Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Hampshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
2005 — 2006

Contents

[edit] Massholes

There is no reason for this article to be under New Hampshire project. Caf3623 00:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should be removed from WP:NH because the article doesn't assert why or how "Massholes" affect New Hampshire more than any other state in New England. --EvaGears 15:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credit where it's due

This Project is basically a blatant rip-off of Project Massachusetts, for which the creator of this project is both ashamed and grateful. Then again, they're just a blantant rip-off of Wikiproject Vermont, and they don't really do anything, so it's not a big deal.

[edit] Horace Greeley

This article shouldn't be under WP:NH because he is more of a New Yorker than a New Hampshirite. --EvaGears 16:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He was born and raised and went to school in NH and has a historic site for him in NH, although he probably should be under WP:NY as well. Cooljeanius 01:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

Dear Wikipedians, a list of possible New Hampshire-related articles found by bot is available at User:AlexNewArtBot/NewHampshireSearchResult. Colchicum 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo request

Looking for any New Hampshire photographers willing to shoot and upload to Commons for Connected farm, as New Hampshire seems to be one of the primary locales for such style of home. Thanks in advance and if you could reply on my talk page as well that would be great. IvoShandor 09:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redstone?

Redstone, New Hampshire?!? 93 Google hits. Is that notable or a "worthy" article? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balloch, NH

I just added an article on Balloch, NH, a place name within Cornish, NH. Please add the WP:NH template to its Talk Page. Hillfarmer 13:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Hillsborough County, NH

Recently Ken Gallager brought to my attention that the map of New Ipswich, New Hampshire is missing a big chunk of the town. Specifically, the bottom edge is supposed to be a straight line. In reformatting the map, I came up with this image that has a couple different methods for highlighting the town or city being specified. The red, of course, is the way all the other counties (and most other states) are displayed, but I kinda like the embossed green - and it ties in to the state map well. Does anyone have any thoughts on which looks better? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to cams?

I've seen a couple additions recently of links to webcams being put on articles. For instance, Lake Winnipesaukee currently has two of them. I'm not quite certain they fall under Links to be avoided, but wanted to see what others think. So? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Historic Landmarks in NH

I've been working on a List of National Historic Landmarks in New Hampshire, of which there are 22. Not being nearby, I can't go take pictures, but several of the articles need them. Am giving the List importance=High, giving each NHL site article importance=Mid. Every NHL is automatically listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Am giving importance=Low to NRHP sites that are not also NHLs. Comments, help welcome. Keep up the good work on this WikiProject, y'all. doncram 17:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statewide town map?

Virtually all Vermont town articles have a map of the entire state, divided into towns, with the specific town highlighted — for example, this one of Somerset. Are there any such maps of New Hampshire, either with the towns highlighted or simply blank, like Image:Ma towns.png for Massachusetts?

By the way, I'm rather forgetful and am likely to forget that I asked this question. If anyone answers it, I'd appreciate it if you let me know on my talk page. Nyttend 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge CDP articles into their town articles?

Based on the number of unanswered questions on this page, I wonder if anyone will notice this new one. But anyway... I've noticed that there have been discussions in Vermont and other states (Ohio, perhaps) about merging Census-designated place articles with their respective towns. How would project members feel about doing this in New Hampshire?

Background: Several New Hampshire towns have town centers that the U.S. Census Bureau has categorized as Census-designated places (CDPs). Census statistics exist for both the entire town and for the subset of the town that is the CDP. Wikipedia articles were generated automatically several years ago for every Census entity, so there are several places in New Hampshire where both the town and its center have articles. See, for example, Antrim, New Hampshire, and Antrim (CDP), New Hampshire.

Here in New Hampshire, we tend to think of towns as the whole unit, and rarely do we think of individual settlements within towns. Exceptions occur when there are significant villages which have names different from the town where they are located. Contoocook, New Hampshire, is an example of a village with a different name from its parent town (Hopkinton, New Hampshire). For towns where the CDP has the same name, there's no info in the CDP article except for the Census statistics, and it's confusing to have two articles about very nearly the same place. (Every now and then, someone does, in fact, add something to a CDP article, but so far every time the info they've added really applies to the entire town.)

So, the proposal: How about we merge any CDP article where the CDP name is same as that of its parent town? This would mean, for the first three letters of the alphabet, that the Antrim, Bristol, and Charlestown CDP articles would be merged with their parent town articles (Antrim (CDP), New Hampshire would go into Antrim, New Hampshire, etc.), while Contoocook, New Hampshire would remain untouched. I would suggest that Conway CDP retain its own page, because North Conway, New Hampshire is an even more significant village in the town. The rest of the list would be worked out using the same principles.

