Talk:List of municipalities in Rhode Island

Include populations?
It would be nice if populations were included with this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.138.128 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Foster/Glocester
I removed the part about Foster and Glocester sometimes being referred to as Ponaganset. Unless somebody can source that, I can't help but to think it is not true. I have often heard them talked about together aka "no school Foster/Glocester" due to the towns sharing a school district, but never referred to simply by the name of the high school.68.9.130.10 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of municipalities in Rhode Island. 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/20161119025138/http://coventryri.org/council-manager-form-of-government to http://www.coventryri.org/council-manager-form-of-government

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes by Dilidor
User:Dilidor made some changes and I just want to explain the revert. Almost all of what was chanced was factually incorrect. For example, claiming there are 3 forms of government, when the Home Rule Charter states: "Rhode Island’s municipalities operate under 4 different forms of government: 1) mayor-council, 2) council-manager, 3) administrator-council and 4) town council-town meeting. " Changing dates from sourced official sites [] to completely unsourced dates, etc. Also moving an image into the reference section is against the style required for featured list status. I hope this explains the revert. Mattximus (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Your huge reversion was utterly unacceptable. If there are specific details that you disagree with, change them individually. I made a great many edits, the vast majority of which were improvements and necessary corrections. A large percentage of the dates are wrong and need to be corrected. You contend that my corrections are unsourced—but most of the wrong dates are already unsourced. The images shredded the article's layout, and that's the reason why I moved them down. The map appears to be in the reference section, but it's not. Nonetheless, to alleviate your concerns, I will move it up to the top where it ought to be in the first place. Now if my edits have produced any inaccurate information, edit it individually rather than a wholesale revert. —Dilidor (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now moved the map to the top and the gallery to the bottom—where galleries belong—and have restored the fourth form of government, despite the fact that it does not exist in RI. If some of the date changes are inaccurate, kindly address them individually. The countless other edits that I made are improvements. —Dilidor (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your edits you made did not change the source. For example if you want to change if from 4 forms of government to 3 forms of government you also have to change the source, which states 4. And yes your change did move an image into the reference section. All the dates were accurate to the source, so every single one of your changes (each one was unsourced!) had to be reverted. You didn't add a single source for any of your date changes. You also made some linking changes that are unexplained and make this list different from all the other list of cities. Let's discuss any specific changes you would like to make here before beginning an edit war. At the very least you need to source your changes. Mattximus (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not change it from 4 to 3—I reverted it to 4 and restored the fourth form! I do not understand what you are suggesting when you write "you also have to change the source". The image is not in the references, it is in the into! Did you even look at the changes which you most recently have wantonly reverted? And if "all the dates were accurate to the source", then that "source" is utterly unreliable. The article initially claimed that Providence was established in 1832! That is utterly ludicrous! What is your source for that absurd date? —Dilidor (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a list of municipalities and the source gives incorporation dates of those municipalities (click the reference for Providence, and then explain why you think the official Rhode Island website is "ludicrous"). The problem with many of your efforts are that you are changing them without giving a proper source. Also with respect to formatting (be it linking and moving around the images), these were already discussed during the featured list nomination and this was the conclusion. I do welcome any changes that are sourced, but if you want to make sweeping changes to the format, please discuss here first, before changing a featured list. Your changes could cost the list featured status otherwise. Mattximus (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Clarification on my recent revert. You changed the official name "council-manager" which is the language present on all official documents, with "council and manager" which is not. Unless you provide a source for this new terminology, this is the example of adding something that is factually incorrect. Mattximus (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok now you reverted with no explanation. Your revert uses the term "council and manager" which is not the official name for this type of government. All the sources use "council-manager". Please stop edit warring, if you really want this change you will need a source. Mattximus (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "I do welcome any changes that are sourced". I appreciate your magnanimous generosity. This article clearly belongs to you. I have asked you several times to name your source and you only reply with vague references to "the source" and "the official RI website". You also appear to be ignorant of RI history and the fact that Providence was established by Roger Williams in 1636. That is what is ludicrous in the absurd date which you continually revert to without resolving it here. Desist from your edit warring and discuss it here. Dilidor (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * First you have a history of edit warring, which leads me to believe this isn't your first target. Second, every date is sourced in the article itself, you just have to click the reference. Second you also didn't read the column note which shows that these are incorporation dates, since the article is about incorporated municipalities. Before you continue your edit war, please click and read the reference for that date. Mattximus (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to get this notion through to you: there is no "note" or source on Providence! I have asked you at least three times: what is your source? And you continually evade with non-answers telling me to "read the note" which is not there. If you cannot provide a source, then the date stands at 1663. —Dilidor (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You don't have to ask me, you just click on the little 6 