Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:59, 5 December 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Connecticut Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 10 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut. The result of the discussion was Not moved.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Storrs, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121114065715/http://resource.uconn.edu:80/history/index.html to http://resource.uconn.edu/history/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2023

Storrs-Mansfield Discussion

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ In recent history, an editor or group of editors, editing on shared IP addresses registered to the University of Connecticut (UConn), started a campaign to edit Misplaced Pages references to this community from "Storrs, Connecticut" to "Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut".

The user(s) have provided a substantial number of citations to support the change. This is not considered disruptive on its own. The sources they've cited are broken down as follows:

Of course, myself or other editors could add to this extensive list, but these examples were provided by the user who initiated the discussion. For example, numerous Google Scholar entries by researchers at UConn reference the institution being in Storrs-Mansfield, and other local businesses list their addresses and services areas as being in Storrs-Mansfield.

The other argument the user presents is that "Storrs", as a census-designated placename, does not represent the whole of the community and that the use of "Storrs-Mansfield" in official and legal contexts allows for the correction. The geography of census-designated places, their names, and other factors are known and accepted to have no legal status or correlation with locally understood boundaries and terminology. An interactive map illustrating the boundary for the census-designated place labeled "Storrs" is easily accessible, and notably does not include some campus and community features like the UConn Forest and numerous local businesses.

In an edit summary, the IP user cites a Census Bureau publication, "Understanding Geographic Relationships: Counties, Places, Tracts and More" which suggests that ZIP Code Tabulation Areas exist higher up on the Census data hierarchy than census-designated places do.

It is also recognized that numerous double placenames exist in the United States, and "Storrs-Mansfield" would qualify as both "Storrs" and "Mansfield" have historically been used interchangeably to refer to the entirety of what is now the Town of Mansfield, in addition to the historical use of the dual name "Storrs-Mansfield". The IP user brings up Winston-Salem, North Carolina as an example, whos article itself includes the quote:

Many natives of the city and North Carolina refer to the city as "Winston" in informal speech.

Other editors have cited the policy WP:COMMONNAME, but the policies WP:NCPLACE and MOS:ALTNAME are perhaps more appropriate, since both "Storrs" and "Storrs-Mansfield" are in common public usage. Therefore, simply citing COMMONNAME whilst not respecting the usage of the alternative name in question is not productive nor actually a resolution.

Therefore, I suggest a compromissorial lead section:

Storrs-Mansfield (/stɔːrzˈmænsfild/ storz-MANS-feeld) is an unincorporated village and census-designated place (CDP) in the town of Mansfield in eastern Tolland County, Connecticut, United States. The community is part of the Capitol Planning Region.

Sometimes referred to as Storrs, the village is dominated economically and demographically by the main campus of the University of Connecticut and the associated Connecticut Repertory Theatre.

With other references in articles replaced with Storrs-Mansfield.

This topic is not meant to necessarily usurp the conclusion of the requested move from September 2023, nor to outright support all of the IP user's claims or conduct, but, to highlight why that original consensus may be flawed: Usage of Google Maps comparison (arbitrary census-designated place boundary vs. actual usage), Refusal to consider suggested references (Editor said "I don't care what the 'USPS ZIP Code Lookup tool' says"), and claim that "Storrs" is a locale, which it cannot be as a populated place. Importantly, "Storrs-Mansfield" is not a one-off name, as seen here, so it is not a simple case of destructive editing. The question was also asked in another arm of the discussion "When does consensus expire?" and "When consensus is wrong, how can we improve it?"

I would like to welcome a respectful and polite discussion on the matter that does not include simple denials of the claim or refusal to draw an educated conclusion due to the poor editing choices of one user. Jonathanhusky (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The following thoughts come to mind here...

• In full street addresses, Storrs-Mansfield is used more often. (my guess is that a search that included included 06268 or 06269 in the text *might* tilt toward Storrs-Mansfield
• UConn uses Storrs much more often to refer to its campus, this seems to affect other organizations (like ESPN and other sports news) that refer to that location as Storrs.
• Google Compare is *massively* tilted to Storrs over Storrs-Manfield. See https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=storrs%20connecticut,storrs-manfield%20connecticut&hl=en
• The difference between Storrs and Storrs-Manfield seems to most closely resemble in Common Name, the North Korea vs. Democratic People's Republic of Korea example, in each case there is a proper name that may be more used by the people locally, but in the global balance, there is another more commonly used name.Naraht (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the 's' in Mansfield was omitted unintentionally there.. see the Google Trends comparison between "Storrs Mansfield CT" and "Storrs Mansfield Connecticut", showing marginally more activity with the CT state abbreviation. The "Storrs Mansfield CT" and "Storrs Connecticut" comparison is quite similar.

Many UConn materials, like this campus map, refer to the "main campus at Storrs" implying "Storrs Agricultural College" - not unlike saying "UConn's regional campus at Avery Point". How do we distinguish between usage of "Storrs" in reference to the community vs used as a shorthand name for the college itself? Jonathanhusky (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Additional Comment, in regards to NCPLACE and ALTNAME, IMO, not unreasonable to have it mentioned as Storrs-Mansfield at some point in the lead. For Infoboxes that contain street addresses, it may be preferred. However, it just doesn't seem right in a table of the 19XX season of the University of Massachusetts Soccer team that the away game at UConn was played in Storrs-Mansfield.

(And add in shock that Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut doesn't exist as a redirect, given that Storrs Mansfield, Connecticut does)Naraht (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the unhyphenated redirect has existed on Misplaced Pages independently since 2005. It appears to be standard practice to hyphenate double placenames, unless another article like "and" is added. Jonathanhusky (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

(Update) Storrs, Mansfield, Connecticut as a redirect has existed since 2017. "Storrs, Mansfield" would be accurate - describing the census designated place Storrs within the town of Mansfield. The hyphenated and blank-space versions still ring more common. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the change to google trends, but it still doesn't show anything with Storrs-Mansfield being used more that Storrs. I don't agree with the implication, I'd be very surprised if "Storrs Agricultural College" was used much any more, or even that most people using Storrs would think that. As for the Hyphenated Shortcut, I'm fine with creating it and labelling it alternate. (Similar to Londonderry). Naraht (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I second the alternate name idea, it’s suitable for noting both names while still using WP:COMMONNAME with Storrs. R0paire-wiki (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Created.

More so the grammar of it. No one says "The Empire State Building at New York" or "at Manhattan" - whilst "Storrs" was definitely used as a shorthand name for "Storrs Agricultural College". By the time the college was open, the Town of Mansfield had been established, so that's where everybody understood it to be. Jonathanhusky (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel that other schools are a better comparison. All of the SUNY schools are State University of New York at XXX, be it Buffalo, Albany or Oswego.Naraht (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Part of the discussion hangs on an unanswered question of Misplaced Pages policy: When a notable institution, event, or place has an article, do we refer to the town in which it is located, or the census-designated place? If we take a look at the US Census Bureau's list of census-designated places in Connecticut, we see that Quinnipiac University, Fairfield University, and Sacred Heart University all have their own census-designated places. These three happen to be private universities - but it's an oxymoron to refer to these schools as being in places with those exact names.

The official list also includes some entries which do not appear on Misplaced Pages's list of notable census-designated places in Connecticut, although have short article pages. Witches Woods and Lake Bungee (both in Woodstock), Route 7 Gateway (Ridgefield), Taylor Corners (New Fairfield), and Chimney Point (New Milford) are examples - the articles basically exist "just because". I think here, it's more of a case of a cultural exception to the norm.. census names aren't common in normal use. Even this page, originally denoted as being for the Storrs census-designated place, has little to offer that isn't covered in the main articles for Mansfield or UConn - yes, it is notable, but should it have its own article, or exist as its own major section of the article for Mansfield?

The Storrs census-designated place boundary does not include the UConn "Depot Campus" or student-run Spring Valley Farm, notable off-campus locations like The Adventure Park, Tony's Garage and other "Four Corners" businesses, the Spring Hill Inn, and others - but they all exist within the Storrs-Mansfield ZIP code boundary. UConn operates nearby off-campus offices that are outside of the Storrs census-designated place boundary - they do the right thing by not saying they are in "Storrs".

