Jump to content

Talk:Burlington, Vermont

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorporated city

[edit]

I'm not certain that the part about Burlington being Vermonts first incorporated city is correct. I'm finding other sources that give that to Vergennes. -Loudergood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudergood (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Distances

[edit]

I don't know who originally put the distances to other cities in the area, but they were pretty off. -jd4508 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.201.68 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church Street Marketplace

[edit]

I can't believe the pedestrian mall wasn't mentioned! It's what keeps drawing me back, as a Montrealer (especially for the coffee at Uncommon Grounds). It's called the Church Street Mall, right? Anyway, that's how I entered it. Shawn Feb 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.239.169 (talk • contribs)

Church Street Marketplace. Loudergood 03:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so now one of you has to be bold and update the article with this new datum, right? (Hint, hint) And don't forget to go upstairs to Bernie Sanders' office next to the bong shop and make a contribution. ;-)
Atlant 15:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I am involved in a new project, WikiBurlington, which is a collection of interconnected articles about the people, places, history, events, culture, and folklore of Burlington, Vermont. Does anybody object to this being added to the "External links" section? Also, we're looking to recruit some more contributors. Any Wikipedians interested? --Bradley Holt 17:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fibre cable network

[edit]

Wired 11.12 (Dec '03) says that the city is rolling out its own fibre cable network. How is that going? How many houses are connected and who is funding it? 218.101.96.169 05:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Burlington Telecom rollout is underway in the Initial Service area, and provides not only cable service, but also high speed internet, and also phone. The network is privately funded, with no taxpayer contributions. There are about 130 subscribers as of the beginning of April, 2006, as reported by WPTX Channel 5 (read the article). Check out the Burlington Telecom website for more information. (Disclosure, the writer of this entry is an employee of Burlington Telecom.) --Jason Pelletier 14:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Union vs. Census

[edit]

New change suggests census data of 2000 took into account couples living in civil union. The law was passed in 2000, are we sure that data is included? I'm looking for it on the Census website, and it's not readily apparent. Just want to be sure data is accurately represented. Thoughts?--Jonashart 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not getting a response on this. I'm going to research and change it if that's what is needed. If, in fact, the 2000 census actually took into account civil union, I'll leave it.--Jonashart 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the civil union reference. As far as I can tell, there is no data suggesting civil union was included in the 2000 census data. If there is, let me know.--Jonashart 14:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See http://healthvermont.gov/research/stats/2000/2000vital.aspx .
Atlant 15:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ok. However, these numbers are not from the same data set as referenced in the article. The point is, the numbers referenced in the article are taken from the 2000 US Census. That census did not include civil union. That is not to say civil unions did not exist, but rather they were not counted. The CU law was enacted that same year, so it makes sense that the federal government did not get around to including those numbers. Now, referencing the site you've provided as addition information would be fine. We just can't stick "civil unions" next to marriage when those numbers were really not inclusive. Doing so becomes a political edit, not one based on the cited numbers.
The cited #'s come from here (at least, as far as I can tell...the citation doesn't actually lead here, I had to dig for it): http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US5010675&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP2&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on
Again, this isn't a pro-vs.-anti issue. Simply one of making sure our citations match our presentation, or vice-versa.--Jonashart 15:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Today, 75.69.65.217 has three times added a link to [1] and I have twice removed the link as violations of WP:EL.

For the record, I'll note that this user just contacted me by phone at my home, objecting to my actions and stating that:

  1. I was incorrect in removing the link,
  2. That I left other similar links standing on the page, and
  3. They would seek to have my actions reviewed by other administrators.

I once again pointed the user to WP:EL, reminded the user of the statement on my user page where I remind folks that "Just because I didn't remove their linkspam doesn't mean that your linkspam gets to stay", and encouraged them to contact other administrators if they felt they had been treated unfairly. The user also once again claimed my actions were "vandalism" and I once again reminded them that content disputes are not vandalism and that we both should be cautious of violating WP:3RR. The user replied that WP:3RR did not apply to my "vandalism".

At this point, I suggested that the appropriate place to discuss Wikipedia issues was here, in public, on Wikipedia and not on my home telephone. I've add these same notes to the user's talk page.