or 7 (the references were there the whole time, you just never clicked on them). I cross-referenced all dates with those two references, you just have to click on the little number right beside Date Incorporated. Again, you have a history of edit warring, so please stop adding dates without any sources, and changing the wording (from council-manager to council and manager) that not only is incorrect but breaks the wikilink. Mattximus (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * OK this is getting ridiculous, it's council-manager, not council AND manager (as per all sources cited). You changed the terminology but provided NO references to back it up, then broke the wikilink to council-manager. And you can't add founding date to a column called incorporation date, that makes no sense. Columns are for 1 concept. Please discuss changes one at a time on here first, because the changes you are making will mean that this list no longer meets featured list standards because of random fact placement, unsourced changes, etc... Mattximus (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Changes proposed by another editor
Please place changes here that you want to make. Your edit warring (and history of edit warring on other pages) means that the article will be more stable if done this way. And remember to source your changes (see council-manager above where you did not). Mattximus (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You are suffering under the delusion that this article is your property and that you have some level of authority concerning it. I will make edits to it myself, but thanks for offering to hold my hand in the matter. —Dilidor (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Going to hop on here and say that I relinked most of the unlinked stuff in the intro paragraphs. &mdash; JJ Be rs  23:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply on Connecticut talk page in this regard. —Dilidor (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * OK now two people are reverting your weird changes. Wikipedia is more useful when you can wikilink to pages that offer specific definitions, for example council-manager. Also I reverted because you left broken links with random unclosed brackets (]]) in the middle of a sentence. Again, this is a featured list, so adding random ]] is making the article worse. Mattximus (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I also couldn't find your discussion. What Connecticut page are you referring too? 11:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also some of your grammar changes are not bad, I just have to revert when you introduce broken links or remove important wikilinks. Mattximus (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "I just have to revert when you introduce broken links or remove important wikilinks". NO!! That is the whole point of this problem—you do not revert to fix a small problem, you fix the small problem. But instead, you persist in wholesale reversions of a vast amount of work which repaired some gross problems with layout, grammar, syntax, spelling, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. If I inadvertently left a misplaced bracket—remove the bracket! Really, it's that simple.
 * On a separate note, do not call out a user by name in the header. Ever. —Dilidor (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Report of Edit Warring
Now that User:Dilidor has reported me for edit warring we can both no longer edit this page without agreement. Since this page now contains broken links and is much worse than before, I suggest returning to the last stable state which was the edit by Rhododendrites on 19:07, 25 July 2018 before we both started this back and forth. I believe returning to last stable state is standard procedure when an edit war has been declared. Is there an objection to this? From here we can work together on any changes as per the edit war result. Mattximus (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am also open to using 3O Third opinion, or other dispute resolution procedures such as Dispute resolution noticeboard. Starting from the neutral edit by Rhododendrites seems like a good place to start but I wont do this until we both agree on this neutral starting point. Mattximus (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It may be helpful to list out some of the items in dispute. There have been so many reverts since 1 October it is hard to know where to begin. But I think that User:Dilidor is objecting to the '1838' date for Providence. Even though the table header marks this column as 'date of incorporation of the current municipal status'. It is generally believed that the city was founded by Roger Williams in 1636. (Notice the web site at ri.gov). Maybe there could be an additional column that serves as a kind of historic founding date. It seems there used to be a bunch of historic dates in the article, but they had to be removed in late 2017 due to a lack of sources. Is there any way to restore any of the historic information? Does anyone have proper sources? EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * An additional column is not a bad idea, however User:Dilidor made many other deleterious changes to this featured list that I can no longer correct. For example, almost every wiki-link was removed! The whole purpose of a hyperlinked encyclopedia is to use... hyperlinks. Removed links include one to the municipality of New Shoreham for no reason. And also introduced broken links (there is a floating ]]). EdJohnston, could a compromise be reverting to the last stable state Rhododendrites on 19:07, 25 July 2018 but also include the acceptance that User:Dilidor may add a column on the founding dates as per your suggestion? That should be a reasonable compromise? What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Read WP:Dispute resolution for your options. If you open a WP:Request for comment that has the potential of bringing in new participants. And regarding hyperlinks, why not list the ones you want to restore. One of Dilidor's edits had the summary 're-removing gross overlinking'. There is actually a page at WP:OVERLINK. Perhaps User:JJBers wants to join the discussion here, since they made some of the edits regarding links. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I was involved in another dispute with User:Dilidor on the Hartford, Connecticut page, which we settled on in the talk page. I edited this page before we had agreed on the other page. I'm not going to bother to get involved in the dispute again, so I'll just recommend what EdJohnston said in the beginning of their comment. &mdash; JJ Be rs  17:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this individual has a history of edit warring and other disputes. Very well, I will do as EdJohnston suggests and start one paragraph at a time for the appropriate linking. If this doesn't work then I will initiate dispute resolution. Thanks User:JJBers for your input on this dispute, I'm sorry you have another dispute with User:Dilidor so I will try to work with him on this one.