This begs the question: Where does incorrect informal use of "Storrs" exist and how does this affect the sources and data we use on Misplaced Pages? Google incorrectly uses Storrs for locations outside of the census-designated place boundary, as an example. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead Section RFC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Comments would be appreciated to achieve an accurate and supportable consensus regarding references to Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut - an unincorporated village which is sometimes referred to as Storrs. The community is notably home to the main campus of the University of Connecticut, and, naturally reflects cultural differences both as a New England fixture but also due to some misplaced or incorrect historical usage.

The request would be to alter the lead section of the article to read as follows:

Storrs-Mansfield (/stɔːrzˈmænsfild/ storz-MANS-feeld) is an unincorporated village and census-designated place (CDP) in the town of Mansfield in eastern Tolland County, Connecticut, United States. The community is part of the Capitol Planning Region.

Sometimes referred to as Storrs, the village is dominated economically and demographically by the main campus of the University of Connecticut and the associated Connecticut Repertory Theatre.

Several points of discussion, including the preference and differences between census-designated place boundaries and postal town boundaries are included on the article talk page. It is not appropriate to immediately dismiss the need for a new consensus, due to the substantial official and community usage of both names - WP:NCPLACE and MOS:ALTNAME support this change:

Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information.

Thank you, Jonathanhusky (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed to Storrs-Mansfield – If there were any support for it at all in books, I would quote the ratio, but there is none at all (that is to say, there might be some, but it is too low to register in Google ngrams), so the ratio is effectively infinity to one. This is a slam dunk no. Mathglot (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

   Note: This user has made comment(s) actually in support of the purpose of this RFC:

  I certainly wouldn't oppose mentioning it in the lead...
  — User:Mathglot 03:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  and as such, their Opposed should actually be considered fairly as a Support. Jonathanhusky (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just for fun, I did a search at Google scholar, and the first result that I saw that had the string Mansfield was result #43 (meaning, that results #1–42 did not). Your results may be different depending on your location, search history, and other factors. Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Using the Google Ngrams search for "Storrs Mansfield CT" and "Storrs Mansfield" does show some significant graphing, as well as the Google Scholar link in your reply shows, for me, a Storrs-Mansfield reference as result number three (a Penn State University study document featuring an EO Smith High School cowriter) - the first two are links to early UConn commencement programs, citing "CM STORRS", meaning Charles Storrs of founders Charles and Augustus Storrs.

  Admittedly, I am located on the main UConn campus now, which as you mentioned may contribute to that search display. Jonathanhusky (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  But that's without the hyphen, so I don't see support for the change. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  The hyphen is nominal. It is commonly used with a hyphen, as shown by many of the citations in the original discussion - but the USPS does not officially support hyphens. When both Storrs and Mansfield are placed next to each other in that order, the hyphenated and un-hyphenated forms are synonymous. Jonathanhusky (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Your query is invalid for the purposes of this Rfc and reveals nothing of interest. Your ngrams query plotted data for books containing either of the terms that you support ("Storrs Mansfield CT" and "Storrs Mansfield"), without including terms for "Storrs" (or other variants) that you oppose. That is a non-neutral query that can only return results that you asked for, so naturally it does return those results. But your query reveals nothing about how your terms compare to "Storrs". But a neutral query, such as the one I linked above that includes both alternatives, does demonstrate the comparison, and the results are overwhelmingly in favor of "Storrs".

  But coming back to your query again: with a simple modification to it, keeping your search terms exactly as you wrote them, and changing only the date in order to limit results to this century, gives you these interesting curves. They show that occurrences of both of your preferred terms have been cratering since 2000, and from 2013 or so they look like a patient on life support who is flatlining with no chance for survival. Which seems like a good metaphor for this Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, my linking to that Google Ngrams search was to exemplify that the term you used in your link may not have been the best, or at least sole, one to use. If we add in "Storrs CT" and "Storrs Connecticut" we actually see that they're pretty similar - the point I was originally making.

  If we exclude the 20th century like you have, we actually see that the two "Storrs-Mansfield" queries actually have been more popular for longer, and "Storrs" is practically used just as infrequently as you quipped.

  ...your preferred terms have been cratering since 2000, and from 2013 or so they look like a patient on life support who is flatlining with no chance for survival. Which seems like a good metaphor for this Rfc.

  This comment is disrespectful and inappropriate, firstly since the official name of this community is not my preferred term, and we just proved that no chance for survival wasn't the case. As a participant in this RFC, it is also inappropriate to draw a conclusion - don't do so. Jonathanhusky (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Opposed to Storrs-Mansfield – based on the previous discussions both on talk and at ANI, and per WP:COMMONNAME. I could support adding Storrs-Mansfield as an alternative name, but I oppose renaming the article and primary name to it per trends and common name. R0paire-wiki (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

   Note: This user has made comment(s) actually in support of the purpose of this RFC:

  I second the alternate name idea, it’s suitable for noting both names while still using WP:COMMONNAME with Storrs.
  — User:R0paire-wiki 14:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  and as such, their Opposed should actually be considered fairly as a Support. Jonathanhusky (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  I certainly wouldn't oppose mentioning it in the lead. Also, having a redirect to the title from Storrs-Mansfield seems fine, if only because redirects are cheap. But honestly, that redirect isn't going to help anybody get to the right article, as you have to type "Storrs" before you can type "Storrs-Manfield" into the search box, and by the time you type the first part, search suggestions already pops up the correct article. Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, this RFC would be for editing the lead and important or primary linked references, like under the list of villages in the town of Mansfield.

  I've edited the request to make that more clear, as a complete page name change wasn't the intention at this time. However, a change simply in the interest of accuracy would not be unopposed. Jonathanhusky (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose this wording: "sometimes referred to as Storrs" is simply not accurate, and I highly doubt it would be supported by reliable sources. I lived a few miles away and everyone calls it Storrs. Go to https://uconn.edu/ and scroll to the bottom to see where they say they are located: "Storrs, Connecticut 06269". Showing a bunch of machine-generated search results that pull the official place name from a database does not help us understand what the WP:COMMONNAME is; locating human-generated sources will do that. I would support something like "nearly always referred to as Storrs" or something else that is actually supported by reliable, human-generated sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Using the ZIP code 06269, see the second citation in the earlier discussion post - "Storrs-Mansfield" is actually preferred by the USPS. That list of citations is not a complete list of any and all potential sources to be used to support or not support usage of either name, rather, it was published as a way to clarify the actions of another user.

  "Nearly always" or "everyone" can't be said - students regularly use both, and plenty of common, prose usage of Storrs-Mansfield can be seen. Plenty of UConn references appear from various departments, the Town of Mansfield heavily uses it, like at the Town Council and Community Center, and many local businesses do too. Sometimes both Storrs and Storrs-Mansfield are used interchangeably (even if not accurate) and beside one another - local breakfast spot Toast Four Corners and the aforementioned Tony's Garage are examples, but both are outside of the Storrs census-designated place boundary.

  If we take a look at Google Books, a healthy and not-insignificant number of mentions to Storrs-Mansfield are made. We see various discussions and references to UConn and EO Smith High School projects, notable individuals, and the community at large in a number of different texts.

  In the proposed lead section, I suppose "sometimes" could be replaced with "commonly". Jonathanhusky (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose wording - The official name for this place, per GNIS, is "Storrs". Also, ZIP codes should not be used when determining city boundaries, because ZIP codes DO NOT align with official city boundaries. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  That US Geological Survey resource actually highlights one of the questions we're trying to answer - when you say "this place" in your reply, and that being the subject of the article, are we referring to the Storrs census-designated place, or the greater village that wholly contains that census-designated place plus other geography?

  If we take a look at the GNIS page you linked for "Storrs" - we see it has a class of "populated place" and a feature code of "unincorporated place". We also see that a decision was entered in August 1950:

  University community, about 7.5 miles south-southeast of Tolland and about 2 miles north-northeast of Eagleville; it is the site of the University of Connecticut.

  If we break down these references, GNIS has entries for "Tolland", with the same class and feature code, but also for "Town of Tolland" with a class of "civil" and a feature code of "town". Similarly, there is a separate listing for "Storrs Census Designated Place" - with class "census" and feature code "census designated place".

  "Town of Mansfield" also has its own civil entry, along with "Mansfield Center" and its companion entry "Mansfield Center Census Designated Place", the only other separate census-designated place in Mansfield.

