Talk:Bellows Falls, Vermont

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bellows Falls, Vermont article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Vermont Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vermont portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (assessed as Low-importance).

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 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bellows Falls, Connecticut

We can find here a place known as Bellows Falls, Connecticut (see David Abbey). Is it the same place or another one? genium ⟨✉⟩ 07:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bellows Falls, Vermont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other sites

I would like to move the "other sites" section up to the top of the Places of interest section. These museums and tourist attractions seem quite significant. I think a statement that the town contain nrhp sites should go after. NRHP sites are interesting and well worth noting but typically inckude private residences and building that while signicant architecturally and historically aren't on par with a museum or major tourist attraction. There seems to be some dispite on the article so I am raising the kssie here rsther than going ahead and making my desored edit. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: Thank you for responding to this. US city and town articles generally follow the guidelines established at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I reordered the page earlier today reflect this established practice, but it was reverted. Is there a way to make your move, and maintain the integrity of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline? Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, FloridaAmy, that the guidelines M677 cites are not mandatory, and if the article is improved by your suggested change, the, by the policy WP:IAR, you should make the change. If you're going to move the "other sites" sun-section up, you shopuld remove the "other sites" subtitle, as it only makes sense if that grouping comes after the NRHP group. Otherwise, I have no objection. In fact, Ill do it for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making sections with a single entry in them is not useful and doesn't improve the article. This is why guideline are there to GUIDE us, not to demand that things absolutely must be done in a certain way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the edit conflicts. It took me a series of edits to get the job done. I followed the guidelines but I'm not in love with the dual tourism sections it recommends. As noted above we don't have to abide by them strictly. Thoughts? I also am not sure how to deal with duplication in regard to scenic railroad. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Beyond My Ken makes a valid point about single entry sections. Can we expand them or should they be done away with? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image size

@FloridaArmy: Thank you for your helpful edits. I have a question about this edit. You added the image at 287px, when "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed width than 220px", per MOS:IMAGES. The article is already packed with images, and for users on handheld devices these large images are a nightmare. Would you agree that using standard size images would be easier for users? Thanks again! Magnolia677 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the photos up as I was reorganizing. That's how they were sized. Not sure why the sizing is "forced" if that's the right word. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standard image size is 220px, unless an editor provides a good reason to change the size. I changed the images to 220px, but an editor reverted it and changed them back to a very large size without a logical reason. Large sized images are difficult to display on many screens. The article would certainly benefit if you could change the image sizes back to their default size. Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes and number of images

The images in this article have been made larger than necessary, which makes the page slow to load, and disrupts the page formatting on some browsers. MOS:IMAGES states that "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed width than 220px". An attempt to resize the images, and reduce the size of the images in the extensive galleries, has been reverted. The input of other editors would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This really doesn't need consensus. You're right and you can just be bold and go ahead and do it.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 14:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people

Shouldn't we expand the "Notable people" section of this article, based on this information? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:People_from_Bellows_Falls,_Vermont 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will make this change! Conacious (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]