Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WPA murals

In Re: W.P.A. murals in Norwalk -- local legend has it that Norwalk has more extant WPA murals than anywhere else in the country. Don't know if the claim is valid but there ARE a lot of them -- The Norwalk Transit site (http://www.norwalktransit.com//murals_thumb.htm) illustrates (and locates) 45 of them while the South Norwalk Post Office (06850) has three or four others (besides the one in the main lobby, you need to ask for entry into the office spaces to see the others). While a half dozen murals remain in storage, the bulk are scattered all over town and open to public view in city hall, a number of schools, and the public libraries. Any chance one of you good folks adding this factoid into this really good site?Westernesse 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

an updated url (February 2008) appears to be http://www.norwalktransit.com/ntd_murals.htm and on that page Karel Yasko of the GSA is quoted as having said that Norwalk's collection is "The nation's largest collection of WPA murals” 67.86.73.252 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

↑↑↑↑StephenTS42 (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Constitution City"?

I can't find anything on the Web to back up the claim that "Constitution City" was ever a nickname of Norwalk. I do find a few references to "Oyster Town" on the Web. Can anyone verify this? The "Constitution City" nickname is in the City "box" at the top of the page.Noroton 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of it before...I feel like it's a recent add, maybe one could track down who added it, or otherwise I say delete because I don't think it's true. TJ0513 01:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of it either. It was added with this diff. Nationalparks 03:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only haven't I been able to verify ""the constitution city", I couldn't find *any* nickname at all...so I took it off...that user had a webpage saying he went to one of the UCs...maybe he meant Norwalk, CA? TJ0513 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

↑↑↑↑StephenTS42 (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

deletions and restorations

TJ, I'll replace the people section with a summary and link to a new people of Norwalk article later, but here's my overall objection to your edits: by being so minimalist in what you accept on the Norwalk page, you close off opportunities for readers to explore or make it harder for them to do so. Editing out Sears because Britannica doesn't think he came from Norwalk is an example: let readers come to their own conclusions (Britannica isn't infallable, either). The National Registry list is of most interest to people in Norwalk, and the Norwalk list should be on a Norwalk page rather than forcing people to go to another page for it (besides, there's plenty of room -- if the page becomes too crowded, we can deal with it then, although pages have gone up to 85 kB on Wikipedia and Norwalk hasn't even gotten to 30kB). These Wikipedia municipality articles are some of the best local community web pages on the Internet because they're packed with interesting information. It seems to me that it's reasonable to keep that information as accessable as possible. If you don't like lists or think something is too broad, why not be bold in adding by transforming a list item into a paragraph or even an article, as I have, rather than boldly delete someone else's work?Noroton 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you're angry with my edits. You shouldn't take offense; don't take it personally...if you want a bad feeling just wait until an article you started from scratch gets nominated for deletion.

So....I don't have an minimalistic philosophy; rather, I prefer quality over quantity. This means fleshed-out paragraphs as opposed to an article of 100 bullet points. Please refer to other city pages for examples of the standard form. I think the section on transportation, especially, is the ideal of how all sections should be. Your national history section was cut and paste out of the fairfield county historical registry section. I don't like your new section on "people of norwalk" either, as it basically reads "___ lived here. So did _____. _____ was raised in the city. _____ died in Norwalk." That is a poorly constructed paragraph and reads like a list, anyway. I don't think including anything on the internet that mentions Norwalk is a good arguement because it will create a either page of fluff or an ugly list. There is a sort of a standard to these types of pages, which I happen to see the merrits of. Please do not impose your vision on this page. So, I am going to re-delete some sections, probably will nominate that page of norwalk people for deletion (or at least that it be merged) and when I get time clean up some other pages, like Danbury.TJ0513 02:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So I change the people section from a list, and you criticize that. (Again, I invite you to be constructive: rewrite it if you don't like it.) I take out the people list (most of which I created) and you want it merged back. Please point out where the fluff is on the page or why a list is "ugly."

