Talk:Delaware/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 → |
In the page on Delaware, Geography section, last sentance, it is written that the wedge of land went to Maryland in 1921, but in all maps the wedge is shown as a part of Delaware. Someone with correct knowledge please correct this.
Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.
The flag on the subject page is not the right color of blue -- it should be a more turquoise color, but on the blue (not green) side, somewhat like a darker sky blue. -- isis 7 Sep 2002
I've replaced the wrong-colored gif with a jpg photo of an actual Delaware flag, but I'd appreciate it if someone could get a better picture of the flag in the right colors. isis 9 Sep 2002
I was surfing today (Dec. 11th) and noticed that the information about New Castle County is incorrect because of this past November's election. I am a high school librarian, and I will be taking a class to this site later this month. I would like to allow them to edit this page. I hope that no one else does it before then. --68.82.150.34 01:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
History Question
According to the article Delmarva Peninsula, In 1776 the three counties of Kent, New Castle, and Sussex declared their independence from Pennsylvania and entered the United States as the State of Delaware. but this article states that In 1704 the "three lower counties" gained a separate legislature, and in 1710 a separate executive council. Does this mean that between 1710 and 1776 Deleware was part of Pennsylvania but possessed a degree of autonomy? - Nik42 00:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Not exactly. Delaware believed itself to be independent during this period and acted accordingly, including sending its own representatives to the Continental Congress, but Pennsylvania never formally recognized this, citing their own claims dating back to the original royal charter for the colony. One reason for Delaware's extremely quick ratification of the US Constitution was that the Constitution guaranteed that Pennsylvania's claims to Delaware as its "three lower counties" became void by it. (Sorry, no links for all this, just info from an old Delawarean.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.168.232 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
Well, also consider the distance from Philadelphia to New Castle and how easy it was for a small state to gets its local council's to agree. Spandox 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Taxes Question
It would be nice if someone who knows something about it would put some information in the Economy section about companies locating their official headquarters in Delaware for tax reasons, and using transfer pricing and other economic slight-of-hand to make their profits look like Delaware profits.
Delaware Templates
There currently exist two Delaware templates: Template:DEHistory and Template:Delaware:
 |
State of Delaware Counties • Hundreds • Municipalities • Rivers • Roads • Railroads • Business Government • Governors • General Assembly • Courts • U.S. Senators • U.S. Representatives History • Education • Religion • Parks & Museums • Communications |
|
|---|
|
Something needs to be done about this. These templates are serving duplicate functions, and aren't really being used consistent with Wikipedia conventions. Usually, the template showing the division into counties and cities is located in the main article about the state (for Delaware, it is the "DEHistory" template that is at the bottom). The "DEHistory" template doesn't really have anything to do with history. It does contain a Continental Congress link, but that is not really Delaware-specific. The History template is being put in articles about people from Delaware, which isn't really consistent with template usage. The usual rule is that if the template contains a link to the article, it should be in that article. But I don't think it's necessary or desirable to put a Delaware template in every article about every person from Delaware. It's also not practical, since many people are associated with more than one state (e.g. should Andrew Jackson have the SC template or the TN template? Or both?! I propose to eliminate Template:DEHistory (most likely merging the Governors, Senators, etc. links into the main Template:Delaware. Any comments about this? --JW1805 (Talk) 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- The information on the Template:Delaware has already been merged into the Template:DEHistory template. The Template:DEHistory is smaller, more visually appealing and more flexible. It is really just a nice header for more specific templates for office holders, etc., making it possible to place only secondary templates that are pertinent to the particular article, instead of a great big clunky template with links everywhere. I can imagine adding more people related classifications to one line on this template, and more geographical related classifications to the other line. It is very much a work in progress, but useful as it is. This template is a navigation box that has been given a great deal of thought, gone through considerable evolution, and received several compliments from other editors. I believe it has great promise for future usefulness. It certainly could entirely replace the Template:Delaware, and already has except perhaps on the Delaware article. Then it could be renamed. It actually does have a lot of history as the links all go to historical information. I would very much like to leave it alone for some time to see how it evolves, and can't see how any possible harm could come from that. Sometimes it takes a little time in a hothouse for something to grow; every decision does not have to be made in an instant. However, if one must go, it should be the big, boxy, (IMHO) poorly designed Template:Delaware. stilltim 11:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- This page now has an application of the Template:DEHistory header template as it was intended to be used in this context. The town list is corrected to include all incorporations and census designated places over 1,000 people. Perhaps that is too many, but at least its consistent, which it was not before. The hundreds are not listed in detail, but only by reference because they are sufficiently obscure these days. I know it is not a conventional state template, but it sure looks a whole lot better visually. May I suggest we give it a try for a while and see how it feels with some perspective. stilltim 14:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think the solution was to go and create yet another Delaware template. Now we have three templates with duplicate links: The two above, and now this:
Template:DEplaces I don't have a problem with, as you suggest, having a "people" template and a "geographical" template. But the current situation is no good. We have two templates entitled "State of Delaware". There needs to be one state template, like all the other states have. It's fine to adjust the formatting if you think it isn't visually appealing. But the answer isn't to create rival templates that contain many of the same links. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- JW, I agree there is no need for rival templates. The DEplaces is not another Delaware template, but rather an expansion with particular relevance to this article. It works just like the DEGovernors. The DEHistory is the template. I was trying to be thoughful and polite and make sure you understood what I had in mind before changing all the articles as though I was unilaterally declaring my way the right way. So this was only a sample. Since you seem to be saying the approach is OK, I will make this one state template apply everywhere and make the name change and all the other required changes. I appreciate your working with me on this, and regret it is so hard to explain. This design really excites me because it is just like the many USGov templates and can be consistently used for virtually any piece of information. It makes it possible to replace the template hodge podge we now have with a clean consistently designed whole. I presume you have no problem with my removing the tag on DEplaces since you now understand it is not intended to be the Delaware template. stilltim 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ummmm, no I don't agree. Your new template should be deleted. It has no reason to exist. If you don't like Template:Delaware, then by all means, change the formatting of it. But don't create a whole new template with the same links. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to state that NONE of the towns listed are suburbs of Wilmington. All of them are completely separate towns and are NOT suburbs.
