better the ones to which User:Thewildone85 added it.Djflem (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, after he came through and added all the ones I made to that state level cat, it seemed like there was some reason for me to add the new ones I did as well. How about we find out why Thewildone85 (talk) did it all. Because, quite frankly, I'm not eager to go back and fix everything. Or, better yet, maybe you can go fix it if it bothers you so. Because it doesn't bother me that much either way. Famartin (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Djflem, I'm still new here so I may have missed it, but where was it written--or consensus agreed to--that "categorization on Misplaced Pages follows" the criteria you wrote above? Because not all editors are following it, and some editors--yourself included--are actively deleting the state category (I asked you about this on your talk page, but you didn't respond). I wrote to User:Hmains--who I believe has expertise in categorization--a while ago to get advise on this, see here. My feeling from edits in other places is that there is tremendous value to the users (not editors) of Misplaced Pages from having at least a category link to both the county and state level. Having a "master list" of all the unincorporated communities in a state is extremely useful, and the only way to get it is by adding that category link to each unincorporated community. Without it, a user of Misplaced Pages would need to search through each county to compare unincorporated communities (pretty onerous in a state like Texas). I completely support multi-level categorization--it helps the end user. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If you view Category:Geography of New Jersey you will see the pattern of how towns, cities, neighborhoods, follow a hierarchy. That precedent also holds for Category:Geography of Texas and has been developed over many years through Misplaced Pages:EDITCONSENSUS. While you cite the rogue effort of one user Thewildone85 (who doesn't have the decency to have talk page) to run through Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States and add the parent by state category to you also seem to be suggesting by the same rationale that Category:High schools in New Jersey should include every high school in the the state, and that every Category:Churches in New Jersey should include every church in the state, and that every Category:Boroughs in New Jersey should include every borough in the state. Are you? If so, why? Why should any of them included? Why should there be any exception for unincorporated communities? I don't believe there'd be much support for dismantling the neighbourhood, city, county, state, country pattern by throwing everything in one category that someone seems to prefer and ignoring a established hierarchy. Djflem (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "geography of New Jersey" or churches and schools has to do with this discussion, unless your point is to distract others so they don't notice you didn't answer my question. I randomly chose two places in Texas, Posey, Texas, and Midkiff, Texas, and they both have category links to the county and the state. This is the pattern on Misplaced Pages for all states. It's very useful for the users of Misplaced Pages to have one "grand list" of unincorporated communities. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if you are confused. As you've said, your new here, so I gave you some tips for familiarizing yourself with how categories work, particularly with geography, since unincorporated communities are part of main Category:Geography of New Jersey, which I hope you'll see & agree. (The above examples re both cases of a parent category not being removed when a new category was added.) I'll explain again.

• Category:Boroughs in New Jersey….Does it contain a list of each individual borough? NO
• Category:Towns in New Jersey……..Does it contain a list of each individual town? NO
• Category:Cities in New Jersey………Does it contain a list of each individual city? NO