Lets look at the third paragraph first since it will be the easiest. I will reintroduce linking that was deleted, but kept all of User:Dilidor's rewording of the sentences. I don't think this one will be an issue, but I will wait to see if any objections occur, make the change then move on to paragraph two. Here is the proposed new version:


 * The largest municipality by population in Rhode Island is the state capital of Providence, with 178,042 residents. The smallest municipality by population is New Shoreham on Block Island, with 1,051 year-round residents. The largest municipality by land area is Coventry which spans 59.05 mi2, while Central Falls is the smallest at 1.20 mi2. Rhode Island and Hawaii are the only two states in which all of the incorporated municipalities have a population greater than 1,000 people.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talk • contribs) 19:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There were a great many issues with this article which I was endeavoring to repair. The primary problem with your behavior was your wholesale reverting of those edits, rather than simply changing them individually. The article was severely over-linked. Please see Manual of Style/Linking. So I inadvertently missed a bracket from one of those countless links; fix it and move on.
 * The layout was a disaster. There was a header for the table, followed immediately by a gallery of images which should have been in their own separate section, followed by a footnote for one entry, followed by a map… and eventually followed by the table. I resolved these problems in separate edits any one of which you could have taken issue with, rather than reverting 3 or 4 edits in one fell swoop.
 * As to the "incorporation" dates, we can attempt to resolve this through discussion. It strikes me as deleterious to list a date of 1845 when the city incorporated itself as being officially a "city"; the vast majority of readers will think that Providence was established in 1845, which is grossly misleading. Nevertheless, in good faith, I went back through and made the above corrections without changing the ridiculous date of 1845—and you reverted those edits. That is the reason why I initiated the dispute resolution. Desist from this behavior, and perhaps we can resolve these problems. —Dilidor (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The list went through a featured list review to ensure it met MOS including linking. You made so many incorrect changes (for example, that there were 3 forms of government instead of 4, adding founding dates to incorporation dates, that it was council and manager instead of council-manager, removing almost every link from the first three paragraphs, etc) that a revert was necessary. The placement of the gallery was determined by consensus over many years and many individuals, one person should not override dozens of others. Nevertheless, as per this dispute resolution format, I can see that no objection was raised to the new version of paragraph 3? If so I will move on to paragraph 2, then 1, then table, then gallery? Mattximus (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for stepping back into the discussion, but I have to agree with Dilidor with what he said in the 3rd paragraph. I went ahead and fixed all of the dates to the date of the first incorporation. &mdash; JJ Be rs  16:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * User:JJBers you changed them to founding date, not incorporation date... I'm not opposed to having both columns, but the way it is now is not correct. For example Providence was incorporated in 1832, but founded in 1636, however the list now says the opposite, that it was incorporated in 1636, which is not true. Would it be best to have two columns, one for founding and one for incorporation? I seem to have consensus on the 3rd paragraph so I will make that change now. Mattximus (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 seems to be largely the same as before the edit war, so I don't expect any opposition to this one? I will just fix the broken link. Please let me know if this goes against consensus. Mattximus (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * OK I will wait to see if these two changes are all good before moving on to paragraph 1, then the table, then the gallery. Mattximus (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * They directly state in the articles when they were founded and incorporated first as a town. Look at a chopped up verison from Providence.


