Talk:Connecticut
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Question of Pronunciation
According to the wiki entry, "Connecticut (pronounced /kəˈnɛtɪkət/; the second C is silent)" is the correct way to say the name of the state. However, I do pronounce the second 'C' in Connecticut, although the 'T' is obviously stressed. Maybe this is just because my family is filled with New Yorkers, but I thought I might as well bring it up. --68.109.116.107 17:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Most people seem to say Conn-et-i-cut, not Connect-i-cut. --Zagsa 02:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- From natives, the second C is usually silent. However, the vowels seem off. I hear the pattern schwa - short e - scwha - short i, not the schwa - short e - short i - chwa that is represented in /kəˈnɛtɪkət/ Further, I get glottal stops for both T's, and I do not recall hearing them commonly pronounced as 't.' Comments? I wish I knew IPA. Here's my best try: /kəˈnɛʔəkiʔ/ Jd2718 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Most people actually pronounce it Conn-en-i-cut, which is wrong, but everyone understands it nonetheless George kaplan 00:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Most of us natives pronounce it kin-EH-ti-kit. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 15:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- If you listen carefully as you speak you may find that you are replacing either the first "t" or both "t"s with a non-T sound. You may actually pronounce the "t"s as "T", but that would place you in the minority in the state. Jd2718 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- As a native myself, I would say that it is usuallt pronounced Co-net-i-cut Merry Christmas- Kaspazes 15:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Departments of Connecticut Government
Apparently include a department of "mental retardation" according to the article. Unless I'm hilariously mistaken, no should object to my deletion of it.
--Dude, do not be stupid. Why don't you google first? There is a Department of Mental Retardation in CT, [[1]].
- They do actually have such a department, though the name is due to change tomorrow, as of this writing. Also, please sign your posts with a time and date stamp.--65.16.61.35 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The name has still not been changed as of 1/31/07, although the General Assembly may take the issue up this session. 71.235.204.17 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Town versus City
According to the State Register of Connecticut (http://www.sots.ct.gov/RegisterManual/SectionVII/towninfo.htm#CITIES%20IN%20CONNECTICUT%20WITH%20DATE%20OF%20INCORPORATION), there are only 21 cities in Connecticut. This includes the 19 merged city-towns, and the two cities (Groton and Winsted) which are not merged.
They are: Ansonia, Bridgeport, Bristol, Danbury, Derby, Groton, Hartford, Meriden, Middletown, Milford, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Norwalk, Norwich, Shelton, Stamford, Torrington, Waterbury, West Haven, and Winsted (Winchester).
The remaining 150 MCDs are towns. There are a couple places in the government section which refer to towns as cities and cities as towns and vice versa. I'm not really sure what to do with this. Americans from outside New England will have trouble making the distinction between a city and a town in New England because city status is not the same thing.
Ultimately, it is factually incorrect to refer to Manchester and West Hartford as cities, even if they are urban areas. mikemillerdc 03:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- apparently user:64.252.99.226 is not vandalizing the page. He is trying to import the format from Florida, but saving piecemeal. We have been catching him partway through, and reverting. Ultimately I think the current text is better than the table he is trying to build (see the version today with time stamp 22:02), but he is trying to build something positive. How do we communicate with a user who is not reading the here and does not have a talk page? Jd2718 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- The text here should be a summary and the current short version is I think better. (Although why 45000 instead of the rounder 50000 as the delimiter I'm not sure). We can add a section in List of towns in Connecticut for a list grouped according to population like what User:64.25299.226 has been doing instead of putting it here. --Polaron | Talk 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- All reasonable. The 45,000 limit was in the previous long list, likely to include an extra few towns. I'll switch it later. Jd2718 00:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- The text here should be a summary and the current short version is I think better. (Although why 45000 instead of the rounder 50000 as the delimiter I'm not sure). We can add a section in List of towns in Connecticut for a list grouped according to population like what User:64.25299.226 has been doing instead of putting it here. --Polaron | Talk 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The new Principal cities section (which lists almost of the state's incorporated cities, but no towns, in declining order of population) seems "quaint" (at best). There are many towns in Connecticut that are larger than a bunch of the cities on the list (for example, consider Fairfield, Greenwich, Hamden, Manchester, and Stratford, all of which have 50,000 or more people). What's up?--orlady 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Go ahead and change it to the largest municipalities, unless someone else here objects. Jd2718 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this "Principal cities" section supposed to be a list of actual principal cities (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget) or just a list of towns with the biggest populations? --Polaron | Talk 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me to be essentially redundant with the List of cities in Connecticut, except for the cities that are really towns that is. I'm proposing it be merged into it. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This has now been handled via List_of_municipalities_of_Connecticut_by_population, which combines all manner of municipalities into a single list, and allows the other lists to remain undisturbed, since they list those municipalities with particular forms of government. -- Yellowdesk 05:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just have to say that that article is a great piece of work. Thanks to all the wikipedians who helped with it.
