Wikipedia

Talk:New Hampshire/Archive 2

< Talk:New Hampshire
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Jayron32 in topic Nicknames in the infobox
Archive 1Archive 2

Walk For Liberty/Will Buchanan

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I don't have any preference for creating an article about the walk or creating an article about the person. So far, I believe that the thing he is notable for is the walk. It really is significant that the Free State Project chose New Hampshire as a destination, and like it or not NH is stuck with them. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am surprised that the Free State Project isn't in this article - it was mentioned at one point. Just a sentence is all that's needed. I'm not quite sure where to put it, though ... it's not really "politics", since they're not associated with any political party - more like "political philosophy" - DavidWBrooks (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be a reasonable subheading. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of the discussion on this seems to be going on in the edit summaries in the article. The assertion that the FSP "involved" 8,000 people is as much vaporware as the one on the number of people "affected" by the possible bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler. I read recently that 600 people actually moved to NH. In Politics of New Hampshire#Libertarian tendencies, Mr. Buchanan is still a red link. If the above proposes a page on Political Philosophy of New Hampshire, good luck. All philosophies seem to be represented here, and the article will be full of anecdotes and, yes, "stunts." The aspects of state law that differ from other states in their libertarianism, that's what's notable (while they last). --Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a thought as to where we could put a mention of the Free State Project in this article? It should be at least be mentioned, but I'm not sure where. (And I apologize for using the word "stunt" in an edit summary; that was pointlessly snide and POV.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Surely, Politics of New Hampshire, as the Free-Staters' in-migration was overtly for political reasons (as opposed to love of snow and ice). However, I agreed that Mr. Buchanan's walk was a stunt, and have reverted mention of it, as I explain in Talk:Politics of New Hampshire, where I also propose some additional directions for that article relative to the Free Staters and others who have touted New Hampshire as a pro-liberty refuge. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon metropolitan area

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The official name of the NECTA is "Lebanon, NH-VT Micropolitan NECTA." Since the article refers to a Vermont town in addition to Lebanon in describing the metropolitan area, that reference should be to Hartford (which is home to White River Junction and Quechee villages), which is both more populous and better known than Hartland. Also, the NECTA appears to be composed of the (outdated?) Hartford and Lebanon LMAs.

Some links for evidence: http://www.nh.gov/nhes/elmi/pdfzip/specialpub/commpatt/sections/lebcp00.pdf , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NECTA#New_Hampshire

Scouttle (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)scouttle (a vt native and lebanon resident)

race

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is NH the whitest state in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandita Chinchilla (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, but even if it was, is there something wrong with being white? For those of us who aren't hung up on skin color, NH is very culturally diverse. More than eighty languages are spoken in the Manchester school system. Around a third of the state's population is of French-Canadian descent, or at least was last time I checked. When I was a kid you'd go into the basement of the Manchester library and there were sections of books in Russian, Swedish, Portuguese, et cetera. If you want to be sad about skin color be my guest but it seems to me that you're stuck in the twentieth century; it's like worrying that our President isn't Black enough. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It is the third whitest, behind Maine and Vermont. Note, however, that this is not because of a history of racism or segregation, but likely because these three states are very far removed geographically from historical "slave states", and even when slavery had not been abolished in the North, there was very little of it in what we now know as Northern New England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.32.75 (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There appears to be a copyright issue with the climate section. The language is the same as http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/nh_geography.htm I looked for a public-use license on that website but did not see it. I don't know which site is the source, however the geography section of that site is quite different (and a little better) than the wikipedia geography section. Gtedit (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable residents section