 * &mdash; JJ Be rs  00:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Astounding! You have renewed the edit war, in spite of warnings—and you have invoked consensus in the complete absence thereof! Time to renew admin intervention. —Dilidor (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not at all Dilidor, I was waiting to see if you were ok with the changes before moving on. Have any of the changes been against what you think? I've incorporated all your wording and recommendations so far. Remember you have the history of edit warring, this is the first time I've never encountered such hostile behaviour on wikipedia before. It is you that should prove that you are not edit warring. So I mentioned what changes are proposed, and am waiting for consensus. What part do you disagree with? Mattximus (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * So it has been about 2 weeks and no complaints with the last changes, so I assume that means consensus. I propose adding back the wikilinks to the first paragraph. What do you think about changing the first paragraph to read this:


 * Rhode Island is a state located in the Northeastern United States. According to the 2010 United States Census, Rhode Island is the 8th least populous state with inhabitants and the smallest by land area spanning 1033.81 sqmi of land.
 * Rhode Island is divided into 39 incorporated municipalities, including 8 cities and 31 towns, grouped into 5 historical counties which have no municipal functions as the state has no county level of government. The entire area of the state is governed by town administrations except for areas within the boundaries of cities.


 * Mattximus (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks totally fine to me, subject to changing historic to historical. Hwy43 (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok it looks like there is nobody against this change, will add it with the addition of "historical". Mattximus (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Incorporation Dates
The Snow-source dates are correct. The RI.Gov dates are often incorrect.

Take Exeter, for example. It did not exist in 1641. It was formerly part of Kingstown (inc. 1674), which encompassed modern day North and South Kingstown as well as Exeter and Narragansett. See, back then, there were only 2 towns in what is now Washington County. There was Westerly, which included the modern-day towns of Charlestown, Hopkinton, Richmond, and Westerly, and Kingstown. That was it. Exeter was broken off of the western end of North Kingstown in 1742.

Anyways, I hope that I am convincing you that the Snow source is correct, and that the RI.Gov source is incorrect. Back in 1641, the only three incorporated towns would have been Providence, Newport, and Portsmouth. The RI.Gov dates are all very, very wrong. I know it's an official government site, but I also live here, and I know the history. Warren was not founded in 1620. The Mayflower landed in 1620. Warren in 1620 was part of what was then known as Sowams, a land ruled by Sachem Massasoit of the Wampanoags. Some of those Plymouth Pilgrims might have met him there in 1620 or 1621, but no way even Plymouth Colony folks settled there until after King Philip's War (A war between the Confederation of New England and King Philip's Wampanoag-allied tribes, in which Rhode Island remained neutral. King Philip was Massasoit's son, Metacomet). That's why the oldest houses in Bristol County date back to the 1680s, rather than several decades earlier, as in Plymouth.

My suggestion is abandoning the RI.Gov source. The dates here look largely correct to me:, or if you'd like another .gov source, this one is better:

173.69.1.3 (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Dan


 * This makes sense. I originally made this list in it's current format and whenever the RI.gov disagreed with Snow I made a note, so we can easily see which ones are not in agreement. I knew one was wrong but not which one, so hence the notes. I'm happy if you want to change them to a better source. We can keep the RI source for all dates that are identical to Snow for expediency. Mattximus (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Warren cannot possibly be 1620 for example. What is the precise meaning of "Established" though?
 * See https://www.townofwarren-ri.gov/get_to_know_warren/warren_s_history.php CSZero (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Exeter is misspelled on the second header image
“Exter” 100.40.110.193 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)