Template talk:Vermont

slimmed down template

with 250-ish towns, listing them all in the template was getting unwieldy and taking a lot of time to load. I added a link to the towns in Vermont page instead, added a few more thing to the template and left it alone. I hope that's okay with folks. Jessamyn 03:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

U.S. state templates

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates lists and displays all 50 U.S. state (and additional other) templates. It potentially can be used for ideas and standardization. //MrD9 07:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

new template suggestion

Hi. I saw that you have been working on new designs for the template. I think a smaller footer version would be great, but I think some of the design choices that you made make it very hard to read [blue links on green and smaller text] so I thought it might be a good idea to move sample designs in here while we worked on something more final. The template goes on the bottom of a lot of pages, and if you're trying out new ideas it might be a good idea to make sure the final version is usable and readable, at least somewhat. Here is the copy of the version you were working on. I really like how it's smaller, and has the state seal, but the collection of small boxes and similar colors makes it hard to read and the extra HTML makes the code hard to edit for future changes. Do you think we can find a middle ground? Jessamyn (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the template you were working on

This is what the template currently looks like (copied in case it's modified in the future)

I don't like the formatting changes, but I am for changing the order to Capital, Regions, Counties, Cities, Towns. I also think the header links could be changed to Government, Geography, History, Culture, Economics. Or something along those lines. --Thetrick 00:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think those are both good suggestions. Do you want to try to work up a mock-up and put it here and peopel can offer suggestions, if they have any. Jessamyn (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Standardization of state templates

There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding standardization of state templates (primarily regarding layout and styling) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates. An effort was made earlier this year to standardize Canadian province templates (which mostly succeeded). Lovelac7 and I have already begun standardizing all state templates. If you have any concerns, they should be directed toward the discussion page for state template standardization. Thanks! — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

City names

I propose changing the city names as displayed from "Barre City", "Newport City", etc., to just "Barre", "Newport", and so on. The reason is that the places are actually called "Barre" and "Newport", not "Barre City", etc. I understand that there are surrounding towns of the same name, but since the template clearly says "Cities", I don't think that that should cause any confusion. Still, being an outsider (from New Hampshire), I want to check the feelings of the community before I make a change. Any comments? Ken Gallager 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have seen at least one place where "City" is added (the City of Barre web page), but it's clearly in the context of having to distinguish the city from the surrounding town. "City" would still be unnecessary in the case of this template. Ken Gallager 16:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Barre City and Barre Town are separate entitiies with different police, town governments, etc. Same with several other towns/cities/villages in Vermont. The City of Waterbury and the Village of Waterbury, for example, have had ongoing and often contenious discussions about whether or not to merge. The should be separate in any list of the state's local municipalities.

Festivals

I would like to see festivals moved to their own template. The items here have been geographic to date. I would like to see geographic continue to be the focus of this template. If we convert to being WP:PR for festivals, there is no telling where it will end, but no point, in any case, of having every town in the state, an advertisement for some festival which is not in the area. That does not seem appropriate here. Student7 (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Cluttered template

Now the template has become overly cluttered IMO. "Projects" are poorly attended and they tend to arrive at stupid ideas sometimes. The only thing to do is to join them and try to get some sense there (sigh). The current template is designed to be placed indiscriminately at the bottom of everything Vermont, syrup, cows, people, and clutter up the bottom of articles generally. The problem is that no one will look at it when it is so crowded. I used to use these to navigate between geographical places. Can't hardly find them now. Student7 (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from supposed "standards" project

I posted the following under the self-styled "standards" discussion project. Since the only person who will be reading this is probably the one who has made all the recent changes without warning but will scream "standards" when I complain, it will probably be futile to post it here. But anyway:

Called subtopic "A different approach"
Just discovered that Vermont template is being changed beyond all recognition. I used to be able to use this navigational template before someone tried to turn it into a pseudo-portal. It is less usable now and will be ignored as all tediously lengthy lists are.