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

How come Herman Mudgett (aka H.H. Holmes) isn't all that notable a New Hampshire resident and people like Maxine Kumin, Dudley Leavitt and Augustus Saint-Gaudens are? Mudgett may be more infamous than famous, but he's hardly been relegated to the dustbin of history. Methychroma (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Look at List of people from New Hampshire. You can see there are dozens of people listed there who are as notable or interesting as Mudgett who are not in the New Hampshire article. The list on this page has to be concise, and Mudgett's story, while lurid, isn't as significant as the other people listed here. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't think most people would recognize Kumin, Leavitt or Saint-Gaudens. How would they be significant enough to warrant mention in the main article? More people in 2009 would probably know who Mudgett (or Pamela Smart, or Eleanor Porter) is than who they are. What are we using as a yardstick here? People from New Hampshire that are the most recognizable right now? Or people who have been the most influential? In the history of the state, the New England region, the country, or the world? Or are we just putting in random people? Methychroma (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You raise excellent questions - this squishiness is the big problem with "notable people" lists. Personally, I would remove the entire list from this article; if a person isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the text then what's the point of having them listed with no other information? It seems to be trivia at best: "Cool, I didn't know Adam Sandler had a new Hampshire connection!" - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I think such lists, as long as they're eclectic enough to be interesting and kept to a short length, are indicative of a region's character and make interesting reading. I added Dudley Leavitt because he was one of the nation's earliest magazine publishers (which is what almanacs were) in 1797. I agree about removing those who've been mentioned in the main text, such as Nicholas Gilman (who I also added). And I'm a bit reluctant about noting Adam Sandler's New Hampshire connection, although Sandler fans probably disagree. In any case, I think such lists are interesting. MarmadukePercy (talk)
I'm actually beginning to agree with David on this. Over the last year, I've reverted attempts to add not just H.H. Holmes, but also Lewis Cass, Nathaniel Folsom, Ronnie James Dio (twice), Mike Durant, Mandy Moore (twice), Triple H, Mike O'Malley, GG Allin, Ben Tartsa, Mary Josephine Ray, Sarah Silverman, Tom Bergeron, and Sidney Stirk (that last one has to have been a prank). As long as this list is here, we'll either continue to have long discussions about who should be on and who should be off, or the list will simply grow to eventually be as big as the existing List of people from New Hampshire. Is either of these outcomes what people want? Of course, I could just start the page List of New Hampshire people not deemed sufficiently notable by Ken Gallager. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Some of these people may have had an impact but are pretty obscure now; on the other hand, I have a problem with including every currently popular actor or singer who's got a vacation house in New Hampshire. If we can't agree on a standard for who makes this list and who doesn't, I don't mind if we just do away with the list altogether and make do with having the notables on a separate page. Methychroma (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
(undent) A link to the article List of people from New Hampshire is sufficient for all purposes; if there is no list of names in this article, then there is no need to argue over whose favorite pet New Hampshire native is more important than anyone elses. The list exists as a seperate article, is sufficient, and thus any list in this article is redundant. --Jayron32 03:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm ... something about the wikipedia software prevents the creation of List of New Hampshire people not deemed sufficiently notable by Ken Gallager, which would, of course, be the perfect solution. So I guess removing the list will have to be the route we take. Now the question is - are there any people in that list who should be mentioned in the article, but aren't? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Do we go ahead and delete it, then, if there aren't any? Methychroma (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I went ahead and got rid of it, since there don't seem to be any objections. The section now contains a link to the article List of people from New Hampshire and nothing else. Methychroma (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Found in the news

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

mrigthrishna (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's nice to hear, but I don't see it as related to the state / article. An analogy: this newspiece has the kind of relation Michael Jackson has with Indiana. Compare that to the Wikipedia-worthy relationship between Bruce Springsteen and New Jersey. NJ actually heavily influenced that which makes The Boss noteworthy and is discussed repeatedly in his article, whereas Jackson's birthplace a bit of trivia. MJKazin (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Area

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I added a "citation needed" to the area listing. We have it as 9,350 square miles. New Hampshire’s official tourist site says 9,304. Encyclopedia Britannica gives it as 9,283. The New York Times lists it as 8,968. Not sure who to believe.—Chowbok ☠ 01:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

According to List of U.S. states and territories by area, the 9,350 number comes from the U.S. Census Bureau data, the link provided there: [1] is a 2.5 MB pdf file. Its supposedly in either table 1 or 17. My computer is kinda slow today, so I'm not going to double check, but if you have a fast enough connection and computer, you could do so fairly easily. I would probably trust the Census figures over anyone elses, and as such, you should probably use THAT source as the one to cite. --Jayron32 04:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Table formatting error i can't figure out

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The table listing professional sports teams is supposed to be in the "Sports" section of the article (it's there when you look at it in the edit mode) but appears in the "New hampshire firsts" section instead. i can't figure out what format error is causing this. Would someone else take a look at it?Wkharrisjr (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it for now. If the person who added the teams really wants them in, we can try again, but there were several other questionable edits overnight which were best reverted as well. I tried to save your edits to the "New Hampshire firsts" section.--Ken Gallager (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