The reason why the answer is NO because each individual borough, town, and city is part of another category in the hierarchy, for example Category:Boroughs in New Jersey by county. Now my question, Why should incorporated communities be individually listed in a parent categories when larger "real" administrative subdivisions are not? Djflem (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's use you're your example of "category:Cities in New Jersey". Did you know the Garden State is the ONLY STATE in the US that doesn't individually list each city? Just look at "Category:Cities in the United States by state". Notice the ONE EXCEPTION?? Of course, you could argue that adding places (ie. "Foo, New Jersey") to both a child (the county) and parent (the state of New Jersey) contravenes WP:SUBCAT. Though clearly, the editors in the 49 states outside New Jersey are willing to bend the rules to achieve the positive results. If we are truly here to serve the users of Misplaced Pages, and not just the editors, then adding parent and child cats in this case is a no-brainer. Alpha lists of all cities, all towns, all unincorporated places are invaluable, and can only be achieved by adding parent and child cats to individual city/town articles. I'm not buying this snake oil. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And the no-brainer by extension means that Category:High schools in New Jersey should contain every high school in New Jersey and Category:Churches in New Jersey should contain every church in New Jersey? Djflem (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't edit much on church articles, so you can do what you like. Having a master list of all churches in New Jersey would be useful though. All I remember of church is Peter 3:9 "do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing." Magnolia677 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that Djflem has expressed the issue much as I would have. The purpose of categories is to provide a navigation tool for readers and editors to maneuver around through articles that share a common characteristic. Categories that are too small aren't useful and categories that are too large are just as bad. Per WP:CLN, categories coexist with lists and navigation templates, all of which are used here. The structures for Category:Boroughs in New Jersey, Category:Cities in New Jersey, Category:Townships in New Jersey and Category:Census-designated places in New Jersey allow readers / editors to navigate through the structure by county or by a number of other characteristics. Within Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey are substructures for CDPs, neighborhoods and other unincorporated communities. Throwing all of the 666 of the states unincorporated communities (or the 1,727 in Kentucky, 2,064 in California, 2,660 in Virginia or 2,916 in West Virginia!?!?!) only makes for a useless potpourri that serves no one. Alansohn (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You think? A while back I needed to find an unincorporated community in Mississippi, where I've made many edits. I wasn't looking for a city, town, or even a hamlet. No, I specifically needed to find an unincorporated community, by alpha order (and I can't recall just why, but this really is a true story). GNIS was no help, because it wasn't specific enough in its search perimeters. Thank goodness User:Hmains had added both the parent and child categories across the USA (except New Jersey, as we know). It's sad to see those Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia articles taking the lead over the Garden State in this respect, but so it goes. For the end user of Misplaced Pages--a student, for example, doing a research paper about types of communities and who is looking for a specific list of unincorporated places--it really is a big help. Anyway, that's my 2 cents about why to add the parent cat. I haven't heard an equally good reason not to though. Who cares if the category is too big. If it's useful to the users of the encyclopedia, that's all that should matter, right? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If I may jump in, I think there should be a category for the unincorporated communities in New Jersey. I don't see any reason why the category should not exist. True the category would get larger, but if we put everything in alphabetical order, it should not be too hard to navigate. If other states like Texas, which are much bigger than New Jersey, have a category for unincorporated communities, then so should New Jersey. I would create subcategories such as list of unincorporated places in New Jersey by category in order to organize the list more, as this would limit the length of the category to a reasonable length. It may take a lot of work, but in the end it will be worth it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah so PointsofNoReturn agrees to include this category. Check the new discussion below. Tinton5 (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

PontNoPoint says "I would create subcategories such as list of unincorporated places in New Jersey by category in order to organize the list more, as this would limit the length of the category to a reasonable length". which is exactly what following by county does.Djflem (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I made a case located here: Misplaced Pages talk:Categorization at the bottom. The category, Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey, is very useful and serves as a guide for readers to search which locality they are looking for: state view and by county view. Both categories should be acceptable. Thewildone85 (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

By extension, that would indicate that Category:High schools in New Jersey should contain every high school in New Jersey and Category:Churches in New Jersey should contain every church in New Jersey. Is that true? If not, why here? Why then stop at state and not include every community in the USA alphabetically listed in Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States? Djflem (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

From User talk:PointsofNoReturn#Question/clarification where I had asked for clarification of statement made above.