Atlant 23:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Atlant has been informed that this link is NOT chatspam and is includable under WP:EL Section 4., "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."
He has pointed out Section 10., "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET." under "Links to Avoid". Since the link is none of these things, the rule does not apply. Since Atlant is aware of this, and has threatened me with a violation of [WP:NPA] for critizing his arbitrary decision, I have no other choice than to refer to this action as abuse and vandalism.
"Content disputes are never vandalism, and I'd suggest you not label them as such unless you want to risk running afoul of WP:NPA" -- Atlant
75.69.65.217 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link falls under section 10 of WP:EL since a yahoo group is a networking site and/or discussion forum. It should be removed for the page as thus. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it is a news forum, like many others listed on the wiki, sorry. 66.252.244.140 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that Yahoo Groups is a discussion forum and/or networking site first. Anything from that would never pass as a a reliable source, so it can't be used in WP:EL in that way. 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moeron (talk • contribs)
Sorry, you don't get to decide what a reliable source is. Every news item on that page is accurate. 66.252.242.150 01:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the news is accurate. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. In that respect, I kindly ask you then to read and understand WP:V and WP:RS, especially WP:V#SELF, WP:RS#Aspects of reliability and WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports

[edit]

I like the new section. However, I think it can be argued that the UVM hockey team is a bit more 'notable' than the baseball team.--Jonashart 15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agreed. I lived in Vermont for 21 years and graduated from the University of Vermont. No one cares about baseball. However, hockey is very big (John LeClair and Martin St Louis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.11.215 (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was a new arena under development that would house a minor league hockey team. Can someone clarify this? Seven1672 (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Seven1672[reply]

Added a note about the new disc golf course going in at Leddy, along w/ a link to btown disc, wondering why it was removed already, seems that sports is a good place for it to go 71.169.190.194 (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, involuntary restart logged me off, I added disc golf info Mcfinn76 (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared to be an advertisement, and anyway a simple discgolf course doesn't appear to be important enough for an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, no ad, open to the public and free to play. Added it as sport is pretty popular w/ college age kids (and others) and they drive to Waterbury or johnson right now to play —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfinn76 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this listing is that the Disk Golf Course has not yet been constructed, is a hotly contested issue, and is not yet open to the public to play. This item should be removed until such time as the course is completed. Members for the Disk Golf Club are aware of this and are trying to gain a digital foothold to show support for the course. Gregdemetrick (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musical groups

[edit]

Can't find "Milkmans's Union" is popular outside of Burlington. It really needs to be known in a larger venue to be listed here. While someone is apparently trying to create a stub, the contents of that stub, if it is ever created, needs to recognize importance of their music in the greater world. Student7 04:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to add a footnote to new groups particularly one with no article (link should be removed). Musical groups should have significance outside the Burlington area. Groups which mainly perform in Burlington are not (yet) noteworthy enough for mention here. Student7 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "no citation or sources" template still necessary for the music section? It seems that the musical acts listed have articles, so people can read those and find verification. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. IMO yes it should stay. This is the most common area in the article for changes. I've left the groups with article but have no idea whether they belong there or not. They could have had their start in Denver or be non-existent for all I know! Additions should be independently footnoted even though there's an article. We cannot rely on someone else's edits/article for that information. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with using the same (verified) reference/footnote that is in the other article. But the article might be bogus to correlate with the Burlington entry. While I haven't had it happen here, I have seen that! Student7 (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Legal services are not unique to Burlington or Vermont any more than garbage collection or traffic police. Very useful and very nice to have but nearly all the people who need to know about them already know about them already. These are not the same people that use Wikipedia. Entries are supposed to be encyclopedic. Giving people "information" in the sense of legal services is appropriate for a web page but not and encyclopedia. Student7 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

[edit]

I've never edited an entry on wikipedia, so I'm not sure of the correct procedure to do so. But I noticed that the racial makeup of the city is missing in the demographics. Here's the URL of a site containing the information if someone wants to add it. Thanks. http://www.citytowninfo.com/places/vermont/burlington —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.94.250.11 (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great footnote to use! Take a look at Barton, Vermont to see how this could be done. The main thing is to wind up with a footnote. left caret ref right caret, etc. You will see other examples in Burlington or Barton if missing. Great article to start your "career" as an editor. Visibility is good but no one is going to be discouraging. (You might put "my first edit" on the summary line before you save it!) This is how we all started out! Come on in and join us! Thanks for the suggestion. It sounds like an improvement to me. We are all waiting.....Student7 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the example in the link you gave me. Thanks for the link btw. I hope I did it right because I'm not sure what to do about the footnote and I don't understand what "left caret ref right caret" means. Sorry if I appear confused, lol. Just new to all of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.94.250.88 (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice going! Looks good. You are now a full-fledged Wikipedia editor! I invite you to sign in so you will "get credit" for your future edits. Hard to keep up with IP addresses!  :) Also, signed in or not, please end your comments on the discussion page with four tildes (on my keyboard, the upper leftmost key (below esc), upper case). That will put your id or signon name at the end of a message with a date, etc. Right now, a 'bot is doing this for you after the fact. Thanks again! Student7 (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, memories. Those two IP's above were my first edits before I became a WikiAddict. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