  A handful of the neighborhoods that appears in the "Settlements" section of the main Town of Mansfield article has its own GNIS listing equal to that of "Storrs" - see: "Atwoodville", "Chaffeeville" (which actually doesn't appear in the list), "Conantville", "Eagleville", "Gurleyville", "Mansfield City" (which is another extant name), "Merrow", "Mount Hope", "Perkins Corner", "Spring Hill", and "Wormwood Hill" - but these names are rarely used outside of historical contexts. Maybe a few still hold the name of a street or historic district in their respective area of Mansfield, but that's about it.

  There are a few names still in vogue with equivalent entries - "Mansfield Four Corners", "Mansfield Depot", and "Mansfield Hollow", sure, but it's really only those three and that's getting picky. None of the neighborhoods are notable by Misplaced Pages standards on their own.

  The GNIS does not provide boundary points, just a single reference coordinate, so its usefulness as a citation to refer to a village distinct from any of the others is little. It's also confusing that census-designated places have their own entries, especially if the article is to be discussing the "Storrs" census-designated place exclusively, your link may not qualify.

  As for the other link you've posted saying ZIP codes DO NOT align with official city boundaries, that page merely explains that the US Census Bureau uses a separate methodology than the USPS in determining what it considers a city for census purposes - not that ZIP code "city names" should not to be used to refer to places nor that census data supersedes that of other sources for that matter. I also don't believe Misplaced Pages policy relies exclusively on census data, either.

  If we take a look at our case, Mansfield has two "physical" ZIP codes according to the USPS - 06268 (Storrs-Mansfield) and 06250 (Mansfield Center). ZIP codes 06269, 06238, and 06251 are just "delivery" ZIP codes, and exist within the boundary of either "physical" ZIP code, according to the USPS list of ZIP codes by area and district. The Census Bureau link refers to ZIP Code Tabulation Areas, not ZIP codes proper, though - it is recognized that census geography may differ from the postal geography, but we can see here that no portion of either Mansfield ZIP code (or ZCTA) unreasonably depicts a community that isn't either Storrs-Mansfield or Mansfield Center - themselves not outside of the official Town of Mansfield boundary.

  As I was getting at in my other replies in the discussion, several businesses and members of the community self-identify as being in Storrs-Mansfield (or "Storrs" for that matter) but are outside of the Storrs census-designated place boundary. Jonathanhusky (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose because "Storrs" is the most common name, but some recognition of the hyphenated name in the lead would be appropriate. How about: "Storrs (/stɔːrz/ storz) is a village and census-designated place (CDP) in eastern Tolland County, Connecticut, United States. Because it is in the town of Mansfield, it is sometimes referred to as Storrs-Mansfield." Two other points: (1) Footnote 2, apparently going to a Connecticut government page, is a dead link. (2) Our article on Village (United_States) notes that the meaning of "village" varies by state. In this lead, "village" is not linked to anything. I suggest wikilinking "village" to village. JamesMLane t c 16:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

   Note: This user has made comment(s) actually in support of the purpose of this RFC:

  ...some recognition of the hyphenated name in the lead would be appropriate.
  — User:JamesMLane 16:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  and as such, their Opposed should actually be considered fairly as a Support. Jonathanhusky (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  This seems good to me as long as the "because" part can be cited. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  To Aaron Liu: I thought that the "because" was self-evident. If there's any question, though, then, because it's self-evident, it needn't be stated. Change my suggestion from "Because it is in the town of Mansfield, it is sometimes referred to as Storrs-Mansfield" to "It is in the town of Mansfield and is sometimes referred to as Storrs-Mansfield." JamesMLane t c 21:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  It reminds me of synthesis, but I guess I'd be fine with the latter. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Using the South Korea example mentioned before, would this be a better compromissorial lead section?

Storrs-Mansfield (/stɔːrzˈmænsfild/ storz-MANS-feeld), commonly called Storrs, is an unincorporated village...

or

Storrs, officially Storrs-Mansfield (/stɔːrzˈmænsfild/ storz-MANS-feeld), is an unincorporated village...

Does this comport with Misplaced Pages policy on a significantly-used official name alongside the alternative name? As for the dead references, the State of Connecticut's list of cities and towns naturally does not include this community, since it is unincorporated, deferring to its listing for Mansfield. As previously discussed, the town of Mansfield prefers the Storrs-Mansfield name. Jonathanhusky (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you link the previously-discussed source for official preference? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There are numerous official and community citations in the section Storrs-Mansfield Discussion on this talk page.. the list was actually ported from the discussion of another user in another Misplaced Pages venue, so it's not conclusive. There are a handful of other linked sources from the Town of Mansfield in other areas of the replies.

Actually, this RFC is supposed to be integrated as part of that section of the page, as a continuation of the prior discussion, but at one point or another became separated. Jonathanhusky (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I only see that as evidence for the ZIP code's name. As you have said, "In an edit summary, the IP user cites a Census Bureau publication, "Understanding Geographic Relationships: Counties, Places, Tracts and More" which suggests that ZIP Code Tabulation Areas exist higher up on the Census data hierarchy than census-designated places do." Aaron Liu (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

But there are many Town of Mansfield references to the village being named Storrs-Mansfield in their documents.. like at the Town Council.

Part of the question actually hangs on whether this article is about the whole community (Storrs-Mansfield inclusive of the ZIP code boundary and understood in the local context) or just the census-designated place (which is basically just campus, not including much of the residential or extended local business areas). If the ZIP code name was exclusively in dispute, the USPS has that lookup tool to verify that, but naturally ZIP codes' names are dependent on the actual place name. Jonathanhusky (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's just because it's an address and that's the name of the ZIP code.

but naturally ZIP codes' names are dependent on the actual place name

That doesn't necessarily mean it is the official name. I agree with James here. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If being included in an address does not make the name official, what source would? This community is unincorporated - it is not its own town, so a State of Connecticut resource wouldn't be that granular. I think using the Town of Mansfield webpage is fair since that's the next nearest government. Jonathanhusky (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

So https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments-and-agencies/dph/local-health-admin/principal-communities.docx (source ) isn't official now? Like others have said, you need sources if you want to say the ZIP code demarcates the town. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The second citation on the article actually leads to a (now dead) link of a State of Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development page titled Principal Communities in Connecticut, not the Department of Public Health document you have linked here. But if we use the Wayback Machine to inspect the dead link, it does show that the two are similar, but with relevant differences - the DPH document doesn't include Mansfield Depot, Mansfield Four Corners, or Perkins Corner, for example. (I didn't start looking at other towns' communities.) "Hanks Hill" is on both lists, but that name only extends to a road and lake in modern context; "Chestnut Hill" refers to an local hill (and also different ones in other communities). Neither have their own listing for a populated place on the GNIS if we go by that metric of notability, and there are some "settlements" mentioned in the main Town of Mansfield article that don't appear either.

The page says that it's a listing of cities, towns, villages, and boroughs in Connecticut - but doesn't categorize the list items outside of "community" and "town", and naturally doesn't include any border geography. It's also unclear if census-designated placenames are included. So, in terms of officiality, that source's usefulness is questionable.

On your last point, a number of citations have previously been linked in the discussion which show that the ZIP code (postal) and ZIP code tabulation area (census) geographies line up with the Town of Mansfield boundary. Jonathanhusky (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how not including border geography or certain categories you think are important makes it unofficial.

On your last point, a number of citations have previously been linked in the discussion which show that the ZIP code (postal) and ZIP code tabulation area (census) geographies line up with the Town of Mansfield boundary.

Isn't that an argument for Mansfield, not Storrs, being called Storrs-Mansfield?
Even if the ZIP for Storrs also aligns, the reasoning that since the borders concur therefore it's an official name of the area is original research. That's dangerous because I could also use similar reasoning to say that the Republic of China is an official name of the People's Republic of China. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps that list can be considered official, from the perspective of the State of Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (or Department of Public Health), but it can't be considered useful or reliable - it's not about the distinctions that I think are important, it's a list of "cities, towns, villages, and boroughs" that fails to actually label the list items with those categories. City, town, and borough have legal meanings in Connecticut; village does not.

In my reply, I was saying that the DECD-DPH list does little more than support that a given name exists and may be connected to an area of a town. I gave two examples of "communities" on that list said to be in Mansfield but which do not have any geographic anchor; the GNIS provides this for a majority of coincident list items in the form of reference coordinates. Even for the historical neighborhoods with reference coordinates, it is also understood that they are not separate from the village of Storrs-Mansfield (or "Storrs" for that matter) except that they are not within the Storrs CDP boundary.