2000 vs 2004 election

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A quick check of the electoral college results show that New Hampshire was the only state in the country to vote for Bush in 2000 but not in 2004. Techincally, saying it was the only state in New Englan to do so is correct, since New England is a subset of the United States, but that is not really the whole picture. Whoever is making this edit should stop reverting it.Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Coastline

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

At the beginning of the article, it says this: "New Hampshire has the shortest ocean coastline in the United States, approximately 13 miles long." In the first paragraph of the Geography section, it says this "New Hampshire has the shortest ocean coastline of any U.S. coastal state, with a length of 18 miles (29 km).". So, which is it? Approximately 13 miles or 18 miles? Also, there are many states that have no ocean coastline and none seems shorter than any length. Perhaps rephrase it to be more correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logoskakou (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the discrepancy. It's 18 miles (maybe 13 miles by I-95). It 's not necessary to mention states that have no coastline - we're talking shortest coastline, not "no coastline" here. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Interstate 95 in New Hampshire runs nearly 17 miles, so who knows where that 13 mile figure came from? --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the 13 mile figure goes back to at least 1975, from a NOAA study. Clearly they jumped a lot of bays. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
[2] rears its fascinating head again! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a graet state!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.238.11 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Slavery

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know that New Hamshire was never heavily involved with slavery, however, slavery was legal in New Hampshire until 1865. I believe this needs to be noted since their is recent research on slavery in the North. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of New Hampshire

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

(Moved here from my personal talk page; not sure why a discussion about the content of this article would go anywhere other than the article's talk page. ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 04:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC))

Hi,

Per your argument that "it does not make any sense to illustrate the pronunciation that someone unfamiliar with a place name would guess", we shouldn't have the pronunciation here, since it's just "new" plus "hampshire" and thus trivial to guess. I actually don't have a problem with keeping the pronunciation, but we have a user edit warring over the wrong pronunciation (that of "noo hampshire"). Since it isn't really needed, I figured deletion was better than that ridiculous edit war. However, if you're willing to protect the general English pronunciation, in keeping with the thousands of other articles with pronunciations that follow WP:PRON (that is, as "new hampshire"), I'd be happy to revert myself. — kwami (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I live in New Hampshire. That's how it's pronounced. Your "general English pronounciation" is exactly what I have described in my edit comment - someone who is not familiar with the place name guessing how it's pronounced and guessing incorrectly. Listen to the sample Boston accent on this page (though Boston accents and New Hampshire accents aren't the same, these are still the actual people who know the place and speak the name.)

As WP:PRON itself says "Local pronunciations are of particular interest in the case of place names." Trying to document some globally averaged or "general English pronounciation" for a general English term might make sense but this is a place name: it's perfectly stupid to put into the article some formulation of how the written letters might be pronounced by people who have never heard the name spoken, rather than the actual name of the place actually used on a daily basis by the people who live there.