I think that organizing unincorporated communities by county would be a good idea, and then within the counties alphabetize the names of the communities. That would make the category easy to navigate. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

New: Consistency for articles: State/county maps

A lot of articles related to NJ are not consistent, where some have state-level maps, others don't (they just have county maps), the Unincorporated communities in NJ category, where there has been a long debate about whether or not this was appropriate, and other general formatting standardization. For the maps, I believe just having the county-level map is sufficient. Thoughts? Tinton5 (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The "infobox settlement" template makes room for several kinds of maps, including pushpin maps. Pushpin maps are more widely used on articles across the United States. What one editor sees as "consistency", others may see as limiting expression. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. County level maps are more than sufficient. State maps are redundant where there is a county map since it includes a state map inset, besides being unnecessarily space consuming. As has been pointed out elsewhere, much work has been done to raise the standard in NJ articles by assigning county level maps, which is not the case in most US articles.Djflem (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I want to make sure I am understanding this correctly. I find the state map inset extraordinarily valuable, even if it takes up a little extra space. It really gives a perspective of where a town lies in the state of New Jersey, not just in a county. I shouldn't have to mentally extrapolate where a town lies regarding its relative location in the state, clicking back and forth between the town article and its parent county article to do this - that's just awkward and clumsy. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what is being asked, however. To clarify myself, as an example, I really like what the Allamuchy Township, New Jersey infobox looks like with respect to this particular issue, because I can immediately see where Allamuchy lies both within Warren County and within New Jersey itself. Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The maps being discussed are here and here, as used for example, Coytesville, New Jersey the latter of which is very large and different from the format used in Allamuchy Township, which has one format used. Fort Lee, New Jersey offers another solution to specify county and state location without taking up so much space, showing the town within the county, and the county within the state.Djflem (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I do indeed like the Fort Lee format the best, as it not only shows the town within the county and the county within the state, but also the relative position of the town with respect to other towns in the county, for example where Fort Lee would meet Englewood Cliffs. I also agree that the second state map consumes excessive space in the Coytesville case and is redundant there. Castncoot (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The state pushpin map is definitely redundant.. I think at least 3 agree so. The county level pushpin map is more than satisfying. There is already an inset of the state, already mentioned above. We don't want the box to be cluttered. Tinton5 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Same here. One map per page is enough and almost all of the maps we have provide a detailed county-level map with a corresponding state map showing the location of the county. An extra state map is unneeded. Alansohn (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Since consensus has at least 3 people that feel the extra map is unnecessary, I am going to be bold and start taking down the redundant maps for unincorporated communities. Alan, are you adding flag icons to each page as well? Tinton5 (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• I feel the state map is redundant if a county map is present. The infoboxes are too big as it is and stretch into the body of the article. Can we do anything to control the ever-increasing size of these municipal infoboxes? --JackTheVicar (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

New Jersey towns, section order

(Copy-pasted from Alansohn (talk)): I believe that the section order in these town articles should be re-standardized - although you may be involved in local government, most readers are not likely to be concerned at all with local government and politics on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, the average reader is far more likely to be concerned with the issues of education and transportation. Best, Castncoot (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Castncoot, we probably would benefit from re-standardizing the order of sections in municipal articles. Given that there is a standard to be re-standardized, we should probably leave that standard unchanged until we have consensus on a new standard. While it does not establish a policy in any way shape or form, WP:USCITIES does provide some optional suggestions that place the sections in order by Government, Education and Transportation. Pending any effort to re-standardize, you can self-revert or I will be happy to undo the changes. Alansohn (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Alansohn, if the standard was designed by previous consensus, then by all means revert to this standard pending a new consensus. On the other hand, if the standard was essentially self-designed by you, then I think we should move the ball forward right away and move Government (or at least Politics, if you're willing to tease that out of Government) farther down the totem pole compared to more salient issues including Education and Transportation. I surmise that the average reader wouldn't want Politics of all topics to be placed as high up as it is in many of the New Jersey town articles and may in fact find this to be an embarrassing shortcoming for these articles. I think you've otherwise done a fabulous job on these articles, I must note - I simply believe that this one issue unfortunately impedes greatly their potential for being even more superior. Best, Castncoot (talk)
  • Castncoot, I understand your efforts to consider reordering sections in these articles. I'm sure that I had something to do with the establishment of the order in the article for Allendale and elsewhere in the state, but this order has been based on guidance elsewhere. Whether you take a look at the suggestions in WP:USCITIES or at featured articles such as Boston, the order of Government, followed by Education, followed by Transportation is followed. I'm sure that there are better ways to do this, but the best way to do this is by reaching consensus and leaving the article in the pre-existing order until that new consensus is reached. Finding featured articles and guidelines that match your preferred order would add weight to your argument for a change in consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

