Talk:Manchester, New Hampshire

Copyright violation

This article was reverted back to the 28 Jul 2004 version, due to a copyright violation and per the instructions at WP:CP. The original complaint;

• Manchester, New Hampshire from [1]. I haven't flagged the article as a copyvio yet, as I wanted a second opinion. Virtually every sentence in the history section of Manchester, New Hampshire is lifted verbatim from the amoskeagfalls.com site, but there has been a fair amount of condensing of the material, removal of sentences, and minor editting. This looks like a copyvio to me (which could be fixed without too much rework). For now, I've added the amoskeagfalls.com site as a Reference. Thoughts? -- Kaszeta 18:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Duk 00:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have managed to restore every section except for the offending history section. Aside from transportation and sports (which I personally wrote), I can't be able to ascertain as to the nature of the other sections (e.g. Interesting facts and Culture, though they look more like listings someone threw together than something taken verbatim from somewhere else). Pentawing 07:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixed population figures. --Caponer 22:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Do the websites of two political parties belong on this page? The issue of balance comes into play because there are surely other political organizations in the city. Where is the line drawn? The Dem and GOP links ought to be removed.

--[[User::fsguitarist|Fsguitarist]] 17:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The young republicans link was kind of the opposite of what I had in mind. I was thinking delete them all.

--[[User::fsguitarist|Fsguitarist]] 20:14, 21 December 2005

I concur on scrapping the partisan links. Looked at Keene, Nashua, Concord, Portsmouth Wiki articles and none has political links. But if one party's there, all should be (can of worms, though.)

Added city high schools to the Article (they're on those other city's sites, by the way.) West has an Article already, but no other school does yet.

Also included link to a new Article I created today listing Manchester's mayors, and added a library link. If arena football gets a link, so does the library! Nhprman 23:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

Note to anonymous editor 24.91.227.200, please consider rephrasing your additions about growth in the city without political statements that reflect a certain point of view. Opinion isn't allowed in Wikipedia articles, which should always reflect a neutral point of view. Nhprman ^UserLists 06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I resoundingly agree, NHprman! The entire entry has contained an almost saturated tone, too rich in support of the city.

Dead ends?

The trivia that says Elm Street is the longest dead-end street in the country and is the only street that has two dead ends seems false. There are tons of streets that just start and stop as dead-ends. This can't be right. Awiseman 16:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

For example, look at Wentworth Street in Manchester. It has two dead-ends. I put a "citation needed" on that fact, but I think it should be deleted. Awiseman 16:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Or Cabot Drive in Nashua. I agree on the deletion. 128.220.38.98 22:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Two points. One, the Belgrade, Serbia article lays claim to the "longest dead end street" but also lacks citations. Second, I think the trivia question is garbled a bit here, since it's always been said that Elm St. is the longest MAIN STREET in America that has two dead ends, not just the only street that has two dead ends (which would be kind of ridiculous, since folks here easily found two examples of streets with two dead ends - although Wentworth St. is TINY.) Instead of going deletion-crazy here, let's simply amend this assertion, not delete it entirely, since it's a valuable fact, if noted properly.

And in case anyone doubts the street actually does dead end in both directions, here's a citation from the New Hampshire Union Leader's John Clayton, who knows the city backwards and forwards. ("To some, the notion of a main drag that dead-ends at both ends is emblematic of life here In The City." UL Nov. 21, 2005 - cached) [2] Nhprman 02:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I was bold and made the change suggested above. Nhprman 02:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've categorized anything and everything related to Manchester. Maybe someday I'll visit :) Paul 03:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't a main street need to be called MAIN ST. to qualify here? Or is that pedantic? --BJason 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just semantics. Elm St. really is *the* MAIN street of the city. I doubt the main streets in other nations are called "Main," either, but they would qualify if they were indeed the main thoroughfare, and the longest. Nhprman ^List 14:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Economy Section

This section seems both sparse and unsubstantiated -- "Economic masterpiece"?