Isn't that an argument for Mansfield, not Storrs, being called Storrs-Mansfield?

Your reply here highlights an issue we face: When you refer to "Storrs", I am assuming you are exclusively referring to the small census-designated place bearing that name. If we were discussing a place outside of that CDP boundary within the 06268 or 06269 ZIP code boundary - a place that is not a part of the Mansfield Center CDP or 06250 ZIP code boundary - then, yes, it would be fair and accurate to describe it as being in Storrs-Mansfield. In fact, I've previously described a handful of notable local businesses and features which fit that bill.

Even if the ZIP for Storrs also aligns, the reasoning that since the borders concur therefore it's an official name of the area is original research.

I never suggested that - I said Storrs-Mansfield was the official name since that's the name that numerous Town of Mansfield sources use, and as a baseline, the USPS prefers and uses it. That's all been linked to and supported in previous parts of the discussion. To you, if being the name preferred for ZIP code usage does not make a community name official, what does?

I have uploaded three maps to Wikimedia to try and help us visualize this all:

Using data from UConn's Map and Geographic Information Center (MAGIC). The GNIS reference points are the coordinates from the previously-linked GNIS entries. Because the article is talking about the village as a whole, not just the CDP, and actually encompassing several of the historical areas (Gurleyville, Eagleville, etc.) we really should be referring to it using an accurate name. Jonathanhusky (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There are many sources online that call Hanks Hill and Chestnut Hill villages.

When you refer to "Storrs", I am assuming you are exclusively referring to the small census-designated place bearing that name.

As the article says, I am also referring to the village. There does not need to be a legal definition for the health service to list what places are commonly recognized as villages, not to mention the archived source which just calls them all communities.

that's the name that numerous Town of Mansfield sources use

No, that's only the name used as part of the ZIP code and thus part of addresses. I haven't seen any sources you've provided that call it Storrs-Mansfield outside of addresses. That officials use the addresses is not any more evidence for the village's name than the ZIP code name is. We should be using sources (such as the official communities list above) that require WP:NoOriginalResearch to extract information from, especially when—as linked above—"the 'city' name(s) used by the USPS to identify a specific ZIP Code or Post Office may not be the name that residents serviced by the Post Office consider themselves to reside in." Aaron Liu (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There are many sources online that call Hanks Hill and Chestnut Hill villages.

Would you be able to furnish these sources? A Google search reveals a couple references at the Mansfield Historical Society, but nothing contemporary. The closest would be that "Chestnut Hill", "Conantville", and "Perkins Corner" are all listed as "city names to avoid" for nearby ZIP code 06226 (Willimantic) using the lookup tool. For the record, "Gurleyville" and simply "Mansfield" are not recommended for 06268, and "Mansfield Hollow", "Mansfield City", and "West Ashford" are not recommended for 06250.

Part of the idea is that if each of these villages are unique there would be a way to set their limits.

No, that's only the name used as part of the ZIP code and thus part of addresses. I haven't seen any sources you've provided that call it Storrs-Mansfield outside of addresses.

Although many of these and other sources were linked informally in previous replies, I've converted them to the Misplaced Pages citation format if that's easier:

There are so many more examples not even listed here that show that "Storrs-Mansfield" is just as common, probably more common even, than "Storrs".

We should be using sources (such as the official communities list above) that require WP:NoOriginalResearch to extract information from...

I'm struggling to understand how postal areas do not qualify here: The USPS, a federal agency, operates this system of geographical subdivisions that cover the entire country. Each subdivision, the postal area, has a unique name and identifier (ZIP code) and coincides with municipal boundaries. It is not original research to simply recognize the name and geographical placement of a ZIP code area. What is missing, that to you, would qualify it as a useful source? Jonathanhusky (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to welcome the participants of the original non-venue talk, @R0paire-wiki, C.Fred, Rusty Cat, Naraht, WikiDan61, Acroterion, 331dot, Nil Einne, Canterbury Tail, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and Star Mississippi: as well as invite the original IP user to create an account, for a respectful and courteous discussion in light of the new elements we've talked about since. Jonathanhusky (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I have absolutely no memory of being involved in discussions around this, could you refresh my memory where that occurred? Not accusatory, I just have no idea what talk you're referring to. I'm certainly happy to participate in some capacity, what with being a lifelong Connecticut resident. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Certainly - an IP user originally made edits replacing all mentions of "Storrs, Connecticut" to "Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut". Unfortunately their conduct was slightly disruptive, so another editor placed them on an administrator's watch board (I think that's where you were) - After then, I and a few of the other respondents moved the idea over here to talk about the substance of the issue: Storrs-Mansfield is the official name of the community, so how should it be referred to on Misplaced Pages? And which sources and policies are reliable and useful to govern references to unincorporated places?

 Off-topic: I'm a Connecticut resident as well and involved at UConn, but didn't edit Misplaced Pages often. A colleague, who edits more frequently, actually told me about the then-current talk. I may start editing more, it is fun! Jonathanhusky (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the memory jog, now I remember that. And certainly glad you're getting more involved! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the source; those like the 1st, 5th, and 10th one are good. (I'm not counting "Storrs/Mansfield", which seems quite possibly to be "Storrs and Mansfield"; or anything that uses it before a CT since that's an address.) With that, I think we can replace the first word with "Storrs-Mansfield or Storrs", though I'd still be wary of claiming it as an official name; we could say it's the official name of the village if there is a source that says something along the lines of "Storrs-Mansfield is a village also named Storrs" or "Storrs-Mansfiled is the official name of...".

It is not original research to simply recognize the name and geographical placement of a ZIP code area.

It is to claim that means it's the place's official name, especially with what the USPS has said about their city names. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not counting "Storrs/Mansfield", which seems quite possibly to be "Storrs and Mansfield"

I wouldn't consider a slash here as an "and". It's nominal - providing the same function as a hyphen or just a space would.

...or anything that uses it before a CT since that's an address.

Using a state abbreviation doesn't necessarily mean a quote includes a postal address directly. In fact, the article on the subject says that the USPS adopted state abbreviations only because shortening the states' names was already a common practice.

But also, addressing is just one of the ways we describe where places are. I'm confused as toward your complete and immediate dismissal of their use; I see no material difference between "The Dog Lane Cafe is on Dog Lane in Storrs-Mansfield" and "on Dog Lane in Storrs-Mansfield, CT", for example. Furthermore, use of a more complete address in a sentence wouldn't disqualify its usefulness - like "The UConn Dairy Bar is located at 17 Manter Road, Storrs-Mansfield, CT".

According to WP:ORMEDIA, which is a sublink on the no-original-research policy, "Source information does not need to be in prose form...Any straightforward reading of such media is not original research".

It is to claim that means it's the place's official name, especially with what the USPS has said about their city names.

I think you've misplaced where I attribute the name's officiality. "Storrs-Mansfield" is not a name that exclusively exists for postal purposes or is just used for addresses. And even if that was supposed to be the case, it is commonly used today, which supplants any originally-intended postal-only usage.

I've said time and again it's official because it's the name used by the Town of Mansfield - the most granular form of government over the community. Only secondly if we go up the tiers, to the state government and then the federal government (Connecticut has no county-level government) we then mention its official status with the USPS.

The Census Bureau also exists in this tier, since it's a federal agency; albiet one that is known and accepted to have no legal status or correlation with locally understood boundaries and terminology. The USPS has status and correlation: their explainer titled What's in a (Post Office) Name? details how post office names are determined and examples of how they have been changed over time.

They reference language used on applications for new post office locations from the 1840s:

The name of the candidate for postmaster should not be applied as the name of a post office. It is preferable to have some LOCAL or PERMANENT name, which must not be the name of any other office in the State...

with revised instructions in the 1880s and 1890s:

Select a short name for the proposed office, which, when written, will not resemble the name of any other post office in the State.

