Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut

Latest comment: 4 days ago by in topic James angell
WikiProject iconConnecticut Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The CoGs are not actually counties edit

I'm very much against edits like this. We really need to stop propping up the CoGs as if they are actually counties. No one in Connecticut actually treats the CoGs as important as the historic counties, and I see no evidence that (besides the census) they are actually worth propping up as the lead image in every town article.
@AirportExpert: I'd appreciate you reverting until this can be fully discussed. –MJLTalk 15:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elli: I know you have thoughts on this you might want to share. –MJLTalk 15:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disagree with you here; Connecticut's ceremonial counties have no governmental function at all and are no longer even used by the U.S. census at request of the state. While switching to planning regions may feel a bit weird; they make much more sense to use than counties at this point. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not on board with treating them as equivalents. While they are a thing and are more useful for planning purposes, nobody is going to tell you they live in the "Capitol Planning Region", they're going to say they live in Hartford County. Unless sources are now using the planning regions instead of counties, we should not be unilaterally deciding the planning regions take precedence over counties. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the Federal and State government, the CoGs are now county-equivalents. The term "county-equivalent" is used to "describe divisions that are comparable to counties but called by different names". There are other states that also possess county-equivalents (such as Alaska's Boroughs and Louisiana's Parishes), and these designated regions serve the same functions as counties but are simply called by other names. Connecticut is unique however, since it is the only state to have "counties", while simultaneously using another set of boundaries (in this case "Planning Regions" aka "CoGs") to represent what are considered counties by the government's definition. The Census Bureau addressed this in the Federal Register, by stating "This decision was made without regard to similar circumstances that may exist in other states and is narrowly focused on this unique situation in Connecticut. Therefore, it should not be taken as a precedent for other situations that may currently exist or arise later". To summarize, the Census Bureau and the State both agree that Connecticut's CoGs will replace Counties by every legal, administrative and statistical measure. Connecticut's historical counties also no longer have important designations such as FIPS codes, which is something that every geographic region recognized by the Census Bureau has. I would encourage you to read these two documents provided by the U.S. Census Bureau for broader context:
That being said, I agree with you that people are probably not going to suddenly start saying they live in the "Capitol Planning Region", or the "South Central Connecticut Planning Region", etc. These terms are verbose, but they are not arbitrary terms that anyone here came up with. They are the legal definition of what defines Connecticut's counties, and should be recognized as such. I think for cultural context it is still worth saying, for example: "Danbury is a city in Fairfield county, Connecticut..." at the intro to each article and to leave the historical county in the infobox, but as far as maps go, it would be inaccurate to use historical boundary maps in each article, when the government no longer relies on these boundaries for anything. As time goes by, boundaries change over time. Being "historically part of something" matters to a degree and is certainly noteworthy, but it should not necessarily be used as the primary definition going forward. I would very much like to discuss this further with everyone before any further changes are made though. --AirportExpert (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)AirportExpertReply[reply]
One more thing to add: the Councils of Governments (CoGs) in Connecticut play an important role in cooperation between municipalities, and act as de-facto county governments in this state, wielding much of the same authority governments have elsewhere. That alone should be enough of a reason for a municipality's Wikipedia page to outline what Planning Region it is in via the map in the infobox. For purposes of transparency and public awareness of how councils of governments work in Connecticut, the map highlighting planning regions is far more useful and informative than a map showing the boundaries of a historic county that has no power to do anything whatsoever. Municipalities use CoGs to apply for grants and consolidate public services. Now with federal recgnition, CoGs have the power to do a lot more than they are currently doing, and the state pushed for this because there are a lot of public services that Connecticut taxpayers pay more for, which could easily be consolidated between municipalities to save money (a common example cited being the hiring of 911 operators for each CoG vs. each municipality). That is a clear example of how a county government works, and why it matters in this context. Should the historic counties still be mentioned and do they matter culturally? Yes. Do they have any real impact on the lives of people in Connecticut or the way the government functions? No.--AirportExpert (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)AirportExpertReply[reply]
It appears that the Planning Regions have been added to CT town pages, perhaps as part of the Census Bureau's phase in from 2022-24.
However, they are not vested with any government function or authority. As per C.G.S. Ch. 127 Sec. 8-31b(b), the 9 CoGs are for planning purposes. All government functions and powers are vested to CT's 169 towns (including its 1 independent city).
CoGs share 10 year plans, participate in grants, and help with some contracting for bulk services like heating oil for public buildings, tourism,, and consulting services (e.g. housing plans). 911 services are provided by either municipalities or regional emergency communications centers (RECCs) - not CoGs.
For true county government functions, look at 99% of the states County-wide commissioners enact their own statutes and regulations to manage core functions of the county and provide services in the town designated as the county seat. Budgeting, taxation, elections, law enforcement, judiciary, parks, zoning, etc. are at the county level whereas most of those, excluding judiciary, are at the town level in CT. Granted, whatever powers a municipality has - town, city, county - varies by state.
Sure, CT has regional services like water & sewer (e.g. MDC), health departments, judiciary (13 regional districts for civil & criminal court), RECCs, busses, but none of them even come close to overlapping with the 9 CoGs. And where towns don't have their own police, they use regional residential state troopers. CountryMama27 (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are equivalents, though, and both the state government and census use them instead of the historic counties. The historic counties are still worth mentioning, of course. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think anyone is saying the planning regions shouldn't be mentioned. But I disagree with removing the county maps from articles in favor of the planning regions map (I would be fine with using both). While the historic counties don't really have much meaning for governance, they are significant culturally. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to write a longer response about how technically the historic counties are used for the Connecticut State Marshals and sometimes judicial districts (vs the WP:CRYSTALBALL nature of the CoGs), but I'm fine with just keeping both as well by doing something like this.
@AirportExpert and Elli: Would you find that acceptable? –MJLTalk 19:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support adding both maps with a switcher to all city/town pages, and will be happy to help implement it. This is a good compromise that should satisfy everyone's concerns.
On a separate note, I've been having trouble with the interactive switcher maps on the pages for CT cities. If you look at the pages where I've added interactive maps, you will see that on CT city pages (such as Norwalk and Danbury) the cities are greyed out, but on the pages for towns they are not. I've tried multiple ways to correct this issue, including within OpenStreetMap, but I cannot seem to figure out what is causing this. Does anyone here have any ideas? I appreciate any input on this matter. AirportExpert (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, that works, though I wouldn't link "Connecticut" there. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think having both as you've shown here works well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think given the new county-equivalent designation (which, as an aside, will completely complicate using county census data trends), CoGs should be included in maps and by name where historical county is named, but should be referred to as county-equivalents (CE? a better term is sorely needed!).
As far as terminology? More people that live here refer their town being a part of the "Northwest Hills" (CE) rather than Litchfield or Hartford county.
Let's face it, CT is weird, and the legislature should simply reinstitute, and perhaps redraw, counties and phase in some of the functions without adding another layer of government. CountryMama27 (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CountryMama27: It really depends on where you live. In Middlesex County, the county is normally used. In the Northeast, they normally call where they live the Quiet Corner. –MJLTalk 17:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