[edit]

One of the problems about listing IBM is that it is in Essex Jct, not Burlington proper. Once you start expanding to cover the official "micro/metro" area, the sky is the limit - clear to St. Albans and all of Chittenden County! I agree that IBM has a profound impact on Burlington economy. It just isn't located there. Fletcher Allen should definitely be mentioned (as was done). Yeah, I kind of wonder about mentioning retail stores per se. Big thing in a small place (like Littleton or Berlin maybe), but seems somewhat out of place in Burlington somehow.

Maybe article could be changed to two sections, one of which stops at the city limits, the other goes the whole way to the mctro area. A lot of places must have had this problem BTW. San Diego, a monster city, stops at the city limits. El Cajon has it's own article as do the surrounding towns. Greater area is neglected. Nothing lost IMO.Student7 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went with what city-data.com had. 200,000 people have to be supported on something and this article just had an arbitrary list of local companies. I would argue that if the metro area functions more or less as an integrated economical unit, then the most important players in the economy are the largest in the entire metro area. Detroit, for example lists from the entire metro area.--Loodog (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should go into Burlington-South Burlington metropolitan area and Chittenden County and Essex Junction, Vermont. I appreciate that the first-named article is underdeveloped. Maybe needs more links from other articles, but the information really belongs there and not here. Student7 (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Average political involvement

[edit]

Normally this might not be mentioned, but it seemed so much at variance with the impression one gets from the media. The media's problem is, of course, how to get people to buy/watch with the Cold War over. So they hype everything much to the pleasure of those participating, which is apparently less than half the population. The other half couldn't care less. The comment probably applies to the metro area but the article not that clear. Student7 (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics reworkings

[edit]

Knowing that nothing is wrong with having wording in the demographics other than the boilerplate, I've reverted to the boilerplate for one simple reason: previous editions of the boilerplate had confused a previous editor, causing him or her to misunderstand the significance of the original numbers. Consequently, the demographics section as we had it was simply wrong. Combine this with the fact that referencing was poor — much was sourced to the really poor bestplaces.net and citydata.com: there's no reason to prefer them over the actual Census Bureau data. I'm not going to try to make a case against properly sourced and worded demographic data (no complaints about the Burlington Free Press bit), but poor or no sourcing and misunderstandings of the original are reason to go back to a boilerplate format that isn't required. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to fork Notables

[edit]

Opposed currently. It seems a little soon to fork. The beauty of havin them here is that few people get in without at leaat mediocre screening if few footnotes. We always assume that the WP:BURDEN is on the reviewing editor to look at the bio to ensure that the person is correctly matched with the city even thought the bio itself is not very well WP:FOOTnoted either. The burden is really on the contributing editor to footnote that the person really lived in Burlington for a time. Assumption of notability from article. After this is done here and we get another dozen or so people, maybe they can be forked.
Did not understand why "disambiguation" was mentioned. What does that have to do with forking? Student7 (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it's the accidental use of the wrong template. As for splitting: I don't think that the section is long enough to need splitting at this point. Perhaps in the future, if many more names are added legitimately, but not now. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to tangent, but I am working on a clean up of Notable People sections on US cities. I plan on moving all names off this city page and using only the 'List of people from' page. Before doing this I wanted to see if any of you working on this page have a reason for duplicating the list. Please note that having a 'List of people from' page and a list on the city page is not Wiki standard.Dkriegls (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Student7 (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet, thanks for beating me to it. Dkriegls (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government

[edit]

In the Government section, I think we should include the fact that Burlington uses Instant-Runoff Voting for the office of Mayor. I was going to include this fact on the Instant-Runoff Voting page, but it seems important to get it here first. Is there a reason it is not here already? City of Burlington - BurlingtonVotes FAQ Rdryfoos (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason it isn't there. Unless all cities in Vermont are required to. Then it should probably be in some (unwritten!) higher level article. Thanks for pointing that out! Student7 (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply

[edit]