As for standards, I've looked over Wikipedia rules, standards and recommendations and I see no rules or standards telling us that we can't have itemized lists. Perhaps I've missed something; feel free to point it out to me. Again, if you don't like an itemized list, feel free to start fleshing out the items with prose, as I've started doing with the National Register section. While we're on recommendations, you might want to review "be bold."

As for anger, I've taken your criticisms seriously, disagreed with some and tried to accommodate others (with the People section, for instance). For examples of possible anger, take a look at your comments, especially the ones on the history page that you made when deleting.Noroton 03:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I really wasn't angry or trying to be mean, tone doesn't carry well over text, please don't make assumptions. OK, in general, I think you're missing the spirit of what I'm trying to say. I think an article can be more than header, list, header, list...pick a page, any page, like Walla Walla, Washington or Atlanta, Georgia, or whatever. I mean, the sections have sentences for the most part, not merely a list of lists. And also, I stand by what I said: I didn't see a big change in the people section, it reads like a list (as mentioned above).TJ0513 03:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I get the spirit of what you're trying to say. Here's the spirit of what I'm trying to say: start helping me flesh out the lists. They're all on topics that are "standard" on other community pages. I've taken a look at Walla Walla and Atlanta and I see nothing wrong with what you say (although parts of the Atlanta article have blocks of prose that are too big, and much of the bottom half of Walla Walla is made up of lists), but I do see something wrong with removing lists instead of fleshing them out into prose. I get the impression you want me to do it, and yet I'm already adding more to this article than anyone else, and not just simple lists. In the meantime, is it such a crime that a section is initially a list? I think it's a crime not to have useful information.

Recc. the merge, for above reasonsTJ0513 02:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What are the reasons for merging the "People of Norwalk" page with "Norwalk"? My reason for creating an article for it was because it had become very long after I added so many names to it, and readers would have to scroll quite a bit to get past it, which I think some people might find annoying. Eventually, the Norwalk article will get bigger and bigger, and a separate People page is a neater way of dividing subject matter than some other divisions could be. It's been done with People of Stamford, Connecticut, People of Ridgefield, Connecticut, People of Greenwich, Connecticut and People of Bridgeport, Connecticut.

You're sort of, like, using pages you've created as supporting evidence.....OK, look, I will try to accomodate your historical register section because I think it can be worked into something....lists aren't a "crime", but I believe them to be visually-unappealing...I was just afraid of these sections being lists forever, but I see you may try to be working the historical register into something more fleshed out which is good...I also disagree with you that Atlanta's prose blocks are too big. Rather, I believe this speaks to the development and richness of the article. Not just Atlanta, but any major city...CT towns are small potatoes, but we can strive to other cities' ideals.

Yeah, you're right, I've created articles -- even written articles and sections. I think they look pretty good.Noroton 22:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked to weigh in. Basically, I've looked at a bunch of city articles, and in most cases the list of notable people is indeed a bulleted list. Most everything else I've seen is prose. As long as the info is there, looks good, and is readable, then I'm happy. Nationalparks 04:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

xxxx

I added some quick stuff on the history that I knocked off...I think it and the rest of the article in general needs some serious clean-up/over-all reorganization. I will do more when I have time. TJ0513 14:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Population Estimate http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2007-04-09.xls

Where did you get 90k+? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.29.111 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Links

I think it's good that the page is expanding, however, there seems to be recent large expansions of external links relative to substance...I think if they were continued to be included in the page, sections such as "landmarks..." ought to be fleshed out...the "external links" section even is now a bit redundant, and would we say busy? TJ0513 02:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• I removed some of the links and tonight removed the "Media" links from the External section. Over time, I hope to flesh out some of the cultural sections to make them look less like lists. I think the External section is less "busy" now, (although I'm not sure it's a bad thing to look busy -- as long as things are easy to find, right?).Noroton 04:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks good! Esp. the media section!!! TJ0513 19:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Template

