This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
This article was nominated for deletion on 12 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
A fact from Rogers Orchards appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 483 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
At the suggestion of another editor on my talk page (Ecoleetage), I took a look at the discussion on the nomination page and noticed that it is already concluded/archived, with a suggestion to come here for any further comments. The only suggestion that I have is to regularize the citations format, with full citations via citation templates. Right now, there are some inconsistencies, and, in case anyone has further questions, it would be better (I think) to have full citations all in the same format. For the templates, please consult WP:CITE. Otherwise, I don't have any particular suggestions. (The number and variety of sources currently do seem to warrant inclusion of the article as notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. One might want to continue to avoid any kind of non-neutral promotional-sounding presentation.) --NYScholar (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made some of these corrections to format of citations throughout and other related corrections/revisions. --NYScholar (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC) [Updated further later. --NYScholar (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]
You know, I think this article is getting too long for the subject matter. While I fully support its existence, I think that it's starting to take on a promotional tone again merely due to its size. Tanǀ3902:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree that it was ever promotional (even the guy who nominated it for AfD retracted that assertion). But I will keep an eye on the content -- if it veers within the border of being spammy, it will be pruned immediately. As it stands, all of the data is properly supported with strong references. And, actually, the article is not very long -- the infobox, illustration and section breaks give it the impression of length, but a word count shows its true size (or lack thereof). Ecoleetage (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I did not add content to this article (aside from transitions for coh., documentation, etc.). Mostly, I simply reorganized it after reformatting the citations into a consistent citation format. The content length is the same; I formatted and added the infobox. The "eight generations" quotation was source of the reference to "eight generations" (instead of "seven generations" or "seventh generation" in earlier versions of the article); after E. removed it from infobox, I added it to the source citation used to document the phrase "eight generations"; that is where the eight instead of seven point comes from. --NYScholar (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also fixed the sections for what are now called "Notes", adding the section "References"; and correcting "External link" to "External links" (MOS format), and I added some pertinent categories. The other articles on apple orchards, farms, etc. that are on companies could also use parallel company infoboxes. .... --NYScholar (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)] [Updated.] --NYScholar (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