We are, in part, limited to those areas where we have data/information. The abundance of accessible information regarding local government organization tends to weigh this area heavily. Liz 02:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. Alansohn, I had also looked at WP:USCITIES myself, and to be honest, all three (Government, Education, and Transportation) are downgraded according to this guideline (just a guideline, and one with which I have several disagreements and which is geared toward large cities, in any case). The guideline also suggests mentioning something about local politics within government, but again, specifically for larger cities. Therefore, WP:USCITIES appears to be tremendously unhelpful here, for smallish New Jersey towns. I think we need to use simple common sense and good judgement here. The average reader looking up Allendale, New Jersey is more likely to be interested in its demographics, educational system(s), and public and/or road and highway access before he or she contemplates the name of the current mayor or councilmembers. Castncoot (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that WP:USCITIES is highly flawed, but it is intended to be a guide to the organization of articles about places of all sizes. I'm sure that you have your perceptions as to what readers want to know about in what order, as do I. The best way to resolve this is through consensus, using featured articles and relevant guidelines as a model. Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Are there many Featured Articles on small towns? If so, I agree they could be a relevant guideline for consensus, and I also agree we should strive to reach a consensus. Otherwise, an alternative might be to contemplate what one might look for in the website city-data.com. Also, the fact is that there is readily available information about the names of school board members of these towns' school districts - the average reader is likely to be just as disinterested in these names as well. Education, Transportation, and Government thus speak for themselves, but the politics associated with Education or Government (or the Transportation department, for that matter) are far less important, although certainly worth mentioning, when dealing with these smallish towns, from this perspective. Castncoot (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I encourage you to find examples of articles that support your case and make your case to change the current consensus at WP:USCITIES used across the nation. Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. See Allendale. In Michigan, that is. Also, when or where was consensus reached to apply the WP:USCITIES guideline to New Jersey's town articles? And was that in fact, followed, when it directed politics to be geared toward larger cities, not smallish towns in New Jersey? Are school board members' names then listed in New Jersey town articles' Government sections? Questions to contemplate. Castncoot (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So we should base consensus in New Jersey on an article for somewhere in Michigan that is unincorporated so it has no government? When was that consensus made? Please raise the issue at WT:NJ and make your best case for why this should be the model. I wish you the best of luck. Alansohn (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, please look up Allendale Charter Township in Michigan, as you were the one who suggested looking at articles across the US. At the time of this writing, there isn't even a Government section, even though there is a government, as stated in the infobox. On the other hand, the Education section directly follows Demographics. I've also noticed that no other state's municipalities' Government section carries as much material as in New Jersey - but this goes against WP:USCITIES, which again, you seem to be relying on, albeit partially and selectively. I also don't believe I have any burden here, because I don't believe an applicable consensus was ever reached for New Jersey towns, which mostly have < 100K in population - while the spirit and intent of the very roughly and poorly designed WP:USCITIES is clearly aimed at big cities. Castncoot (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Being that no applicable consensus has ever been reached then, I would simply point out that this is indeed a golden opportunity to quickly build for the first time a consensus for a laudable template for New Jersey town articles and to call it WP:NJCITIES. Perhaps it could be ordered as such:

• Lede
• History
• Geography
• Demographics
• Education
• Transportation
• Economy
• Government
• Public services
• Politics
• Culture
• Notable residents
• See also
• References
• External links
  