You have violated WP:3RR and should definitely be reverting yourself. The fact that you have tried to do the same thing to the New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York articles is making it rather look as though you're trying to make a WP:POINT about how you think these place names ought to be pronounced. You might note that WP:DICT says "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used"; these guidelines aren't just things you start tossing out links to when you don't get your way, they're intended to be read too. ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 04:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR.
Could you provide a source please that New Hampshirites do not pronounce the "New" in the name of the state like the word "new", but as something else? That would be most interesting. From your edit, it would appear that New Hampshirites, like New Yorkers, distinguish new from gnu, and pronounce the name of their state as "Gnu Hampshire". However, it would still need to be presented as the local pronunciation, because AFAICT everyone outside of New Hampshire pronounces it as "New Hampshire".
If it is locally pronounced "New Hampshire", then my edit is correct per long-standing consensus at WP:IPA for English. If it is pronounced "Gnu Hampshire", my edit is still correct, because that's a local pronunciation, not the general one. We can replace the general with the local, if you like, as we have for New York, but it would be incorrect to pass off a local pronunciation as general English when the two are incompatible, just as it would be incorrect to tell New Hampshirites that they pronounce New York [nɪu jɔək]. — kwami (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I now know that you tried to do this before and were promptly corrected by another native New Hampshire editor who explained the situation, so I'm somewhat skeptical about the propriety of how this has all gone down. In any case, I have added a local flag to the template. (Also, I personally pronounce "gnu" beginning with a hard "g" sound because it seemed pointlessly ambiguous to me when I was in grade school. No idea how other people in New Hampshire pronounce it, we do not frequently have cause to talk about them.) ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 06:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I was miscorrected by someone who didn't know what they were doing. Now that you've marked it as the local pronunciation, there shouldn't be any problem, unless of course someone objects to that. — kwami (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I've remained silent over the past several years while the pronunciation keeps getting changed back. Honestly, the "nju" pronunciation doesn't exist in the United States anymore, unless you use news announcers from the 1940s as your guide. --Ken Gallager (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstand the purpose of the pronunciation. There are two types: local and general. Local pronunciations need to be marked as local. General pronunciations are intended for all English speakers: Not GA, not RP, just English. If you read the pop-up key, it will tell you that /nj/ is the "n" sound in "new". That's what we have here: Everyone pronounces it that way, no matter what their accent. WP is not supposed to be telling people from New York or Australia sorry, this article isn't for you, go away.
I'll give a counter-example: Worcestershire. Some RP-speakers want to delete the /r/'s, with the argument that they aren't pronounced in standard British English. But that's besides the point, because Brits aren't the only people reading the article. For a Yank, the R's are not dropped, and that is not incorrect just because the Brits do drop them. Similarly, a Brit or a New Yorker is going to pronounce the yod in "New". That's not incorrect just because someone from New Hampshire or Ohio drops it. Our job is to tell everyone who comes to the article (as far as is feasible) how to pronounce the name, not just people who already live there. — kwami (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, actually I do understand that. There seems to be a distinction between non-place-type words (such as "New") and place-specific words (such as "Concord" or "Berlin"). No one, it seems, is going to insist that Berlin, New Hampshire (or many other places named "Berlin" in U.S.) get a "local" tag in front of their pronunciation because they pronounce it "BER-lin" rather than the way the German city's name is pronounced. It seems strange with cases like "New", though, that the standard in WP for pronunciation guides seems to ignore nationally accepted usage (I have yet to hear a New Yorker say "nyew"), while the WP standard for spelling explicitly does follow national usage. --Ken Gallager (talk) 09:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The difference is that "New" is just pronounced "new", whereas individual people do actually have different pronunciations for the different cities named "Concord" etc. I will pronounce Lima, Ohio differently than Lima, Peru because they have become established in English with different pronunciations: It is not a matter of local pronunciation. (Where it is, then our articles are wrong and should be corrected.) AFAIK, that is not the case with "New": No-one who who distinguishes "new" from "gnu" (noo) is going to use the latter for "New Hampshire", and since the GA pronunciation of "new" is regularly derivable from /nju:/, there's no particular reason to give it, just as there's no need to provide a non-rhotic pronunciation for readers from the UK.
Spelling is different: Since there is no WP-established orthography, we need to choose a national orthography. We have agreed that when an article is about a specific nation, then the orthography used in that nation should be used for the article. That's the best we could do with a messy situation. It's rather like using AD for articles on Christianity and CE for articles on Judaism. There is no such need for pronunciations, since we do have a WP-established transcription for English that was agreed to by US, UK, and Australian editors. That is, pronunciation transcriptions are more like saying fixed-wing aircraft rather than arguing over whether it should be "airplane" or "aeroplane": the MOS parallel is WP:COMMONALITY rather than WP:ENGVAR. Someone from the UK can read English written in US orthography, and vice versa. But if we provide someone from the UK with the GA pronunciation of a city, we are actually misinforming them, and vice versa: Americans do not drop the R's from Worcestershire, so we shouldn't tell them to, and Brits do not drop the yod from New Hampshire, so we should not tell them to do that either.
Since the other editor refuses to accept the generic pronunciation, and you refuse to accept the local pronunciation, the best solution is probably to follow WP:NOTADICTIONARY and not have any pronunciation at all – it is, after all, trivially derivable from "new" and Hampshire. — kwami (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: It's important to observe here that Kwamikagami has made more than half of all edits to WP:PRON in the past several years, the guideline he is describing as "consensus" in some contexts. ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 21:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