I think this section should be a little bit more statistic related. --nelsonleese 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-FU image

We should have a non-fairuse image for the info box. As the fall foliage season approches, I'll try to get one. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Officer Michael Briggs

Any interest including information about this incident? Or will it not be viewed as encyclopedic in the long run? Open discussion. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In the long run it may be part of the city's history. As of now, charges have not even been filed against their main suspect. It needs time to develop. Davidp313 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Davisp313, as Capital Murder charges have been filed against Michael Addison for shooting Briggs. I also think that a couple/few sentences to a paragraph can easily be placed in the article about the shooting and the city's response afterwards. --Assawyer 23:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but that kind of "breaking news" belongs on WikiNews in the n:Portal:New Hampshire, not here. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I created an article about the shooting if anyones interested. Storm05 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Statistics are our friends,

"City Hall Plaza, northern New England's tallest building..." So, how tall is it? cockeyed.com wants to know. --BJason 08:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Either 20 stories[3] or 275 ft[4]. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Promote Manchester

As this article might be perused by future residents of Manchester, I propose adding links and perhaps a sentence or two about business development. There are many organizations that are the life-blood of entrepreneurs. And what about those hundreds of pdfs that I read about the future development of the city? As soon as there is a conclusion, those long term goals should be posted as well. 70.16.208.73 00:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Miche

Links

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with a Deletionist Zealot who insists on deleting external links to the Millyard an Currier Museums, among others, but these kinds of "cleansings" make Wikipedia less helpful and, ultimately, sterile. If someone cares to 'educate' this person, they can have at it, but my revert war days are over. - Nhprman 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Millyard Museum deserves its own article - the Currier already has one and the link is in the article. Sorry if I was overzealous, but "External Links" sections tend to get link-farmy... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Omissions

I live in Manchester, NH, and I like your article so far. You have omitted something though. Manchester is also home of the United States' very first credit union (St. Mary's Bank est. Nov 24, 1908[http://www.stmarysbank.com/about-st-marys-bank/our-history.asp). It has its history tied into the Mills in Manchester too. Jmccay 14:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable inhabitants

What criteria do editors/readers of this article wish to use for deciding who goes on the list of notable inhabitants? Should it be anyone who has an article in Wikipedia? (See Category:People from Manchester, New Hampshire.) Should there be some other criterion of notability? My own opinion is that the list should be concise and provide just a flavor of who is associated with the city, rather than be an exhaustive list, but I don't have any sort of test for who should be included. I've left off local politicians, aspiring musicians, beauty queens, etc., but I have included a few sports players who maybe shouldn't be there, and I can think of other athletes (Mike Flanagan (baseball player), for instance) who perhaps should be. I want readers from out of state looking at the list and recognizing most of the names. Ideas? --Ken Gallager 14:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, simply being a professional athlete isn't enough to merit a mention. There are lots of pro athletes. By way of comparison, Grace Metalious seems appropriate for the list, but I wouldn't list just any professional writer. Similarly, we should include only professional athletes who have achieved particularly notable fame or success in their profession. I don't know enough about the athletes you included to say for whether they make the cut, but some of their articles seem a little thin to merit inclusion - I'd consider cutting out at least a couple of them. -- Zarvok | Talk 21:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Article pictures

In the article there a 5 machester pictures and 11 historic drawings. I think the article could use more and better modern manchester pictures. Maybe a picture of the skyline, airport, or important buildings-(verizon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by B'sHockey (talk • contribs) 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert by Wknight94

Wknight94, what reason did you have to label that link to a group of 56 photos of downtown Manchester as spam? There's a comment in the talk page saying that the article is lacking modern photos. Have you seen this same link elsewhere on Wikipedia, or even any other links pointing to that CivicImages web site? If you have not your use of the term "spam" to refer to my edit seems a bit pejorative.

For lack of finding anything to support the "spam" characterization and because I see no reason to exclude this resource from the article I have restored that link. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You've been re-reverted by another admin. There is absolutely no reason to link to an external web site for various photos of a town. Instead, you go to that town and take your own photos of the town and then upload them for free - much like I do. This is "The Free Encyclopedia", not a directory of links. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So since you did not present any evidence or even an argument that this was spam, I think anyone reading this can accept that the spam thing was completely bogus and was a case of you being pejorative as I proposed above.

Now the link has been removed again, with a completely different rationale behind it. I will accede to the removal of the link, then, since you guys are obviously determined. (Determined enough to be editing my comments. I appreciate the fact that the text was not changed but please do not edit my comments, whichever of you did that.)