As you notice, Government is getting its fair play in this list, using the perspective of criteria as would be ranked in terms of mundane, day-to-day concerns of inhabitants of New Jersey suburban towns, who incorporate vastly different concerns from those in large cities. The average citizen has to travel every day, for example, many to New York City or Philadelphia, and a large percentage if not a majority in these smallish suburban towns have school-aged children; on the other hand, the average citizen is not showing up in council chambers each day, nor do government decisions in small towns match the attention received by every word uttered or every move ordered by the mayor of a big city, nor is there generally a plurality of single people in these towns for whom public education is not as prominent an issue. If one can make the reasonable assumption that readers of New Jersey town articles want to get an authentic "flavor" of a given town itself, then IMHO, this list is sensible. Best, Castncoot (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• I guess we have three choices here. We can adopt WP:USCITIES as a standard; We can use the de facto consensus standard used in articles for New Jersey that has been established over the past dozen years; or we can follow your proposed standard (for which I cannot understand separating Government and Politics into two discrete sections). While USCITIES is not policy, it does provide a model of section orders used across the nation and in featured articles. Sure Allendale, New Jersey isn't Boston. But neither is Newark, Jersey City or New Jersey, yet I'm confident that these are full-fledged cities. There are Teterboro and Tavistock at the smallest end of New Jersey municipalities, but where would we draw the line in the List of municipalities in New Jersey between large cities and those subject to your proposed NJCITIES? Where do Atlantic City and Hackensack cities with 40,000-odd residents fit in, and what about Neptune City (a borough with about 5,000 residents) or Corbin City (a city with 500 or so people). As to content of sections, we can search the nation for the lowest quality articles and gut New Jersey articles to match the lowest standard or we could work to encourage editors in Michigan and elsewhere to be far more thorough and complete following the standard we've set here. Think it through, modify your structure as needed, and make your best case at WT:NJ. I am rather leery of the proposal, But I am more than happy to abide by whatever formal consensus is established through this process. Alansohn (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see this forum progressing in a positive discussion and rapidly so, Alansohn (talk). I think reasonable people can work pretty quickly. First, let me say that the Michigan article simply represented an exaggerated counterexample; obviously I don't believe that any town with a government should or can be devoid of a Government section, and my proposed list order above includes Government squarely in the middle. Likewise, I believe WP:USCITIES is awful, you have acknowledged that is flawed yourself, and I suspect that it's also caused many town article editors to shun it across the country. Choices would be to include all municipalities in New Jersey which come with the title "City" alone (there must be a mere ten or fifteen of them, perhaps, compared to over 500 townships and boroughs?-you would know better than I) under WP:USCITIES (which I don't favor), or to place ALL towns AND cities under the new WP:NJCITIES template. You yourself acknowledged at the outset of this discussion that the de facto status quo is also not acceptable, so it would be frankly hypocritical to maintain an unacceptable product. Finally, I have deliberately proposed making Politics a separate section because I believe that we as editors must have insight and responsibility when informing the reader to separate essential governmental services, such as the structure of a town's government and its police and fire protection, from comparatively non-essential information, including the names and political affiliations of current councilmembers. I don't mind transporting this same discussion to WP:NJ, will do so per your suggestion. Best, Castncoot (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether WP:USCITIES is great or sucks, the last thing Misplaced Pages needs is 50 different city article standards in the USA. Yes, most likely we won't see 50, but this is ripe for getting out of control in the future as other states decide to do it, then it will incrementally turn into a big mess for everyone to keep track of the differences. Though I primarily edit states in the midwest, I've touched city articles in numerous states, and I sure don't want to learn numerous city article formats. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That's WP:BALL and also really isn't rational. If something is broken, you have to fix it. By the way, have you ever edited a single New Jersey town article? Also, just FYI, the current de facto standard in New Jersey is not WP:USCITIES; and since you edit primarily midwestern town articles, please note that Allendale Charter Township, Michigan; Allendale, Michigan; and Allendale, Missouri all do not resemble the WP:USCITIES template in the least. Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If you are looking for an article about a town closer to New Jersey, check out Briarcliff Manor, New York. It is also a relatively small village, and is located in Westchester County, not too far from New Jersey. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I was bored and talk page stalking enough to find this, so I'll comment. I used USCities to the tee while forming the Briarcliff article, and I thought it worked really well. I'm happy with the sections and their titles and orders, and was able to find useful information relevant to each section heading, except sister cities (as such small towns typically have none). I'd recommend the USCities guideline for all New York and New Jersey municipality articles, big towns or small.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 03:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