Eventually we need to mention water supply tersely. Apparently Well 21A is getting polluted from coal tar dumping in the Pine Street Barge Canal. Not looking for a lot of soapboxing here. Just very bare facts will be fine. External references (footnotes) tolerable but not in excess there either. Lot of cleanup talk going on, which will continue for another $1 million I suppose. Student7 (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a monitoring/testing well for the area around the Pine Street Barge Canal(where all that coal tar was dumped) and not a source for the water supply. There is an intake pipe 4000' feet into Lake Champlain from the water department that it used to feed the city.Loudergood (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, is the intake pipe currently in use? Thanks for clarifying the well status.Student7 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this link is up to date then it still is. http://www.dpw.ci.burlington.vt.us/water/waterfaq/#7 Loudergood (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Vermont Teddy Bear Company is no longer public.

[edit]

The Vermont Teddy Bear Company is no publicly traded as stated in the article. See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Vermont_Teddy_Bear_Company and http://www.crmz.com/Report/ReportPreview.asp?BusinessId=2753 24.5.80.230 (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Burlington, Vermont

[edit]

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Application of image use policy

[edit]

Image sizing and placement in the article violated several principle of our image use policy:

  • Lead image larger than maximum of 300px
  • Images "hung" into sections from above rather than below header. This causes problems on mobile devices and readers for the blind.
  • Overuse of manual sizing of images. This prevents the user's image size preferences from working, harming the visually-disabled ability to use Wikipedia.

I have corrected these problems. You need to have more than stylistic preferences for overriding this. Please respond with detailed arguments why our image policy should be overridden on an image-by-image basis. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert again. Per WP:BRD, the article stays in the status quo ante. Please be aware that image use guidelines are not current with usual practices. Wikipedia rules are intended to be descriptive and not prescriptive', and the normal, every day use of images calls for their being seized as appropriate for their content. BMK (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And your idiosyncratic use of images is damn ugly and harms the disabled. We've been through this before. Justify your divergences from our policies and guidelines with a specific reason for each image that diverges from those standards. Skyerise (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images can and should use manual sizes where appropriate, although only with |upright=. See WP:IMGSIZE. I have no comment on anything else. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Burlington, Vermont. 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.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Burlington, Vermont. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Official flag?

[edit]

CRW is generally a reliable place to find flags for various cities however there are no other sources on the internet that make use of this flag except those which cite that page. The flag is not codified, it does not appear anywhere in literature or on the City's websites, and what's more the coat of arms is inconsistent with the design that appears on the flag on the CRW source page. I am not removing this file for the moment, but I would like to encourage discussion about this, should this be kept and can we get a citation that isn't a nameless city official contacted almost 10 years ago? --Simtropolitan (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a month's research I have been not able to a) reach anyone in the City of Burlington government who can verify the flag's design and usage, and b) find it in any literature related to the City. The seal shows up frequently in City literature from different periods, but unless any official version of the flag can be found there is nothing to substantiate that it represents Burlington in an official capacity.
--Simtropolitan (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Burlington, 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) 00:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New source to consider

[edit]

I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 00:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Burlington, 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, 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) 18:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Burlington, 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, 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) 17:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burlington, 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, 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) 10:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong town

[edit]

I noticed that where it shows Burlington on the map it's showing the wrong town. Can someone fix this?2601:19B:C700:3E3C:7872:D3EA:6A13:3FE1 (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2, 2018 101 record high

[edit]

Not sure about this, sometimes the weather.com (Weather Channel) record differs from other official sources. If so, the weather box should be updated, possibly with a unique citation since it might not fall under the general sources there. B137 (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020 month record high

[edit]

95 May 27 https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/from-snowflakes-to-scorching-heat-may-has-been-a-weather-roller-coaster-across-the-northeast/747763 B137 (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest Buildings list incorrect?

[edit]

The Burlington Square buildings mentioned in the list of tallest buildings seem to have been cancelled, according to https://www.emporis.com/complex/104871/burlington-square-burlington-vt-usa - additionally, the reference given for them is actually for another one on the list, Decker Towers. Does someone know something about this I don't or am I good to remove Burlington Square from the list? Goshawksonlyfly (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100% renewable energy

[edit]

Most of the sentences used in the article does not emphasise that 100% renewable is true for ELECTRIC energy, but not others, like heating the houses with gas etc. which is absolutely misleading. Anon10001 (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"List of tallest buildings in Burlington, Vermont" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of tallest buildings in Burlington, Vermont and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#List of tallest buildings in Burlington, Vermont until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 01:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burlington,_Vermont&oldid=1194465788"