1. That spelling and pronunciation which is sanctioned by local usage should in general be adopted.
...
4. Where a choice is offered between two or more names for the same place or locality, all sanctioned by local usage, that which is most appropriate and euphonious should be adopted.

and letters from the postmaster(s) general from the 1890s following the decision to align with the United States Board on Geographic Names:

Where these changes effect the names of Post Offices, the form of spelling decided upon by the U.S. Board must be carefully noted upon the records of this office...It is also ordered that the forms of spelling the names of Post Offices, decided upon by the said U.S. Board on Geographic Names shall be observed in all branches of this Department.

— John Wanamaker, Postmaster General, February 13th 1891: Conform to Board Spellings

The office of the Fourth Assistant Postmaster General is hereby directed not to establish hereafter any post-office where the name of the proposed office differs from that of the town or village in which it is to be located. Whenever it is possible the name of the post-office should be the same as that of the railway station, as well as that of the town.

— John Wanamaker, Postmaster General, April 14th 1892: Name Post Office after Town or Village; Short Names Preferred

In selecting names for post offices the name of the town or village in which the office is to be located may be adopted if it is a short one, and if such name is in no way similar to that of any established office in the State.

— Robert A. Maxwell, Fourth Assistant Postmaster General, April 9, 1894: Short Names Generally Required

and the USPS Postal Operations Manual Section 123.411:

A Post Office normally should bear the official name of the incorporated city, town, or borough in which it is located, as shown in its charter. A Post Office located in an unincorporated place should generally bear the approved name of the principal community served. (normally the community in which located) or the approved name of the town or township, if it serves a number of communities within a town or township.

That's the one that most directly applies here, since we are talking about an unincorporated community. It also almost certainly means that Storrs-Mansfield was selected because it was the "approved" name - the name already being used by the Town of Mansfield and the community at large. The paper discusses how shorter names are preferred; had "Storrs" been official perhaps they would have considered it. Jonathanhusky (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It's nominal - providing the same function as a hyphen or just a space would.

I never see anyone use a slash in place of a hyphen.
Now, I'm convinced that we could add "Storrs-Mansfield" as one name of the place, as I've said in my last reply. However, I don't see why we should call it its official name. Yes, sources do not have to be in prose, but there aren't any non-prose sources either that profess "Storrs-Mansfield" as the place's official name. It takes a non-trivial leap to go from official usage of the name to "this is the official name", especially as far more online sources, including Google Maps, use "Storrs".
I would IgnoreAllRules-style accept your argument on the USPS conferring officiality if the plethora of usages of just "Storrs" did not exist; it's original research, and we don't know if there were other factors that made them scrap "Storrs". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

...especially as far more online sources, including Google Maps, use "Storrs".

I'm struggling to consider Google Maps a reliable source due to its ease of misuse. The only place where it may ever be limitedly appropriate to refer to a place being in "Storrs" would only be inside the census-designated place boundary; Google incorrectly uses Storrs for locations outside of the CDP. All maps rely upon addressing systems, the USPS in our case, therefore Storrs is not appropriate for use in any address.

Plus, the a data source directly should always be relied upon, not a source that aggregates and changes that data.

I would IgnoreAllRules-style accept your argument on the USPS conferring officiality if the plethora of usages of just "Storrs" did not exist; it's original research.

Here, it's very simple - the USPS lookup tool includes official, alternative but unofficial, and unacceptable names for postal areas. In speaking of the USPS' authority over the areas they administer, it is not original research to say that Storrs-Mansfield is the official name for the 06268 and 06269 ZIP code areas; nor is it to say that those postal areas, collectively, are concurrent with the whole boundary of the town of Mansfield.

and we don't know if there were other factors that made them scrap "Storrs".

We can directly infer that Storrs-Mansfield was chosen because it was not only already in use by the town as an official name, but because it was community-supported per my last reply. The town's name has always just been Mansfield. Jonathanhusky (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The only place where it may ever be limitedly appropriate to refer to a place being in "Storrs" would only be inside the census-designated place boundary

I don't think you have a source for that claim. We're debating the official name of the village here (and hopefully we can just agree to include my version I've said above).

We can directly infer

No, we can't, per NoOriginalResearch. We can't trust any editor to know the nuances of a field, thus we always rely on other sources that aggregate and interpret information. It is not obvious that use by USPS implies officiality. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you have a source for that claim.

We already presented the inverse:

If we were discussing a place outside of that CDP boundary within the 06268 or 06269 ZIP code boundary - a place that is not a part of the Mansfield Center CDP or 06250 ZIP code boundary - then, yes, it would be fair and accurate to describe it as being in Storrs-Mansfield.
— User:Jonathanhusky 05:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

A place within the Storrs CDP boundary may be referred to as being in Storrs - not the village, just the CDP - places outside of it should not be, and nevertheless it would be most accurate to refer to any place within the 06268 or 06269 ZIP code boundary as being in Storrs-Mansfield, encompassing any place within the CDP limits anyway.

We're debating the official name of the village here...

No, we're discussing how to appropriately recognize the official name (Storrs-Mansfield) in the article which already uses an alternative "common name" (Storrs). That was always the intent. If and only if we decide the article is soley to discuss the CDP, then keeping Storrs on its own would be appropriate - since it already discussed elements outside of just the CDP, meaning the village as a whole, then we know it isn't.

No, we can't, per NoOriginalResearch...It is not obvious...

That reply was based on the context of my previous reply, which supported the claim with the USPS' naming guidelines and a historical rundown of those rules - all of which support that a post office name is directly correlated with the official place name already in use. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, and strongly oppose use of ZIP Code or post office information as a determiner. The obvious example is that the Falls Church, Virginia, post office covers areas in unincorporated Fairfax County, but the county's article does not identify any locations within the county as being associated with the city. Now, for this article, we're talking about an unincorporated community, so we can't look at statutory definitions of the city's boundary, so we have to fall back to common usage.Furthermore, if we're going to absorb Mansfield into the name, then this is no longer an issue of a page move: this is an issue of merging the content of Mansfield, Connecticut into this article, if they're one and the same entity. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  ...strongly oppose use of ZIP Code or post office information as a determiner.

  Would you be able to expand on this? If postal information is not to be trusted for use on Misplaced Pages, what sources are? The Census Bureau and Postal Service are equally situated.

  Now, for this article, we're talking about an unincorporated community, so we can't look at statutory definitions of the city's boundary, so we have to fall back to common usage.

  I understand where you are coming from here, but I think the Virginia analogy is misplaced - here, it's an unincorporated place inside an incorporated one. Storrs-Mansfield (or "Storrs" for that matter) doesn't exist outside of Mansfield. Since this village is unincorporated we only have two real and tangible boundaries: the postal area and the limits of the Storrs census-designated place within it. Since the CDP does not represent the village as a whole, the next-nearest accurate boundary is the postal area. We also can't use the CDP inherently, as previously discussed.

  Furthermore, if we're going to absorb Mansfield into the name, then this is no longer an issue of a page move...

  I want to stress that I did not intend for this RFC to initiate a "page move" (rename) - although a page titled "Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut" would be accurate, the actual purpose is to make changes to the lead section and select references. I actually think the folks who wrote "opposed" would agree that observing the official name in the lead section should be allowed and that any other discussed points have been sufficiently referenced and cited.

  ...this is an issue of merging the content of Mansfield, Connecticut into this article, if they're one and the same entity.

  I actually posited this in an earlier reply:

  Even this page...has little to offer that isn't covered in the main articles for Mansfield or UConn - yes, it is notable, but should it have its own article, or exist as its own major section of the article for Mansfield?
  — User:Jonathanhusky 21:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  Suggestion: A Storrs-Mansfield subheading under "Geography" section of the Mansfield article, which can mention its notability as home to the main UConn campus, as well as its history intertwined with the Storrs family. The pictures of Betsy Patterson Square and the "downtown" area can be transplanted as can the transportation detail. It could read something like this:

  Storrs-Mansfield, the largest of the town's settlements, is an unincorporated village anchored economically and demographically by the main campus of the University of Connecticut. Named for Charles and Augustus Storrs, the founders of the college...
  
  The community's name is sometimes shortened to Storrs in informal speech...

  How does that sound? Jonathanhusky (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  That sounds fair. I would maybe change "sometimes" to "often", since that's how I see it referred to much more often, but that approach makes sense. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have no qualms with merging the article, but as I've said above, I'm very uncomfortable with claiming weight more than the other for one of those names. I would support starting the lede with the following:

  Storrs or Storrs-Mansfield (/stɔːrzˈmænsfild/ storz-MANS-feeld)

  and not changing other stuff. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  See also:

  ...(and hopefully we can just agree to include my version I've said above).
  — User:Aaron Liu 16:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this goes by the proper Misplaced Pages format. I previously suggested two lead sentences which follow the same order and style as other articles; South Korea was the example.