I have been looking around and there are template standards on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. I think we should begin to edit towards that template. They list categories differently (e.g., economy of the city instead of distinctive companies) so it may take some editing to rework existing material into line. I am on limited time, so will slowly be able to do some over the months, just wanted to put it out there to chew on. TJ0513 16:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. You may want a reminder from the first two paragraphs of that article:

"First, an important note for everyone to remember:

"A few Wikipedians have gotten together to make some suggestions about how we might organize data in articles about states, counties, cities and towns. These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them. But if you don't know what to write or where to begin, following the below guidelines may be helpful. Mainly, we just want you to write articles!"

Just a reminder!Noroton 19:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was thinking but forgot to write "...if we're in agreement". It was partly there by me "putting it out there to chew on". I was thinking about adding a gov't/economy section, maybe reorganizing subheadings, etc. It's just something to explore. TJ0513 22:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Taxing districts

Norwalk is broken up into a number of "taxing districts." Questions:

• What's a taxing district?
• How many are there?
• What are they?
• How do they function vis-a-vis city government?

I know I live in the third taxing district, but I don't know what its boundaries are or how it affects me. The NorwalkCT.org website is no help either. Are they even relevant anymore? Cmprince 21:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Four of the taxing districts originate from when before Norwalk was consolidated as a single municipality. 1st district is the former city of Norwalk, 2nd is the former city of South Norwalk, 3rd is the former East Norwalk Fire District, and 6th is the village of Rowayton. I don't know what the 4th and 5th are. I think these districts are supposed to be able to levy additional taxes for some special services (e.g. sewer, garbage collection, lighting, etc.). --Polaron | Talk 22:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! If I can find some sources, I'll add this to the article. Cmprince 13:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the page at http://www.norwalkct.org/Budgets/CAFR2005/CAFR2005taxDIST.PDF the fourth district was set up in the 1970s to levy taxes on the portions of the city not already in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 6th districts. The 5th district was set up to be a taxing district for the entire city including all areas.

The article on Administrative divisions of Connecticut#Village, neighborhood, section of town does mention "taxing districts". On page 173 of the book Norwalk Being An Historical Account of that Connecticut Town by Deborah Wing-Ray and Gloria P. Stewart (1979) they cite "a study by a long time resident":

The taxing districts of Norwalk, eight in all at the present time [1959], may be roughly grouped in three categories: In the first place, there are four districts (fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth) which exist essentially for the purpose of computing differential tax rates for the conduct of city services, and the properties of which belong to the city government; secondly, there is the sixth district, which provides limited local services and owns some non-utility property; and, thirdly, there are the three districts (first, second and third) which provide certain local services and operate essential utilities along with some other properties.

Attributed by Wing-Ray and Stewart to A.E. Buck, "The Norwalk Taxing District, Part I - The General District Picture", Mark Vol. 6, No. 12 (June 6, 1959). 67.86.73.252 (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Norwalk's First Taxing District is primarily a Water Supplier according to the article at http://www.topix.com/content/trb/2008/02/taxing-district-will-end-lawsuit-over-park and the Engineer's postion advertised at http://www.awwa.org/careercenter/index.cfm?fuseaction=jobsearch.ListingDetail&ListingID=7031&EmpID=8153 It appears that Norwalk's FTD will be trying to put a web page at http://www.norwalkfdwd.org/ but they have not completed it yet. Note too that beyond Norwlk, in e.g. Windham CT There are Service districts that each constitute taxing districts ( as mentioned in the proposed new charter at http://www.windhamct.com/download.htm?t=r&id=6d33yyos for example ). A separate article on the phenomenon of taxing districts at Wikipedia is Special-purpose district 67.86.73.252 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Transportation Rail