mikemillerdc 20:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lieberman: Democrat or Independent?
In an earlier edit, User:208.58.4.72 changed Lieberman to an Independent in the infobox (but not in the text). I'm not sure this is appropriate. While he won election as a representative of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party, he has stated his intention to caucus with the democrats, and I am not sure he ever ended his political affiliation with the democratic party. mikemillerdc 19:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- He will be listed on every congressional whatever as an independent for the next 6 years (look at VT). I would go with Independent, and add 'caucuses with the Democrats' after we see that he actually does so after reorganization. I would assume that more detail would go in the Joe Lieberman article. Jd2718 12:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- on the Joe Lieberman page, there seems to be a consensus that he should be listed as a Democrat. I am watching the Talk:Joe Lieberman page where there is a much more robust discussion. I think we should accept whatever the consensus over there becomes as definitive. mikemillerdc 16:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Officially, though, Joe Lieberman is an Independent, but caucuses most of the time with Democrats. However, that doesn't make him a Democrat since the party pretty much gave him the boot when he lost the primary to Ned Lamont. Being an Independent also reflects more accurately on Lieberman, as he has on numerous occasions crossed party lines on major issues, and has a very centrist viewpoint in the political arena. Ironically Lieberman has been receiving most of his support from Connecticut's Republicans and a large share of unaffiliated voters, while he has lost support among the state's Democrats.
[edit] adding stuff
I think that you should add the indian relations!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sum383 (talk • contribs) .
- Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Powers T 14:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Sports section added to updated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format
The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing). Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in Connecticut. Please see South_carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 13:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Ferry Services
I have twice reverted part of an edit relating to proposed ferry service. I removed the italicized portion
The state has encouraged traffic reduction schemes, including rail use and ride-sharing[12], and it has proposed ferry service in Long Island Sound.[2]
The last edit summary was: (reinsert ferry service; the cited website states that the LIS Ferry Coalition was created by agencies of both CT and NY to promote ferries for transportation.)
The LIS Ferry coalition is a coordinating group. It was created by the New York Metropolitan Planning Council, and includes agencies from Connecticut and Rhode Island as well. It does not have the power to propose anything, just to pass on information and promote ideas.
The website does not seem to have a specific proposal involving ferry service for Connecticut. Were there to be such a proposal, it would be unlikely to be in the form of a traffic congestion mitigation proposal.
So, 1) just because LISFC likes something, does not mean that there is a proposal, 2) I could find no proposal, 3) LISFC is not an arm of the State of Connecticut, and 3) there is no source for the State of Connecticut having such a proposal. Jd2718 13:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Jd2718, I'm the one that replaced it. Maybe I just need some help with the editing. These ferry proposals have been floated before, and lately it's been back in the news. Google News shows a Connecticut Post article about the new proposal for a Bridgeport-Stamford-Manhattan link, but it's no longer on the Post's website, so I linked to the planning agency instead.
- I think the ferry services that already exist at Bridgeport and New London should be mentioned somewhere, maybe with a mention about the new proposals (with proper documentation, of course). Maybe we can have a separate "Ferry" subhead in the public transportation section, but it seems like we wouldn't have much content for it. Any ideas, anyone? Cmprince 15:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's possible that ferry transportation could go in a unique subsection, but should not be associated with traffic congestion mitigation. But I just don't think the services are significant enough to go in the article for the whole state. Without checking, I assume the Port Jeff service shows up in Bridgeport and New London in that article, plus the casinos, if they have articles. And if a proposal for more service does arise, it could be noted.