  The version I wrote here is most similar to the article on Winston-Salem, a more appropriate model since it represents a city - which was recognized in the first post of the discussion (following its original mention by another user). It is encyclopedic to mention that Storrs is an informal adaption. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how it would be improper Misplaced Pages format. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Would you be able to provide an example article which uses that format? Preferably from a city, town, or unincorporated place like this one? Jonathanhusky (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  I can only do that if I know cases that are actually similar to this subject. I just don't see any reason not to use this format. Your suggestion unduly gives one name more weight than the other. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, the policies WP:NCPLACE and MOS:ALTNAME support that "or" does not correctly establish the type of notability of a given alternative name. WP:BETTER/GRAF1 provides United Kingdom as an example, with "commonly known as" - ALTNAME uses Mumbai, with "also known as" there and "formerly known as" in the actual article. Hollywood, Los Angeles famously has "sometimes informally called" in its first sentence.

  The two suggestions in my reply from 20:35 on October 28th follow the correct format for inclusion of an alternative name in the first sentence of a lead section. There is a case to be made that "Storrs" should really be mentioned after the first paragraph, if we need to do so at all - this was correctly shown in the original suggested lead section for this RFC as well as the reply in this thread from November 10th. It follows the mold seen in the aforementioned Winston-Salem, and places like Foxborough, Massachusetts.

  If you really need an example in this context, Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania is an unincorporated village that used to go by the name Taylorsville. The Washington Crossing Historic Park located there explains that the post office changed its name, and therefore the name of the community, in 1918.

  Your suggestion unduly gives one name more weight than the other.

  It's not undue - as we have previously explained, Storrs-Mansfield is the official name used by numerous levels of local, state, and federal government. Sure, both names are commonly used, so it isn't inappropriate to mention "Storrs" after the fact (or leave the article title be, albeit ever so slightly inaccurate) - but it's equally not fair to leave out the descriptor that Storrs-Mansfield is the proper name. Jonathanhusky (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Where do those policies say what you think they say? I've read them before, I've read them again, and all I see is that for technical reasons, articles may only have one title, so alternate forms should be included in bold. Nowhere does it say "or" should not be used. The quotes you cite from Better are just examples (and like I said before, it's not a case similar to what we're seeing here, where both names should be given about equal weight at most. You found an example for commonly known as, for also known as, for formerly known as, and for sometimes informally called, but this article is none of those cases.) and the actual essay only says it may include variations.Just "Storrs" has also been established to be used by several levels of the government. You have not supplied enough evidence that Storrs-Mansfield is the proper name; you've only given evidence of its usage by officials, but not of its official recognition as "proper". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose any hyphenated version. Storrs-Mansfield doesn't appear to exist anywhere that I can easily find, the RfC doesn't show any proof otherwise, and the article clearly refers to a place named Storrs. Even saying "sometimes referred to as Storrs" is wrong, it's clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. SportingFlyer T·C 00:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Storrs-Mansfield doesn't appear to exist anywhere that I can easily find, the RfC doesn't show any proof otherwise...

  This RFC is an extension of a previous discussion, the bulk of which exists on this talk page. There is an extensive list of citations in the first post of the discussion (originally provided by another user) and many additional sources have been linked in this RFC, including a lengthy list I provided in a previous comment. I used a collapsed list so I understand if it was missed, but there is substantial use of Storrs-Mansfield outside of Misplaced Pages.

  ...the article clearly refers to a place named Storrs.

  It wouldn't be appropriate to rely on the article's face value inclusion of that name since this discussion is intended to determine how to respect the primary inclusion of the official name, Storrs-Mansfield, in addition to alternative unofficial names like Storrs. Previous revisions of the article that mentioned it have been reverted; although it would be proper to include it in any case, corrective edits will be made following this RFC. Jonathanhusky (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  There's absolutely no proof in any of those sources that "Storrs-Mansfield" is an official name, though. Searching "Storrs-Mansfield" in historical records brings up Storrs, Mansfield in the format of town, and the cited sources apart from the town of Mansfield really look like "Storrs Mansfield" was fed into a database somewhere in "village town" format that's used by random different websites without any distinction, similar to all of the bad American geo-stubs people are cleaning up. The Census Designated Place is called Storrs, and even a search of the Connecticut Legislature shows Storrs on its own is used far more often than Storrs Mansfield. SportingFlyer T·C 07:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Wrong. You said so yourself, the Town of Mansfield uses it so it is official, and “in the format of town” makes no grammatical sense. Plus you didn’t even link any sources, nor “historical records” or where you were searching.

  It also doesn’t matter what the census-designated place is called since that’s not what the article is about. And you didn’t cite any legislative cases or sources. UConnIPUser (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  ...in the format of town, and the cited sources apart from the town of Mansfield really look like "Storrs Mansfield" was fed into a database somewhere in "village town" format...

  I don't think this is the case. Although "village" has no legal meaning in Connecticut, it does in many (or most) other states where it would be used instead of a town name. It is partly because villages are exclusively colloquial in Connecticut that we must then use the next-best reliable boundary to determine where we are actually talking about - here, that's the 06268 and 06269 postal area which uses Storrs-Mansfield as its official name. The Town of Mansfield uses this understanding of the boundary and has not, so far, provided its own which would conflict with the well-known postal understanding of the area.

  Could you clarify which sources, specifically, you are referring to and then others may be able to comment on their potential usefulness? _{Keeping in mind that the list provided in the first post of the discussion was furnished by @UConnIPUser, who has since re-entered the discussion.}

  The Census Designated Place is called Storrs...

  It hardly matters what the census-designated placename is, unless the article is exclusively talking about it. CDPs are understood and known and accepted to have no legal status or correlation with locally understood boundaries and terminology.

  One example being, as previously discussed:

  If we take a look at the US Census Bureau's list of census-designated places in Connecticut, we see that Quinnipiac University, Fairfield University, and Sacred Heart University all have their own census-designated places. These three happen to be private universities - but it's an oxymoron to refer to these schools as being in places with those exact names.
  — User:Jonathanhusky 21:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  If we cared about CDPs, we'd have to say that Quinnipiac University was located in... Quinnipiac University. That's hardly helpful.

  Now, as previously opined, this article could shift to focus exclusively on the CDP named "Storrs" but in such a case, it would really just be talking about the UConn campus properties and in doing so, lose its ability to be independently notable by Misplaced Pages standards. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support as suggested. I am the user who made the corrections that originally spurred this debate. Actually, the only reason it became any sort of issue was because I edited the men's basketball team article, and when some jerk reverts your correct edit more than twice or something it pings the administrator. No one had any other problem with the correct and true name of the community, Storrs-Mansfield, being included on any page before then. And then I was placed on watch just to have my comments censored, and reversals without ANY replacement citations. Do not censor my edits again.

I held off on responding here to let the bureaucracy have at it - but it's high time for the people who wrote "opposed" to allow the truth to prevail. It is an abuse of administrative ability and power to silence and censor factual and verified edits. UConnIPUser (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to welcome you to our discussion, but will implore you to recall a Misplaced Pages policy, WP:RESPECT, when working with other editors. On the merits of your thoughts, yes, corrective edits should include sources - but personal attacks directed at other editors are not tolerated; even if those editors do not follow the expected citation behavior.

Relevantly, on this article, the long-dead DECD reference still exists as the second citation. I haven't changed it, yet, because its invalidity and usefulness as a source is being discussed here; on the same token, a number of official and community-based sources have been dissected.