County Equivalents edit

The shift to county equivalents for the state should somehow be represented on the "historical county" pages; as well, do county equivalents need their own pages? Perhaps one to start that lists them and their towns and notes the difference between counties & county equivalents? (I haven't looked to see what's in wiki for CT county equivalents)

Also, should each town page reference their county equivalent as well? CountryMama27 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irrelevant now - the planning regions have been added to town pages CountryMama27 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Connecticut Panhandle#Requested move 7 January 2024 edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Connecticut Panhandle#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado GA reassessment edit

Hi there. As part of the Weather WikiProject GA reassessment, I reviewed Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado, which was nominated back in 2009. I identified some issues with the article, which I left on the talk page. I'll leave the reassessment open for seven days, so hopefully someone could help out fixing it up. Keep up the good work you nutmeggers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Stephanie McMahon edit

Stephanie McMahon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem with town locator maps in municipal infoboxes edit

So I've noticed on several articles that the expandable map that shows the town on Google Maps or OpenStreetMap show the municipal boundaries excluding any internal CDPs. This is obviously not correct and needs to be addressed. I've noticed it in the articles for Cheshire and Ridgefield as well as others. VulcanTrekkie45 (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James angell edit

I live and work in ct and recently discovered yales eugenics past. James angell its former president was strongly involved with it yet no mentions on his page. (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]