Jump to content

Talk:Merrimack Valley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal: Make Merrimack Valley a disambiguation page

[edit]

Please look at the Merrimack Valley article. This article does not seem well named. In Massachusetts we use this specific term in one way, in New Hampshire we use it another way, and people familiar with geography and topography use it another way! Given the variety of ways in which this term is used, perhaps Merrimack Valley shouldn't be a regular article, but rather should be a disambiguation page. Perhaps the content of this disambiguation page should be something like this:

  • Merrimack River - A 110-mile (177 km)-long river in the northeastern United States. It rises in Franklin, New Hampshire, flows southward into Massachusetts, and then flows northeast until it empties into the Atlantic Ocean at Newburyport.
The Merrimack Valley is a bi-state region along the Merrimack River in the states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, United States. The Merrimack is one of the larger waterways in the New England region and has helped define the livelihood of those along it since native times.
Please note that I do not know the naming convention for this type of article. Are either of the names I propose Ok, or is there a better name?
  • Merrimack Valley (New Hampshire) - An area of south-central New Hampshire, approximately 35 miles wide, named by the NH Division of Travel and Tourism Development. This area is centered on the Merrimack River, running from Canterbury south to the Massachusetts border. Henniker marks the western extent, and Nottingham the east. Notable towns and cities in the region include Concord, Nashua, Manchester, Merrimack, Salem and Derry.

What do people here think? RK (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is a compelling reason to have two articles. I think the two article solution is a phenomenally bad idea. The Merrimack Valley is a contiguous region which crosses a state border. There's not enough content in either the New Hampshire or Massachusetts article to really support the split, and as a cohesive region there's much more importance to the Concord-Manchester-Nashua-Lowell-Lawrence region as a Textile mill region together than to consider these seperate regions. They aren't really. I mean, if we were comparing two different Merrimack Rivers, or something like that, maybe. But we can easily deal with the way New Hampshire and Massachusetts each treat the region without introducing the falsehood that these are somehow unrelated or distinct in any way beyond the coincidence of the state border. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that we could merge this article Merrimack Valley with Merrimack Valley (New Hampshire) and with Merrimack Valley (Massachusetts)?
(And leave Merrimack River as a distinct article.)
I would be Ok with this. RK (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that would be the best way to handle it. Look at it this way; anyone coming here is not going to expect to find two different articles, and we really should not surprise the reader. I'll put a merge notice on all three articles; lets leave it open for a few days to see what public comment is, and if there are no substantial objections, lets do the merge later in the week. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! RK (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree as well - one article to rule them all. CSZero (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The merge looks good. Some work should probably be done to put some prose into the article (there's GOBS of books out there), but the merge is a good place to start in improving this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Merrimack Valley. 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 02:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Merrimack Valley. 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) 08:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need a source for which towns are part of the region

[edit]

Has anyone noticed that the list of towns in the Massachusetts part of the region is not well-defined? The reference is to the "Cities & Towns" page at merrimackvalley.org, which is a mess. The page leads off by saying there are "21 cities and towns", then proceeds to list 38, without even including several towards the mouth of the river that have long been part of the list, such as Amesbury, Groveland, Haverhill, and Newburyport. Meanwhile, well-meaning editors keep adding towns one or two at a time as they see fit. We need a better source. (Or several sources, if there are varying definitions.) --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'm confused, Littleton is on the list but not marked red on the map. Chadnibal (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Merrimack_Valley&oldid=1207943528"