For unincorporated areas that therefore aren't municipalities, I have less experience. I wrote articles on the NY hamlets of Archville and Eastview, neither of which are big or important enough to have sources that I can use to fill in sections on population, geography, or other information. I would still believe USCities works as long as you omit government and demographics sections (the latter unless it's a CDP) and maybe a few others as needed. A more specific template can be developed, probably pretty easily, as long as consensus is reached.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 04:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad we're attracting a good discussion here. Converting to the USCITIES format would take a drastic change from the current status quo. It would involve adding Arts, Culture, Tourism, Sports, and Parks and Recreation all BEFORE Government and Politics. The current de facto status quo standard, and simply for consistency, randomly picking out another New Jersey town article starting with the letter "A" - namely Allamuchy Township, New Jersey - if everyone could please take a look at this, what springs out immediately with New Jersey town articles is how much relative weight is given to Government and Politics, ahead of Education and Transportation - one will find this to be consistent across most New Jersey town articles and is simply not the case with the Town articles of any other state I looked at (about 10 states, I randomly chose). Therein, I compiled the above list as not too drastic a change from the current status quo, yet one which seems to make sense, at least from this perspective. What do people think of the above list anyway? Also, any suggestions with regard to this list order? Castncoot (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur with User:Ɱ that the WP:USCITIES model will work best. USCITIES merely provides a model of the sections and how they should be ordered. It does not require that each section exist and it specifies that there is room for local changes. As we've modified it here in New Jersey, we seem to have an effective middle ground. I think that any changes for New Jersey should focus on tweaks rather than a redesign. Alansohn (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, yeah that is true about the USCities guideline. Castncoot, wouldn't you prefer all those sections you listed that relay more unique aspects of the area to be above government and politics, which (at least in the NJ ones I've seen so far) are usually far from unique and appear to be far too long and detailed when comparing that section to the rest of the article? So I'm confused if that was a complaint about using USCities because the above list has government really far down. And as for the above list, I agree with most of it, though I think politics should be a subsection of government and seeing as transportation often involves public services, at least putting the sections next to each other if not sub-set might be a good idea.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 14:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so let me just clarify with what I'm hearing from User:Ɱ - he or she believes that the Government and Politics sections are too long, too high up in the article, and far from unique. I would have to agree there. If this is the case, then the Government and Politics sections need to be trimmed, and some of the other sections (including Arts and Culture) need to be put ahead of Government. Do we have a consensus here? Castncoot (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So based upon what we've heard here, there appears to be a general (albeit not unanimous) consensus to follow WP:USCITIES and to reduce the size of Government sections. Alansohn, if it would be possible for you to kindly start trimming the Government sections, that would be greatly appreciated - I agree that the Government and Politics sections are primarily weighing down the New Jersey town articles. If you're not able to do it alone, I would be happy to help when I am able. As User:Ɱ notes, there are plenty of interesting sections which WP:USCITIES (as favored by you and others here) wants to precede Government, including Arts and Culture, which the current de facto status quo has backwards, so that will need to be fixed as well. Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, we are free to tweak WP:USCITIES, as it has no value as policy, but it is something that we should use as a starting point if there are any tweaks that would work better here. Next, I'm not sure what is "weighing down" what in the government section, but let's discuss. I've seen other New Jersey articles, such as the one for Bergen County, New Jersey, which is rather heavily weighed down with details of every ethnic group that's ever stepped foot in the county in the 16 subsections dedicated to community diversity, but the best way to do address that issue is to add more weight to the other sections to counterbalance the excesses in demographic details, such as in education and arts and culture. I'd suggest the same in municipal articles, unless there are specific suggestions as to what is given excessive weight here. Alansohn (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with Allamuchy