*sigh* Edits which the other editors have accepted, as I have accepted theirs, often after considerable discussion. That is the very definition of consensus here at WP. God it's frustrating to deal with such blinkered thinking: It is simply incorrect to tell RP speakers that they need to use American pronunciations when speaking RP, just as it would be incorrect to tell Americans that they have to drop the R from Manchester or the S from Paris. I'm glad the pronunciation is now marked as American, rather than trying to push it on everyone. — kwami (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
No way I'm getting into this wiki-tussle - but as a New Hampshire resident, I agree that it's stupid to list a pronounciation in the article, even one labelled "US". There are two main ways to say "Hampshire" right here in the state: the traditional Yankee (which is dying out) and the bland version by imports like me. I suppose that's what you mean by generic/local - but right now the article implies that there's a "correct" US pronounciation. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course no one's talking about dropping the "r" to say "New Hampsha" like the old-timers. However, there may be people from far away who don't know how to pronounce "Hampshire" correctly (Hamp-Shyer?), so it's useful to have the overall pronunciation given. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I bow to your knowledge, Ken, but I think that "Hampshire" is sufficiently obvious that no guide is necessary - a pronounciation guide is only valuable when there are questions about how to say it. It's like a wikilink; don't overdo those, don't overdo pronounciation guides (which are a real obstacle to readership). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflating French and French-Canadian ancestry

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I reverted the edit of Midlothian09, falsely claiming that a plurality of New Hampshirites have French ancestry. Ken Gallager reverted me back, and in doing so called my attention to the fact that we apparently conflate French and French-Canadian ancestry on the article. I object to this, and I've posted my reasoning over at the Maine talk page. —Quintucket (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:New Hampshire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


Should have this to you within a couple of days JAGUAR  15:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

Lead

  • "The state was named after the southern" - should it be "was" or "is"?
  • The lead appears somewhat disorganised and does not comply per WP:LEAD at this time, I would recommend merging the smaller paragraphs into bigger ones in order to improve the prose flow
  • "It is known internationally for the New Hampshire primary, the first primary in the U.S. presidential election cycle" - is this really known internationally or just nationally?
  • "Its license plates carry the state motto: "Live Free or Die"" - I know that is the state's motto, but not sure if anything to do with having it on licence plates makes it notable enough to appear in the lead.
  • This paragraph is too short to be a standalone paragraph, I would strongly recommend expanding or merging it
  • "Additionally, actor Adam Sandler grew up, but was not born in, the state" - this shouldn't be in the lead!
  • Some WP:OVERLINK and list-y admissions in the second last paragraph in the lead. I would cut all non-essential people
  • The lead needs to summarise a little more on other sections in the article, such as economy, law and culture

Body

  • Most paragraphs in the Geography section are missing references
  • "Extreme snow is often associated with a nor'easter, such as the Blizzard of '78" - informal, should be 1978
  • Earthquakes section is almost entirely unreferenced
  • History section is entirely unreferenced
  • A tag has been in the Local government section since April 2013
  • The Freight railways section is far too short and contains little information, can it be expanded or merged?
  • The Colleges and universities section contains no prose and just comprises of a list, this would not pass the GA criteria
  • The Media section is also a list and contains no prose, according to the GA criteria almost all sections must have some form of prose in it
  • There's a citation needed tag in the Literature section
  • Please see WP:LIST for the New Hampshire firsts section
  • The See also section is empty

Close - not promoted

I am sorry to do this, as I live in Hampshire too, but this article does not meet the GA criteria as the main concerns are the large number of lists with no content and the large number of unreferenced sections. The lead is not organised per WP:LEAD and also some sections need to be written from scratch in order for this to pass second time. Would anybody at the WikiProject be willing to help? JAGUAR  16:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on New Hampshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New Hampshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Hampshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Hampshire. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New Hampshire. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