-
- Thank you for providing sources! The article really needed them. Jd2718 16:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Amazing education statistic
According to CBS News's "Making the Grade" map of U.S. states and some key educational statistics for each, Connecticut has a most unusual stat. The data claims that it has a "Student/Teacher Ratio: 2.6 to 1". That's two teachers for every five students, as opposed to the much more common rates of 12-20 to 1. Can this be correct? How would this be fiscally possible? I came to this article to see if Wikipedia had any suggestion, but I find that the only education discussed for this state is college/university level and boarding schools. I would think that such a remarkable ratio would indicate something worth citing about Connecticut's K-12 programs. Does anyone have any information on this subject? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- If I had to guess, I'd say CBS just dropped a leading '1' on the stat. Cmprince 05:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Southwick Jog"
...redlinked, though this would make an inane separate article. Tagged "citation required" although the ext. link (Connecticut State Library) "Connecticut's "Southwick Jog" gives a much more sensible account than this Wikipedia article. I'd fix this myself, but the references system here is a cat's cardle. --Wetman 05:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My Opinon
I think it is best for it to be cut in diffrent articles. Fattdoggy 15:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New proposed WikiProject
There is now a proposed WikiProject to deal with the state of Connecticut at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Connecticut. Any parties interested in taking part in such a project should indicate as much there, so that we can know if there is sufficient interest to create it. Thank you. Badbilltucker 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wrong template
The template being used for this article is wrong. This template should only be used for cities. Can you please use a template:Infobox state instead of template:Infobox city. Thank you! Furthermore, the request is based on the principal that the common denominator, per the new category UTC-5 demonstrates that cities generally have the state or province name. Take for example Ottawa which should redirect to Ottawa, Ontario and not vis-versa. This will help when categorizing cities. --CyclePat 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- What? Connecticut uses Template:US state, consistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states. Cmprince 00:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- oh! Sorry! my bad. I was just going threw the list of cities. I think I added the UTC-5 category 1 week ago when I was testing the template:Currenttime. Thank you! --CyclePat 01:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia "dot" appears in wrong place in Google Earth?
I'm a newbie here, so apologies if this is in the wrong place or otherwise incomplete. When using Google Earth, if you look just southwest of Montauk, NY, in the Atlantic Ocean, you will see the Wikipedia dot for Connecticut. The coordinates are obviously incorrect. Can someone fix that, as I'm not sure where those erroneous coordinates come from. Thanks! Cdmcquee 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)--Cdmcquee 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think they are read from (usually weeks old) database dumps of wikipedia, using the {{coor}} family of templates. The coordinate tag in the article appears to be correct now, so perhaps the problem will be fixed next time they update their data. — brighterorange (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Connecticut Discussion
We may as well split this discussion into multiple articles, because it is longer than the real article about Connecticut. I feel the Connecticut article is the proper length.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.45.119 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you're right that this talk page was getting lengthy, and I thank you for pointing that fact out. I have archived the old discussions. As for the article itself; if you hit the edit tab a warning message comes up as follows, "This page is 58 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." Besides the fact that too much prose all together is tiresome for many people to read, there is the fact that for many legacy browsers and for users of dial-up services a large page is very difficult to load and view. So yes, this article does indeed need to be split up per Wikipedia:Summary style. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 09:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Mostly this can be achieved by pushing various lists into sub-articles and citing the subarticle, as I recently did to Connecticut#Education for the redundant list of colleges. Connecticut#Sports needs the same treatment, in that there are two lists on the page; an article entitled something like List of Professional sports teams in Connecticut is desirable to be cited here. The list of state insignia, and so forth in Connecticut#Names and symbols could also be pushed into a sub-article and cited. -- Yellowdesk 16:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
How come the article was change around? It read well without the New England reference in there. The New England article mention CT in teh NYC tri-state area was taken out also. It was perfect the way it was.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.81.39 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)