Township, New Jersey. I've placed Culture ahead of Government, as WP:USCITIES clearly directs. As far the Government section goes, it alone covers roughly 40-45% of the (pre-references) text!!! As User:Ɱ pointed out, the Government sections here are not uniquely notable; at least more notability would justify more weight and more text. And the story is similar throughout hundreds of other New Jersey town articles. Are Warren County's Board of Freeholders really needed in this and every other Warren County municipality page? I think not, as it should suffice simply to have that information in the Warren County, New Jersey article. Likewise, the town's 2004 and 2008 presidential election results are outdated and represent an inappropriate waste of space in this as well as hundreds of other New Jersey town articles. Also keep in mind that the 2016 election is right around the corner. Perhaps at the Warren County level, 2004 and 2008 could be more pertinent, but at the town article level, I believe that this represents an overweight. WP:USCITIES affirms this philosophy as follows: "For larger cities, you might include information on the local government politics as well." I don't want my comments to undermine in any way the fabulously informative work that you've accomplished over the years, Alansohn, but I'm simply trying to find a way to reduce the Government/Politics section to closer to, let's say, 25-30% of the (pre-references) text. Yes, culture and other sections need to be expanded as well, but then again, that's far easier done at the County article level than at the level of a small municipality's article, given the limited scope of content to provide these other section topics. Best, Castncoot (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree, especially when it comes to that county paragraph. I also find that the census paragraphs are way too large here. I usually remove the outdated information (in this case, the 2000 census). Parts of it could/should be reformatted into a historical demographics subsection, but as it is it looks rather pasted-in and the reader would expend too much effort comparing this meager ten-year difference.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 17:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree about the 2000 census info, I've removed it. It's 2015 now, and data from 2000 is no more useful than from 1990 at this point. Castncoot (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so in the spirit of what the three main participants in this discussion have expressed, I have tweaked the Allamuchy Township, New Jersey and Brigantine, New Jersey pages as follows: 1) reordered sections as per WP:USCITIES, 2) removed outdated 2000 Census paragraphs and lede mentions of 1990 Census data, rescuing orphaned refs, and 3) removed from Government and Politics outdated election results as well as non-municipal personalities, while providing convenient wikilinks to higher level government jurisdictions. The Government section is still very prominent but carries a much more pertinent and notable role now in these articles. (There was an edit conflict in the 2012 presidential election results within the Allamuchy page, and I removed the material which was error-prone per erroneous percentage calculations). I hope that Alansohn will synthesize another template now to this effect to provide a convenient transformation of the New Jersey town article genre. I think that we have collectively made a real improvement here with this municipal genre through this discussion and it has been a pleasure, thanks. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

County category discussion

A county category discussion which would affect this project is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 27#Counties of the United States Djflem (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Former/historical towns categorozation

At Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy there is a discussion with regard to categoriszation] relevant to this project, regarding:

• Category:Historic towns of Hudson County, New Jersey merging into Category:Former municipalities in Hudson County, New Jersey per WP:C2C clear naming convention in Category:Former municipalities in New Jersey and to match actual contents that are not limited to towns. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Those places which are clearly municipalities have been shifted to that category. Remaining are historical villages which were once part of various other governmental/geographic divisions.Djflem (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Category:Historic townships of Bergen County, New Jersey renaming to Category:Former townships in Bergen County, New Jersey per WP:C2C clear naming convention in Category:Former townships in New Jersey.Djflem (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Falcons listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Elizabeth Falcons to be moved to Falcons-Warsaw. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Misplaced Pages articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Misplaced Pages, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

• Project-Class New Jersey pages
• NA-importance New Jersey pages
• WikiProject New Jersey articles