Talk:Rhode Island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Rhode Island was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
July 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Rhode Island (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Rhode Island (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was a past U.S. Collaboration of the Month.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Geography.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Rhode Island:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : trim history section since History of RI already has its own article
  • Cleanup : culture; food; popular culture; Rhode Island firsts, perhaps merge into culture with prose
  • Expand : demographics with prose concerning notable trends, e.g. massive influx of hispanics; culture; economy and its current trends, i.e. job loss
  • Wikify : references into standard format using cite web and cite book templates

Creator's Response[edit]

As far as notability goes, these villages are real places but are not dominant enough as villages to have their own post offices. I can see a merger with the page "Villages in Rhode Island", but merging them with Rhode Island seems a bit strange. The page for Rhode Island talks only about the state; it wouldn't make sense for details about one or two small villages to be thrown in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P. Pearl-Lee C. Spears-Harris (talkcontribs) 13:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions -- regardless of where the information goes it's material that's worth having. You may already know all this, but for the benefit of anyone who might not: Exceptions for when notability has to be established via significant coverage in reliable sources are pretty limited -- including legally recognized populated places, but not, as far as I know, villages (although they may certainly exist and may have historical significance, they don't get an automatic pass without a bunch of references). I'm not aware of any precedent for having a standalone article about villages in a particular state (there's Category:Villages in Rhode Island but no standalone article for RI or any other state--as far as I know). I think what makes the most sense (as above) is to merge them into the most appropriate one or two town/city/county pages. What do you think? --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

User: P. Pearl-Lee C. Spears-Harris :I would definitely agree. In fact, I have a list of villages that should be merged. In the Hopkinton page, there is a small section called "Villages" where they are listed but I do not believe one exists on the Richmond page.

I think the pages for Ashaway, Rhode Island, Bradford, Rhode Island, Hope Valley, Rhode Island and Rockville, Rhode Island have enough notability to keep their own pages. Hopkinton City Historic District should also be left alone.

I think the villages in Richmond have enough notability to remain their own separate pages (after all, people in Richmond are more familiar with the villages than the town itself.) Woodville, Rhode Island is a village of Hopkinton and Richmond and should have a merger with both, but if it was the only merger with Richmond that would be a bit strange; I think if we are to merge Woodville it should only be merged with Hopkinton.

Addressing the comment above on notability for places: It is my understanding that any of the following qualify as proof of notability for places. Legal recognition is not needed. Those things would be: Entry in GNIS; the existence at any point in time of census data specifically for that place name; being at any point in time on an official map; or the existence at any point in time of a post office for that place. I am not able to extensively search historic map records, but Yawgoog failed all the others. That is why I nominated it for deletion. There is material on the scout camp with the same name; lots of it in fact. But nothing for a village or settlement by that name. John from Idegon (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yawgoog...I do believe it is a village but perhaps have been mistaken. I have heard numerous times of the Scout Camp being located in "Yawgoog". What official map sources did you check that contained the others?

Rhode island — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.29.193 (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

--206.53.74.104 (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)I love Rhode Island

Errors on the Page[edit]

–– CURRENT –– The page currently has text that says RI both established and prohibited slavery in 1652. Reference 126, used for the second statement, was not available using the provided link. First, in 1.1; "(Rhode Island's 1652 legalization of slavery predating all southern colonies by 12 years; ... ." Then, in 13.6; "As a colony, the state enacted the first law prohibiting slavery in North America on May 18, 1652." This would appear to be an error. 24.249.105.158 (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@24.249.105.158: Good point. "Legalized" may have just been a mistake. It was abolished in 1652, but not enforced. That section needs work still, but I rewrote it/clarified with better sources (see here). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 24 external links on Rhode Island. 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:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rhode Island. 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:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rhode Island. 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:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)