Talk:Connecticut River Valley

Capitalization

FYI, as this is a specific region, its name is capitalized throughout. Rhobite 22:40, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I know that consciously. I was sorta frusturated dealing with my lack of knowledge on the valley in Connecticut and northern New Hampshire and Vermont, and paying even less attention to my spelling and grammar than I normally do. Quintucket 20:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think "Valley" should be downcased. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Directions_and_regions suggests that only "widely known expressions" for regions are proper nouns: "Whether a region has attained proper-noun status can be a gray area. Use an appropriate reference if needed. Use lowercase when in doubt." -- Rbellin 21:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's accurate. I believe any specific region should be capitalized. The question is whether it's used as a name or a description. In this case it's used as a name. Rhobite 21:20, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I see now that Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) contains prior discussion suggesting the all-capitalized version is preferred. Sorry about the confusion; I might add a line to the style guide about this issue. -- Rbellin 21:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article is an unfocussed mess

As of October 5th, ,2006, this version of the article reads like a tourist guide, is jevenilely concerned with travel between NH and VT for fireworks, and sales tax avoidance, is devoid of history, demographics, economics or even geographical description of consequence, and enhances nearly no reader's understanding of the region, and is scattershot in its mentioning of significant aspects of populous centers. It fails to cite other relevant articles of, nature, history, geography and geology that already exist on Wikipedia. Much of the current content could be deleted, without any loss. Yellowdesk 20:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll add further, that anything that this article could contain, could just as well be in a subsection of Connecticut River, which is far more comprehensive than this article. I think this article is a candidate for merger into Connecticut River, and should be turned into a redirect page for that article. Yellowdesk 05:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't make it a stub - it's got too much length and information to qualify for that title. What it does need is expansion, and as such an {{expansion}} template is far more appropriate. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of historical stuff that could be added, and would make more sense here than on the Connecticut River page. The stuff I've read about early colonies of New England tend to use the term "Connecticut River Valley" for specific early colonial cores, both in Massachusetts, inland Connecticut and New Haven area. If I find the time I'll try to add some here. But in any case, Connecticut River Valley is a term I've seen often enough to think of as a notable cultural and historic region and not merely the valley through which a river flows... Pfly 01:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merger. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

For lack of interest and lack of content or improvement to the two articles for the last year, they have both been redirected to Connecticut River. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

---

The articles Upper Valley and Pioneer Valley might be suitable for merging. The Pioneer Valley article is slightly more developed (although it is essentially just lists) but I think a single article would make for a more comprehensive treatment. An alternative would be to split off as a separate article the portion in the state of Connecticut. Opinions and suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 14:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree - I wasn't aware of the separate articles. They should likely be sections of this article. - Denimadept (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Mild oppose - It should be possible to keep all three articles, where the Connecticut River Valley article would have a broader focus than the other two articles, and more of a physical geography focus. The Upper Valley and Pioneer Valley articles could focus more specifically on the social and local aspects of the regions, as the terms are really social constructs. I would oppose the merge more strongly if the Upper Valley article had more content. --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem as long as we define more precisely what the focus of each article should be. Where should we discuss geology, human settlement patterns, cultural history. Further, an article on the Central Valley of Connecticut would be needed to complete the sub-article series. I take it that the Upper Valley, Pioneer Valley, and the still to be written Connecticut articles should focus only on their aspect as a social/economic/cultural region and leave the geology in this article. --Polaron | Talk 00:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge The three articles each have so little content that the entire topic would benefit from merger of the three articles. If there actually comes to be an article with enough content to split, that can be dealt with at that future time. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The focus of the separate articles are generally covered by the articles Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. - Denimadept (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pioneer Valley was never redirected to Connecticut River, despite the note above that says it was. --Crunch (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that it was? I missed that bit. - Denimadept (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)