@Ken Gallager: You don't understand the purpose of the IPAc-en template. It is not to provide a local pronunciation but one transcription that can be 'translated' into General American and Received Pronunciation. Therefore, a speaker of the former will know to say [nu ˈhæmpʃər], whereas an RP speaker will know to say [njuː ˈhæmpʃə]. Sorry, but you're wrong and need to read Help:IPA/English. Reverting. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Lux, Jr.: Sorry, but you're another user who doesn't understand the purpose of IPAc-en. (Redacted) Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You obviously did not read the article and section. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Steve Lux, Jr.: (Redacted) Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
This has been discussed extensively before and the consensus was to use the local pronunciation. Additionally, the IPA translation is probably not even necessary for New Hampshire because it is not difficult to pronounce. It may be best to remove it altogether anyway. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Steve Lux, Jr.: It's a misuse of the IPAc-en template, which should be used in a certain manner (see my original post and Help:IPA/English). The consensus you're talking about was clearly among editors who didn't understand that and therefore isn't very relevant, I'm afraid. (Redacted)
I have no strong feelings towards keeping the IPA, but if we decide to do so, we must retain /j/ in the first word. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm just curious if anyone has thought to use IPA the way in Wikipedia we handle spelling: for US articles we use American spelling, for other nations, we use their spelling. Why should the pronunciation of "new" be described in a way that is not used in the U.S. when it's a U.S. article? And yes, several years back the solution was to designate the "nu" pronunciation as a local one. But this clearly offends the "nju" people. Basically, if the IPA template requires intense study for editors (let alone the general article-reading public) to understand how to use it, it's probably not worth using in this context. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ken Gallager: We're not describing the pronunciation of "new" in a way that is not used in the U.S., it just looks like that to laymen. Transcriptions enclosed within IPAc-en are diaphonemic, rather than phonemic. I think "intense study" is an exaggeration. Either way, you should raise this issue on Help talk:IPA/English. I'm not a huge fan of diaphonemic transcriptions either and I think that having a separate General American and Received Pronunciation transcriptions would be a good idea. However, we'd need to have a consensus for that. That issue was discussed in the past and, AFAIK, the diaphonemic transcription was chosen each and every time. As long as Help:IPA/English is diaphonemic, we should respect that. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

For posterity, it seems worth noting that the IPAc-en template does not output any of the notation styles currently described in the diaphoneme article in its Representation section and that Help:IPA/English originally didn't mention anything about diaphonemes and in fact up until a couple of years ago explicitly included an instruction to list multiple differing pronunciations that was deleted without any apparent discussion, when in fact in the corresponding talk page archives there didn't even appear to be consensus about conveying diaphonemes via the International Phonetic Alphabet. Similarly, until late last year the documentation for the IPAc-en template explicitly said that it dealt with phonemes and did not mention diaphonemes at all, until in a single edit every instance of "phoneme" and "phonemes" was replaced with "diaphoneme" and "diaphonemes".

Also, the word "diaphoneme" does not appear at all in the current article on the International Phonetic Alphabet itself.

To reiterate my position from previous discussions here which occurred before the above changes were made, it's completely bizarre to me that anyone would want at the top of Wikipedia articles, often right next to an audio file representing one specific way of pronouncing a word, a written representation not of one or more specific ways of pronouncing the word but rather a string conveying a linguistic abstraction that's sort of like a tolerance specification for how it might be pronounced if you took the conventional IPA symbols and had some type of lookup table to translate them into a particular accent. But, you could read the entire article on the IPA and still not understand that's what you have to do to arrive at a particular pronunciation that might match up with an audio file of someone pronouncing the word. And even if you did, you'd actually end up with a second IPA string with no way to tell by looking at them that one represents diaphonemes and the other phonemes.

So I 100% agree with Ken Gallager's characterization that adding such a diaphoneme string to the top of an article is something an editor or reader would require "intense study" to understand. For articles in general, and this article in particular, I concur that it's better to have the status quo of nothing at all rather than something so complicated and potentially misleading. —▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 04:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Nicknames in the infobox

