Talk:Guilford, Vermont

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 articles

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 articles
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).

census

Hi. I think it's great to put current population numbers in the town pages but right now the standard is what was in the 2000 Federal census. So, if you'd like to include whatever measurement was used to get at the 2005 data for Guilford (a local census maybe?), please add that, but since there was no 2005 federal census, changing the census information to be a 2005 number doesn't quite make sense. Jessamyn (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

census again

I checked the 2010 census data, and updated the main page. I don't know how to update that side infobar. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-47.pdf --KLoverde (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sidebar is editable as well, it's all the stuff at the very top of the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitorical Timeline

I wondered if this section should be put into a History section and written out instead of just events listed with bullet points. And some references added. Wondered what other editors thought? Thanks--BuzyBody (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to text is fine, but only if everything is fleshed out with more information. Too many times in a conversion, a list such as this:

1910 - Peter George founded Littleville
1911 - The first church is built
1914 - The town hall was opened

gets turned into a paragraph such as this:

"In 1910 Peter George founded Littleville, and a year later the first church was built. Then in 1814 the town hall opened."

This is boring. Information presented in that manner is better presented in a list - but if additional information is included, and the text isn't just a list in prose, that's fine. BMK (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guilford, 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211231244/http://www.observer.com/2007/wilde-heart to http://www.observer.com/2007/wilde-heart

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]