I'd like to alter the subsection on #Rail since it seems to emphasize rail history at the expense of explaining current rail transportation service to the city of Norwalk. It currently starts off mentioning the NY,NH&H Railroad (a company that no longer existed after 1969) and pushes mention of Metro North back to the the fifth sentence of the paragraph (using an article name that is now a redirect). My understanding of current rail service is that one cannot board a train at any station in Norwalk and arrive at Boston without transferring at another station (as opposed to getting to New York City which is possible. Please correct me if I am wrong about that). Here is the way I think the information should be presented instead, please note that the only thing missing from the current subsection is a mention of Boston, Massachusetts. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on Transporation->Rail was altered today. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy section proposal

According to the guideline at WP:USCITY a city article could have a section on the Economy of the city. This article has a long list in a Large and distinctive companies section. I was able to find a US Census Bureau report from 2002 on the general economy of Norwalk and I transferred the data on one of their web pages into a wiki table. Would anyone object to starting an Economy section? How about putting the Large and distinctive companies list as a subsection of Economy? (At some point in the future splitting the company list into a separate article seems warranted, but I'd prefer not to try and create such a separate article just yet).

Economy

The economy of Norwalk is spread somewhat evenly across at least 12 different NAICS industry groups according to the United States Census Bureau.<ref name="census_NAICS"

url=http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/data/ct/55990.HTM%7C title=2002 Economic Census: Summary Statistics by 2002 NAICS - Norwalk city, CT| publisher=U.S Census Bureau| accessdate=2008-07-18}}

NAICS code	Description	establishments	sales ($1000)	payroll ($1000)	employees
31-33	Manufacturing	147	1321517	334344	6897
42	Wholesale trade	178	4112214	197187	3053
44-45	Retail trade	404	2694568	269868	7455
51	Information	95		93210	1820
53	Real estate & rental & leasing	98	83029	18108	443
54	Professional, scientific, & technical services	439	620019	267952	3874
56	Administrative & support & waste management & remediation service	234	1298440	233201	7824
61	Educational services	32			100-249
62	Health care & social assistance	275	514877	235061	5528
71	Arts, entertainment, & recreation	62	70408	21744	908
72	Accommodation & food services	201	134643	34692	2147
81	Other services (except public administration)	235	169490	54913	1584
	Totals	2400	11019205	1760280	41633-41782

Large and distinctive companies

• etc.

Please see http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/data/ct/55990.HTM for data.

Does that proposal for addtional information look acceptable? 67.86.73.252 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. It doesn't seem so far that the page has too many tables. I had originally added that company list, I think. It's difficult to maintain. Perhaps it should be changed to prose, leaving out all but the major companies. Noroton (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The proposed change has been made. The new section is number 4 so as to bring this article's subject outline a bit close to the recommendation at WP:USCITY. I think that the History synopsis in this article and the further expansion of the topic in History of Norwalk, Connecticut could serve as a guide to splitting the Large and distinctive companies information into a separate article. The separate article might present less of maintenance challenge since company descriptions might not be constrained to a very short summary. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Norwalk Wiki

Greetings folks. There is now a Norwalk Wiki especially for things not notable enough for Wikipedia. It just started, so it is wide open for your contributions. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Expanded the "Media" section

There are a number of media outlets that focus or partly focus (in a major way) on Norwalk. I looked back to confirm my memory and the Media section previously had much of this information. I don't know why it was cut, because it seems relevant to the topic. I added it back. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on Norwalk, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080915174056/http://www.norwalkcitizen-news.com:80/topstories/ci_10297724{{dead link}} to http://www.norwalkcitizen-news.com/topstories/ci_10297724{{dead link}}
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061210063623/http://www.norwalkct.org:80/fire/index.htm to http://www.norwalkct.org/fire/index.htm{{dead link}}

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Norwalk, 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080919081338/http://www.brlworldseries.com:80/default.php?do=Tournament&id=8 to http://brlworldseries.com/default.php?do=Tournament&id=8

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)