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

There is a mild back-and-forth about nicknames in the infobox. My position and the position of at least one other editor is that "The Granite State" is the only nickname for New Hampshire that is commonly used and thus the only one that should be noted. The infobox isn't for comprehensive lists of information - it's there to provide a quick look at the most important characteristics. The fact that it is possible to find some other nicknames for the state used by some people at some time may or may not be worthy of the article, but I'd say it's definitely not worthy of the infobox. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed not the place for local media catch phrases. We are looking for recognizable terms that are used.--Moxy (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
That seems very anecdotal criteria; I admit I have not heard someone call New Hampshire the "Mother of Rivers" or "Switzerland of America", however it is still referred to as "White Mountain State" by many. The source provided is not a local media catchphrase but an academic source, and one of many, including Collier's, and NH and Federal gov literature. Many states provide additional nickname(s), the infobox is deliberately designed to accomodate more than one, which are almost entirely traditional at this point. Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, being some examples.--Simtropolitan (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Here's the way the state website puts it: "New Hampshire has 4 nicknames. The first is the one by which the state is commonly known. Granite State: for our extensive granite formations and quarries"[[3]]. As a reporter in New Hampshire I can affirm that The Granite State is commonly used as a stand-in for New Hampshire. The term is widely known Putting this in the infobox is useful to readers. But I have not in three decades here seen or heard any of the other nicknames actually used, including White Mountain State, although of course there's plenty of reference to the White Mountains.
As wp:infobox notes, the infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject" - the key word (so to speak) being "key". Nicknames that are not actually used in common discourse are not, I would argue, key. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Once again, to rely on one's experience alone is to rely on original research, "most common" doesn't mean exclusive, and having additional nicknames does not compromise the integrity of an article. The state thought it was relevant to include and explain all 4 in their "fast facts" beyond the one you've quoted here, and generally valid reasons for removing content are it being unsourced, inaccurate, irrelevant, or inappropriate. Can we accept the addition of White Mountain State and then leave it at that then? --Simtropolitan (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm curious: can you find a use of "White Mountain State" as a nickname in any source except the FAQ in the past couple of decades? I can't. By the way, if you want to put these nicknames in the article I think that would appropriate, although not very useful. It's cluttering the infobox with them that I think is a disservice to readers. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
If the state's own equivalent of an infobox isn't enough, nor an academic work on American English, which is still in print, in your opinion what is? Since local media is all that would be left, a quick search turns up the following in commerce- [4], [5], and literature [6] [7] [8] [9]. WP:Clutter is pretty broad and clear on what is problematic, I fail to see how this makes it any more difficult for people to read the words "The Granite State".--Simtropolitan (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I must say that's a reasonable collection of references you found which does imply that people might stumble across White Mountain State used as a synonym and thus find it useful in the article. So I guess I'm not opposed after all. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it, only trying to be thorough.--Simtropolitan (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
But just because something can be sourced doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in the infobox. I'm against this for the same reasons I'd be against adding a list of former capitals to the infobox. The infobox should be a simple presentation of key facts that people are likely to want to know, not an exhaustive list of things that someone found in a book or through Google. AlexiusHoratius 19:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Would people not like to know a state's nicknames? Particularly if they still have contemporary usage and are included by the government of that state? I would not be opposed to removing "Switzerland" and "Mother of Rivers" but it's not as though these were picked from someone's novel or a random 19th century gazette --Simtropolitan (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
As argued above, all of the obscure nicknames would be interesting in the body of the article. It is misleading and confusing to put all of them in the infobox. You've made a good case for including "White Mountain State" as a currently-used nickname in the infobox, but not for the others. It looks like the sources you provided that list Switzerland or Mother of Rivers are simply citing the original State Library reference. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Respectfully I haven't listed any sources specific to the others, the only one I have provided for those is a reference book which cites all four. There are other contemporary sources that could be used for these in informal literature and recent encyclopedias of geography, but if an official state shortlist is not ample, that is not something I will pursue at this time. I have only found this discussion more discouraging than constructive in attempting to contribute relevant content to this article.--Simtropolitan (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't get discouraged - disagreement among editors is how wikipedia works! If everybody automatically agreed, there'd be no need to have editing. The fact that three edfitors think you went slightly overboard may be an indication that ... well, you may have gone slightly overboard. All of us have done much worse in our wiki-years, I'm sure. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the government source, which refers to 4 different state nicknames:

New Hampshire has 4 nicknames. The first is the one by which the state is commonly known. Granite State: for our extensive granite formations and quarries

Mother of Rivers: for the rivers of New England that originate in our Mountains White Mountain State: for the White Mountain Range

Switzerland of America: for our beautiful mountain scenery

The question is:

  1. Whether to list just the one main nickname in the infobox, or
  2. Is "White Mountain State" significant enough that it needs inclusion in the infobox.

Is this what you guys are discussing about? WinterSpw (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • One nickname in the infobox is sufficient. The article text is the place for being comprehensive. Put Granite State in the infobox, and the others in the body.--Jayron32 04:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Hampshire/Archive_2&oldid=1069974754"