One "standard" you ought to discuss (there are college texts out there that have already recorded this determination) is how long should a list be before users stop regarding it as "friendly?" There is a specific answer to that question. I do not have the text in my hand.

Vermont's template (I don't see it above, please hide, if it is) looks like this now:

The first item says "topic". Apparently a catch-all phrase. The first items seem to be "articles" not links to other articles as the name "topic" implies. The editor also assumes that people using this template want the potpourri items first not specifics. I rather doubt that.

In the good old days, Vermont was geography first and maybe only, before everyone tried to piggy-back on this successful template.

Now it is a junkpile that gets added to everything indiscrimately like maple syrup, cows, lord knows what else.

I wish you guys would stop. People looking at a geographic template want a navigational template to other geographical items. Doubtless the same with political articles, government articles, etc. Fine if you want to have an olio line at the bottom that will give access to a different type of navbox. So there could be a real topics line, and be able to navigate out of geography to politics, for example. The boxes would all be named differently, "Vermont-geography", "Vermont-politics" etc. The politics box would have a topics line to get to geography. That sort of thing.

Festivals are normally just c-of-c WP:PR. Since they have articles, fine, but with its own template, it doesn't clutter up a geographic template or a politics or government one. Just a simple topic on each template with "Festivals" on it to get out of the current topic.

In that way, we wouldn't have monster boxes all over every single state article indiscrimanately taking up gobs of white space, sometimes more than the tiny article! Student7 (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Green

Is there a particular reason why this template is green? I understand the idea is to try to match the color in the flag, but it doesn't exactly match. Wouldn't it be better to just go with the default used by {{navbox}} to avoid having a rainbow at the bottom of the page when this navbox is next to another one and per WP:ACCESSIBILITY? Please let me know if there is a strong reason to have it a particular color. I noticed this was attempted recently, but was reverted, so I thought I would be proactive and start a thread here to avoid an edit war. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess we can be "standard" whatever that means. But if we don't have to, it might be nice to have a "signature" color for all Vermont nav templates. I doubt this has been discussed before. I can't say the current color green is that attractive though.

So what about having a "signature" color (somewhat changing the subject)? Student7 (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is better to just go with the default color per WP:Deviations. If you check all the U.S. state templates, there are only a few which are not using the default (e.g., Template:California). For those that aren't using the default, a thread should be started to discuss it, if one hasn't been started already. My primary concern is WP:ACCESSIBILITY for the visually impaired. I had one editor email me to ask how he/she could override the color scheme being used in various navbox templates. If we stick with colors defined by MediaWiki:Common.css, this is possible by just creating a personal Special:MyPage/skin.css. If we override the "css classes" using "inline style statements" (which is in conflict with WP:Deviations), this becomes much more difficult. I will ask for further comment at one of the MOS pages. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Plastikspork is right, sticking to the default color is important. It the only thing that enables the visually impaired to apply the color scheme they need. Having a single color for navboxes is also important from a design and graphic guideline point of view. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

municipalities

i see that this template is divided into cities and towns (pop. <5000). so does that mean municipalities with fewer than 5000 year round residents are called towns?

"Cities in Vermont are municipalities with the city form of government" states List of municipalities in Vermont so i will be merging back these sections. Logoshimpo (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Logoshimpo I have reverted your edit Special:Diff/1331768820 since it is a partial list of towns in Vermont that have a population of more than 5,000 (I confirmed that that all the towns listed have a population of at least that). The population, as you found yourself, of a locality in Vermont has no direct bearing in whether it is a town or a city. Skynxnex (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

i understand that you confirmed "that all the towns listed have a population of at least that" [meaning @ least 5000] but this needs constant updating. i've already stated that cities are defined nonnumerically. this is clearer and avoids inaccuracies [and misinformation]. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Many pages on this site require updating regularly. This is just whenever a census update occurs that changes which towns match this rule.

Also that somewhat sidesteps the question of you did you change a > to a < and the; delete it all a month later?