As long as your conduct is respectful and courteous, and edits follow the correct Misplaced Pages policies and do not disrupt the resolutions determined here, you will not be "censored". Jonathanhusky (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment For what it's worth, even as early as the 1940s there are uses of "Storrs-Mansfield", but always as "Storrs-Mansfield area" (here, here, here, and here, for instance). In the context of the linked articles, the uses of Storrs-Mansfield here are not referring to official or postal boundaries, but a more general area including and surrounding UConn. Given that the neighboring village of Spring Hill used to have its own post office (at least in the late-1800s/early-1900s, noted here and here), it would not entirely surprise me if the 06268 (non-UConn) post office used the name of the broader "area" to denote its service as being for the area around the university. Given the postal connection between UConn and the Storrs-Mansfield post office ("To mail items out from the University visit the Storrs community local UPS store or post office", link), the use of Storrs-Mansfield to refer to the community around UConn is understandable. However, Storrs-Mansfield is pedantic and formal. Even on official UConn websites, like that of Student Mail Services, they use "Storrs" to refer to the community, regardless of it being "incorrect". (Their address is even listed as "Student Mail Services, Central Warehouse, Storrs, CT 06269", here). Storrs is by far more common, especially historically and informally, and Storrs-Mansfield's use is just derived from the name's status as its postal identifier, except when it is just being used to refer to a broader area historically, including locations like Spring Hill. In the Connecticut Digital Archive, which indexes UConn's historical student newspapers, "Storrs-Mansfield" occurs only 107 times. "Storrs" alone occurs 45,439 times, albeit including some hits for things like "Storrs Family" referring to the titular surname, and the very specific "Storrs, Connecticut" yields 6,847 results, nearly 70 times more than Storrs-Mansfield. Clearly Storrs is the common name. 137.99.108.146 (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Your comment is welcome and appreciated, but I will invite you to create an account to foster a richer discussion and editing environment.

  On what you have brought up, there is no debate that "Storrs" is a "common" name for the village of Storrs-Mansfield. It is the population's very use of the incorrect form which makes it then an alternative name. And, yes, it is because of UConn's willful usage of the shortened, unofficial form which contributes to its further use - but we cannot label UConn references as official since they have no real jurisdiction, the Town of Mansfield does. (And, as evidenced previously, there is a wealth of university and student-produced sources which use the official form.)

  As you may have read throughout the replies here, the village is unincorporated and doesn't automatically fit into Misplaced Pages's conventions - the discussion at hand is how to prioritize the official name whilst respecting the inclusion of the informal "Storrs" (if necessary) in the lead section. Jonathanhusky (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

An article that you have been involved in editing—Storrs, Connecticut—has been proposed for merging with Mansfield, Connecticut. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion.

As discussed in in a previous reply, the concept of including any significant or notable information pertaining to Storrs-Mansfield would be included in a subheading under "Geography" section of the main Mansfield, Connecticut article, with a suggested lead paragraph:

Storrs-Mansfield, the largest of the town's settlements, is an unincorporated village anchored economically and demographically by the main campus of the University of Connecticut. Named for Charles and Augustus Storrs, the founders of the college...

The community's name is sometimes shortened to Storrs in informal speech...

Thank you. Jonathanhusky (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Storrs is notable on its own. I don't know if this is meant to be an end run around the RfC not going the way you'd like, but Storrs clearly meets WP:NPLACE. Storrs is well known on its own similar to Willimantic and Winsted. The name Storrs retains heavy use in the media (most will say UConn is in Storrs, not Mansfield). You're going to need a much stronger argument to persuade people. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Storrs is notable on its own...but Storrs clearly meets WP:NPLACE

  Actually, there are only two reasons this village is notable on its own: UConn and the Storrs family. (Actually, the latter only applies if we can conclusively determine that the Storrs family was notable enough to begin with, and more so than other Mansfield village namesakes or stakeholders.) Furthermore, if we look at NPLACE directly:

  Also, if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.

  The smallest legal division in Connecticut is the borough, which this community cannot be since it is unincorporated. Your examples of Willimantic and Winsted were boroughs themselves, separately incorporated with their own administrative and governmental histories. The same cannot be said here.

  We've already addressed the issues of using the BGN-GNIS database - remember that no other "village" of Mansfield (or community, neighborhood, burb, or whatever other term you'd like to use) has its own article. No one has been able to draw the boundaries of those villages, either.

  NPLACE does include a case-by-case provision for "populated places without legal recognition" - which would apply here and directly supports the merge proposal:

  Examples may include...informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc...If a Misplaced Pages article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.

  We are not debating whether or not Storrs-Mansfield (or "Storrs" for that matter) is notable; but the article as it currently stands does not have enough unique or substantial material that is not already covered in the main articles for Mansfield or UConn.

  ...most will say UConn is in Storrs, not Mansfield

  No matter how many times individuals or UConn says they're "in Storrs" that doesn't make it correct nor official. It only makes it "common" - This has been discussed ad nauseum. Actually, in the proposed subsection lead paragraph from my comment on November 10th, linked to in the merge proposal here, that issue is directly mentioned.

  I don't know if this is meant to be an end run around the RfC not going the way you'd like...You're going to need a much stronger argument to persuade people.

  In an attempt to be a responsible editor, I am trying the correct channels to allow for a consensus to be reached. If you actually read the discussion, many of the responses labeled "opposed" were made by editors who were confused about what the RFC was even about; assuming it was for a page name change (or "page move") - which it isn't and never was. The RFC doesn't directly decide anything, either, it just gives editors a chance to discuss things.

  Even as we've commented here, Storrs-Mansfield is unincorporated and isn't a legally-recognized place, making it difficult for the common and default Misplaced Pages practice to occur.

  I am not exactly understanding your opposition. Jonathanhusky (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  No matter how many times individuals or UConn says they're "in Storrs" that doesn't make it correct nor official. It only makes it "common" - This has been discussed ad nauseum. WP:COMMONNAME. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  This response is frivolous and has nothing to do with the merge proposal. COMMONNAME has already been addressed:

  No participant provided any supporting evidence or reference, and one basically said "I don't care for the source you've suggested" and then cited WP:COMMONNAME, without providing any examples. I do not disagree with WP:COMMONNAME - but, as evidenced in the IP user's argument, there is a substantial amount of sources which differ from the supposed consensus, not to mention "Storrs-Mansfield" continues to be commonly used.
  — User:Jonathanhusky 04:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  I will note that you were the editor in reference who participated in the September 2023 page name change request, and like you have here, mentioned COMMONNAME without any justification, references, or citations - even though other policies more so apply in this case:

  Other editors have cited the policy WP:COMMONNAME, but the policies WP:NCPLACE and MOS:ALTNAME are perhaps more appropriate, since both "Storrs" and "Storrs-Mansfield" are in common public usage. Therefore, simply citing COMMONNAME whilst not respecting the usage of the official name in question is not productive nor actually a resolution.
  — User:Jonathanhusky 04:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Additional Comment, in regards to NCPLACE and ALTNAME, IMO, not unreasonable to have it mentioned as Storrs-Mansfield at some point in the lead.
  — User:Naraht 22:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  I second the alternate name idea, it’s suitable for noting both names while still using WP:COMMONNAME with Storrs.
  — User:R0paire-wiki 14:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I certainly wouldn't oppose mentioning it in the lead...
  — User:Mathglot 03:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  ...some recognition of the hyphenated name in the lead would be appropriate.
  — User:JamesMLane 16:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  So actually, even if these editors wrote "opposed" in bold, they were confused and these replies show that they didn't actually disagree. If your concern still surrounded the idea of a page name change (or "page move") even though I addressed that in the comment this reply was directly preceded by, in addition to:

  For the record, this RFC would be for editing the lead and important or primary linked references, like under the list of villages in the town of Mansfield.
  I've edited the request to make that more clear, as a complete page name change wasn't the intention at this time. However, a change simply in the interest of accuracy would not be unopposed.
  — User:Jonathanhusky 04:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  We're debating the official name of the village here...

  No, we're discussing how to appropriately recognize the official name (Storrs-Mansfield) in the article which already uses an alternative "common name" (Storrs).
  — User:Jonathanhusky 21:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  And once again, in my comment from November 10th regarding the merge proposal:

  I want to stress that I did not intend for this RFC to initiate a "page move" - although a page titled "Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut" would be accurate, the actual purpose is to make changes to the lead section and select references. I actually think the folks who wrote "opposed" would agree that observing the official name in the lead section should be allowed and that any other discussed points have been sufficiently referenced and cited.
  — User:Jonathanhusky 00:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  That sounds fair...that approach makes sense.
  — User:The Blade of the Northern Lights 17:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have no qualms with merging the article...
  — User:Aaron Liu 17:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  So, no, just writing WP:COMMONNAME as your whole comment is not appropriate. Jonathanhusky (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  I will not be bludgeoned to death by you. My oppose stands. Mansfield and Storrs are both notable entities, as they both meet WP:NPLACE. There is no consensus for Storrs-Mansfield, either, so stop invoking that as justification. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Responding to 3 people with different arguments to suit their different points is by no means bludgeoning, and before I take a stand on this matter, I'd like to see what opposition we have here to a merge argument based on WP:Overlap. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will not be bludgeoned to death by you.