See St. Johnsbury, Vermont for an example of how an article would look post-merge. ---- Ken Gallager (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I only wish that someone had done this before I went and rated them all. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely merge them. Those CDP articles are perfect examples of something that sounds right from a theoretical point of view ("make an article for every census place") which doesn't work in reality, at least in NH. Pinardville, New Hampshire is the only CDP I can think of keeping down in my end of the state.- -- DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with merge. To help things along, here are the CDP articles in New Hampshire:
I've marked a K next to the CDP articles that should remain unmerged. Perhaps we can strike out entries on the list once they've been merged? And add the K next to any others that should be kept? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You sure you want to keep Pinardville as is? There's almost no information on the article except the Census info, one more sentence, and a link. Similarly, Woodsville has a couple extra sentences and a couple links. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
We could put back in that bit about Pinardville having a population of 5 million in the NCAA Football video game. ;-) Ken Gallager (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added "Keep" tags to a few more articles. At this point, all CDP articles that have names different from their parent towns are included, except for East Merrimack (which never was a coherent village) and South Hooksett (which is labeled on USGS maps but I suspect doesn't have an identity anymore). "Tilton-Northfield" is problematic, since it crosses town lines; I'd just as soon leave it in at this point, rather than try to decide into which town article the CDP info should be put. All of the other "keep" villages have a strong enough identity that someone with an interest in the subject should be able to put together several good paragraphs on any one.--Ken Gallager (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge with this stipulation. The CDP articles have no personality. They have useful data which needs to be subservient in every way to the main article. ("While you are up" you might eliminate the unfortunate selection of words about population being "spread out." Distributed, perhaps). If a town has more than one village, or the CDP boundaries are so diverse from the village as to be unrecognizable, the merger probably shouldn't occur. Student7 (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Merging seems like a good idea for all of the unmarked ones above... However, beyond the problem of technical issues, what is the point of keeping the article on Tilton-Northfield? While most of the other CDPs we are keeping seem to exist in the minds of their residents (that is, they are "real" places, not just on paper), I am not so sure about this one. I have been to Tilton. I have been to Northfield. I have never been to "Tilton-Northfield". --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implementation

So it's been a month, and people generally like the idea of merging. I've just now gone ahead and merged the Antrim CDP info into the Antrim, New Hampshire article, kind of as a test run. What do you all think? Truthfully, I think it's extremely dry and unduly lengthens the town article. But perhaps it's still better than the current situation of two articles about nearly the same place. Thoughts? --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've put a line through the Antrim entry above, and taken Jayron32's advice and removed the K flag for Tilton-Northfield. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Dithering. I've restored the K to Tilton-Northfield, as the data it contains cannot be merged into just the Tilton or just the Northfield article.--Ken Gallager (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of colleges and universities in New Hampshire

Just thought I'd drop this WikiProject a line that I've worked on List of colleges and universities in New Hampshire and nominated it for Featured list; the discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of colleges and universities in New Hampshire. Dylan 22:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:New Hampshire state seal.png

Image:New Hampshire state seal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] County templates

A request for all of you New Hampshire people from someone who knows little about the state...
Most states throughout the country, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont, have small navboxes comparable to {{New Hampshire}} on the county level, listing all the communities in the county, including villages and townships. Check out the categories for Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont if my explanation doesn't make sense. Now: what do you project members think of having such templates for New Hampshire? Would you like me or someone else to begin creating these templates, or would it be preferable to skip it? Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a decent enough idea. I don't know enough about how to do this kind of thing myself, but if you want to do it, go right ahead. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If this would be a good idea, what would you think about cutting down the state template? Rhode Island is the only other New England state to list every town, and if we had county-level templates, having all the towns on the template might be unnecessary. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If we had nav boxes for every county, we wouldn't need the ones we have now (which really are just an large organized mess of blue links). I didn't look over every state but since you mentioned New England states, I noticed another WikiProject I'm part of also needs this done. Currently they don't have any nav boxes at the bottom of their town articles. Mr mark taylor (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, just seven states nationwide need them: about half of Tennessee counties, two-thirds of Michigan counties, most counties in Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Virginia, and all counties in Maine and Montana. If you people decide that you'd prefer the county boxes, I'll be willing to do them, but they'll have to wait until other states are done, since the state template does link most of them. Of course, if it's decided that they would be good, someone else could make them :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)