To address your content concern, many towns in Vermont are as significant as many cities. There are far too many towns to list all in this info box, so having some arbitrary cutoff that includes the biggest ~20 towns seems reasonable and I think at this point if you want to change it, you'd need positive consensus from other editors. Skynxnex (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

because something needs updating is an issue for the article and not a wp:navbox. the navbox is big enough as it is and reducing its contents is also beneficial.

< and > are both algebraic signs and they need a variable for readers to properly parse it. i took some more time with regards to the design of this series of templates and came with my conclusions.

hopefully these rationales satisfy you. if no other wikipedians have an opinion i will be bold and change it. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Multiple editors have objected. Your boldness has been reverted. You cannot simply redo it because you deem that you have sufficiently explained it.

I will let Skynxnex speak for themself, but to be clear, I object to your change so you cannot simply be bold and redo it for a third time. You have been warned at ANI already and clearly still have not read or understood WP:BRD. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

the ani post which you made was closed. i'm not sure where you want to go with this but you made several false statements there. this is a rhetorical question but do you understand WP:HOUND? Logoshimpo (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't satisfy me and I don't think you should change this template without a very clear consensus, as I already said but you ignored.

You took something correct, that these are the towns bigger than 5,000 people, and changed it to something incorrect, that these are the towns smaller than 5,000 people. And then blanked it. Why? If you think it should be more clear what it means (I think it's marginal based on other Wikipedia templates) fine, propose that change but don't make incorrect edits.

And many templates need to be updated somewhat regularly, not just articles. What is your goal with all this? Skynxnex (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

the change was uncontested for about a month. you might want to take a look at user:Randy Kryns explanations: "Last action I took on this was to thank Logoshimpo for reverting me on the {{Illinois}} template when it was pointed out that there are over a 1,000 articles which could fit the listing. Listing cities on navboxes makes sense and is a long-term practice, it just needs, as I think Logoshimpo is indicating, a uniform way to limit the listings to just the major population centers. Population seems to be fair, and arguably that's what has been occurring on most navboxes. Some editors don't mind listing more cities/towns/villages than is comfortable for others. That may be what Logoshimpo's concern is here, a raw count without a clear cutoff. To be clearer, on the Illinois navbox it does seem to jumble up the cities so there is no clear way of finding them ..." if thats not clear, than maybe this is clearer. on Template_talk:Illinois#removal_of_Municipalities_section i state: "illinois has 1,300 Municipalities not all of which are listed on the template. if there is a reason they are more important than all the other ones i'd be happy to hear it". and a "reasonable" cutoff of 20 is still arbitrary and this series of templates needs to maintain a neutral point of view so listing only an arbitrary number of towns gives undue weight to them. if you don't cite any policy or guidelines that simply amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You need to learn how wikipedia works which clearly you haven't. You have less than 3,300 edits and are fighting with people WAY more experienced than you. You fail to understand WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not going to engage with you further. If you simply revert the edit for a 3rd time, I guarantee you are going to find yourself blocked from editing as you did not heed the warning that was given to you by multiple editors at WP:ANI. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Logoshimpo. Yes, I agree that a uniform way of selecting which population centers should be on navboxes, but also agree that you shouldn't continue to delete them. It would be nice if you stuck around Wikipedia and not get yourself blocked even if you believe you are in the right. On Wikipedia you win some and lose some, and have to get used to both. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Logoshimpo, your edits were both mathematically wrong and objected to. Please leave the template as it is. If you want to understand the difference between cities and towns in Vermont, that's why there are links to List of municipalities in Vermont in the column of labels. The list of towns with a population greater than 5,000 people is complete, at least according to the table in that article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

you are speaking of my older edit. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

How's it done for the other US state templates? Follow those examples. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Cities in vermont are legally defined and this isn't true across all states. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Pruning navboxes

A discussion on whether certain US state navigation boxes should be pruned or otherwise systematically altered is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Pruning navboxes. Please comment there. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)