As far as your suggestion that I spend a day or two re-taking those 56 photographs, post-processing them, and uploading them: I upload quite a bit of material to Wikimedia Commons, thank you very much. In fact I have uploaded enough that I would be somewhat surprised if you are in much of a position to criticize me. But that doesn't really matter, because you know what? If I did do all that work just because you feel like being snippy about this, then added the {{commonscat}} template to the page, you know what we'd have? A link to an external web site. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. Are you saying that civicimages.com is your site? If so, how about you change the terms of use on the site so the images are freely available? If you did that, we could all assist in uploading them to Commons and you could include your site address in each one. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, civicimages.com is not my site. Since you have avoided saying anything about your original edit-comment assertion that I added spam to the page and you've just asked me to be completely explicit, here goes: I'm pointing out that when you went in and claimed you were removing spam by reverting my edit, you in fact were making a completely false statement (and indirectly a false accusation that I am a spammer). From the results of searches I've done to try to confirm your claim it appears to me that you did not have any reason to believe that was a commercial link, nor did you have evidence that the same link or site had been spammed across multiple articles. You simply mentioned "spam" to be pejorative, to pre-justify your revert and avoid articulating a real justification of it, as Gwernol has gone to the trouble to do for you post-facto on my talk page. (Why he did it on my talk page instead of here I have no idea.)

By the way, the "...another admin" comment above which emphasizes that you have an admin account? You being an administrator does not make your actions more valid or more excusable than anyone else's. Wikipedia is not a place where you can pull rank to get your way. In fact I personally think that administrators ought to behave with more propriety than normal users. But although many do, many unfortunately do not.

And by the way, nice dodge in avoiding response to my point that {{commonscat}} links are external links to collections of photos. (A point I made, though, primarily to demonstrate that you and Gwernol are being arbitrary. I care more about the bad behavior than about the link, it was remedying a lack in the article but only a small one.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're not going to work with me here so I'm not pursuing this much further. Gwernol and I are saying the same thing - the photographs you linked to are not only not free, but the site they are on is dominated by an unseemly white strip along the side filled with Google ads. Do you see a lot of other U.S. cities with links to external sites with non-free pictures? Commons, on the other hand, has no ads and every photograph on it is freely available. The difference shouldn't be difficult to see. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not working with you when I acceeded to the revert of my edits? Whatever. You sure like to muddy up a discussion with rhetoric, don't ya?

You're dodging any justification of using the term "spam" and you know very well that external links to collections of photographs appear all over Wikipedia. It is you who are not working with me - because I'm not going to to sit down and shut up and nod my head it's not enough that you got your way, you're throwing a tantrum and refusing to respond to legitimate criticisms of your actions and refusing to discuss the nature of this link.

The value of a link has nothing to do with whether it's on a site that gets donations, like Wikipedia, or a site that has to support itself. A link to the same collection of photographs - which, by the way, constitutes complete photodocumentation of the densest downtown part of the city - on Commons, the Library of Congress photo archives, or a journalist's photo retrospective on the commercial site of a local newspaper would stand just fine. There is no prohibition against linking to an article resource just because it's copyrighted as I'm sure you very well know. We might as well remove all links and citations to books that are still within copyright. People reading this article do not need to be able to re-use these photos for the collection to be a valuable information source about Manchester.

But really, go ahead, pat yourself on the back for improving Wikipedia. Doesn't it seem a little bit odd to you that you need to use underhanded rhetorical techniques to do your job here? Maybe you ought to re-evaluate your approach. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sports Teams

I've reverted the WFTDA and USL sports team change. The Flat Track Derby team doesn't seem to be notable - they do not have their own Wikipedia article, are not listed on the the WFTDA article, and aren't even listed on the WFTDA's website. The USL team is listed at USL Premier Development League and at their official website. It's a "development" team, but so is Eastern League (baseball), so I think that one should stay. Others? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted back the roller derby & will continue to do so. WFTDA is the chosen league that MVRG roller derby is played under As far as rules and regulations .Though not on the page it shows what the WFTDA is and how the MVRG is run under.You can also check out our derby names as well http://www.twoevils.org/rollergirls/ Search ManchVegas RollerGirls MVRG is a Manchester Team though not known as well, We have been featured in Hippo,Union leader & done plenty of Manchester events and Charity's. Recently we have been in the St Patrick's day parade and the 2008 Xmas Parade and New Hampshire's Premiere Roller Derby League Seen Here http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31457606&id=196604749. If you care to even check us out your mote then welcome to . We hold recruitment events and practice every Mon and Thurs from 8pm to 10 pm & Sat From 8am to 10Pm and the Manchester Boys & Girls Club 18+ are allowed to Join. If you have any further questions please email manchvegasrollergirls@gmail.com Team1up (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)