  It is not "bludgeoning" to reply to one's comment nor is it disruptive to respond to individual points.

  Secondly, what name is official and what name is common are not things determined by Misplaced Pages, so, the statement "There is no consensus for Storrs-Mansfield, either" means nothing.

  The merge proposal is and always was separate from any discussion surrounding how to maintain the inclusion of "Storrs" in an article about Storrs-Mansfield. Jonathanhusky (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're not arguing in good faith, you are blindly pushing a POV (Sealioning, really) and have no interest in actually discussing with others, only drowning them in walls of text if they dare challenge you. Your requested move to Storrs-Mansfield was unanimously opposed, the RfC is heading towards no consensus, and now for a third time you are trying to force changes and simply tire out anyone who disagrees with unorthodox or misleading interpretations of policy and guidelines to support your POV. Half of what you mentioned is irrelevant (mentioning the alternate name in the lead is fine but has zero bearing on this discussion, and quoting yourself the way you did is simply arrogant). And of course you take umbrage that I dared oppose your move request last year. I have better things to do than wade through the sheer volume of distortions and misrepresentations that have made this discussion ridiculously long because you simply refuse to write in a concise manner. And this is exactly why you are getting limited participation, anyone trying to go through this discussion needs to read the entire essay you've written and most people don't want to do that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your requested move to Storrs-Mansfield was unanimously opposed...

  And of course you take umbrage that I dared oppose your move request last year.

  That consensus was always flawed; with only four participants, one who relied on Google Maps for their response (not a reliable source), one who disapproved but did not provide any reasoning, alternative source, or justification except "I don't care for the source you've suggested" (your response), one that calls "Storrs" a locale (which it cannot be as a populated place), leaving only one qualified comment.

  I welcome the idea that a suggestion of mine or another editors may be in need of improvement or itself does not follow Misplaced Pages policy. But you have to actually back up your claim about why you don't support the suggestion, and why that position follows Misplaced Pages's guidelines, policies, and is then itself reliably sourced. You can't have your pudding if you don't eat your meat.

  ...the RfC is heading towards no consensus...

  Not really - a majority of respondents support changing the lead to include the official name, and label the common one as informal. A recent attempt by another user to do so was reverted - you are welcome to make the corrective edit if you feel it wouldn't (or shouldn't) be reverted as well.

  You're not arguing in good faith, you are blindly pushing a POV (Sealioning, really) and have no interest in actually discussing with others, only drowning them in walls of text if they dare challenge you...etc...

  When users publish multifaceted comments it is not inappropriate to respond to those facets with individual respect toward their points.

  I would like to clarify that I never meant for any of my responses to be considered malicious or "sealioning". In fact, it is because I respect the potential for opposition that I am willing to look into opposing ideas, learn of new policy, and participate in cordial discussion.

  Your accusations of my conduct are not correct and frankly, is a personal attack.

  As other replies have mentioned, this space is for comments regarding the merge proposal a la the policy WP:OVERLAP and your thoughts about unrelated points or prior discussion topics should be in their respective section, or, a new talk page section if necessary. Jonathanhusky (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well I, for one, have an interest in seeing the arguments against WP:Overlap. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Storrs is clearly notable as a stand-alone unincorporated place under the WP:GNG. A merge would just confuse readers. This is also potentially tendentious - proposing a merge after an unclosed RfC is clearly failing. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Storrs is clearly notable as a stand-alone unincorporated place under the WP:GNG.

  Would you be able to provide specific examples supporting why it should remain a stand-alone article? If we take a look at the GNG:

  A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

  We know that UConn and Mansfield as a whole are notable, and receive enough separate coverage to merit their own articles. The only material discussing the villages are of a historical nature or are simply geographical - There is very little for Storrs-Mansfield outside of its connection with UConn. The "independent of the subject" provision also means we can't use any source by UConn themselves that includes (incorrect) references to "Storrs".

  Since the village is unincorporated and isn't a legally-recognized place, we have a smaller pool of reliable sources to begin with, threatening the potential for a stand-alone article's ability to be well-written and sourced in any case.

  A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article...

  If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.

  And actually, NPLACE, as discussed in the response by @Trainsandotherthings and my reply, supercedes the GNG in some capacity since we are dealing with a populated place (which falls under Misplaced Pages's "geographic features" guidelines for notability.)

  A merge would just confuse readers.

  I don't agree. Firstly, there would be no prohibition for articles to include legitimate references to Storrs-Mansfield (or "Storrs" for that matter), and a redirect would be installed. The proposed subsection lead paragraph clearly indicates that this community is first and foremostly a village (subdivision) of Mansfield, but respects its (nominal) notability by bolding its official name and then including its "common" unofficial name - explaining that it is an informal adaptation. I suggested that the only unique article material, the singular sentence regarding the Storrs family name and the transportation detail - alongside the small amount of photographs (which could be the subject of their own debate regarding inclusion) be transplanted. There is no conscionable reason why the current entry could not exist within the main Mansfield article.

  If editors would like to start a project to improve and expand the village's article, then I would be delighted to see it, and maybe then could a justification to maintain its stand-alone status be better supported.

  This is also potentially tendentious - proposing a merge after an unclosed RfC is clearly failing.

  I will remind that this idea was actually first seriously suggested by another user. And with all due respect, as we are both participants in the lead section RFC, it is inappropriate to draw a conclusion, and your initial RFC comment did not provide new reasoning to support an opposing position. Jonathanhusky (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't read C.Fred's comment as necessarily supporting the idea, but merely that the proposal represented it.Naraht (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Regardless, the strong case for a page merge exists separately from the discussion surrounding how to include the community's official name. The fact really is, Storrs-Mansfield (or "Storrs" for that matter) isn't a town on its own. Jonathanhusky (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing everyone who disagrees with you. Storrs isn't a legally recognised place but is rather an unincorporated/census designated place so must pass WP:GNG, which it clearly does, it is a separate place to Mansfield, and Storrs is clearly the common name for that place, and there's also no clear evidence I've seen showing that Storrs is not the "official" name for the place, and the official name in the Census of the census designated place is in fact just Storrs. SportingFlyer T·C 03:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Would you like to respond to my argument about MergeCrit? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing everyone who disagrees with you.

  It is not "bludgeoning" to reply to one's comment nor is it disruptive to respond to individual points.

  Storrs isn't a legally recognised place but is rather an unincorporated/census designated place so must pass WP:GNG, which it clearly does...

  The fact that Storrs-Mansfield is an unincorporated village and the second fact that it contains a separate census-designated place named Storrs have never been challenged.

  Would you be able to provide specific evidence to support the claim that this village is a separate place to Mansfield?

  ...and Storrs is clearly the common name for that place...etc...

  This point is, once again, not relevant to the merge proposal. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose If a single article existed with the proposed information in it with "Storrs" as a section, then I would propose a split, as Storrs is a common name for that area with much unique information in it.Naraht (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Would you be able to expand on what unique information you are referring to? If we take a look at the article, there is only a sentence about the Storrs family and a very short section explaining past and present transportation. Practically everything else is materially identical to text in the Mansfield article, and any potential addition regarding UConn would be duplicative of its own article.

  There is currently not enough information to warrant a stand-alone article. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, "Storrs" is a common name for this subject. What does that have to do with Notability? What unique, encyclopedic information is there to override WP:Overlap and justify a standalone article? I only count 4 paragraphs plus maybe the notable persons list that isn't WP:Indiscriminate wiki-data. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: Procedural decline; there are clearly far more than two editors involved in this dispute, and as such 3O is an inappropriate path to resolution. Editors are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. If there are concerns that editors are not saying what they think they're saying in response to the RfC, it is incumbent on the editors who feel that way to (better) articulate their concerns, while also remaining open to the possibility that they may not have said what they thought they were saying. DonIago (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Start-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• Start-Class Connecticut articles
• Mid-importance Connecticut articles
• WikiProject Connecticut articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment