Talk:Manchester, New Hampshire

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

Roller derby[edit]

Reverted the NH Skatefree or Die Aka New Hampshire Roller Derby, that is the home team of nashua. Removed them & will add them to the nashua wiki if they request to do so. Other then that will monitor the site as always and revert when needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Team1up (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Roller Derby practices and competes at the JFK Memorial Coliseum in Manchester, New Hampshire. The consistent deletion of New Hampshire Roller Derby appears to be done by those who are affiliated with and posting on behalf of ManchVegas Roller Girls, whose business model and status have not been referenced or verified. Also, WFTDA's website does not list ManchVegas as a member league. I removed the WFTDA affiliation and added New Hampshire Roller Derby. Did not delete ManchVegas Roller Girls in good faith that the league's existence can be verified. Currently, a previously deleted page (for non-notability) which blatantly advertises on behalf of ManchVegas Roller Girls has been reposted and is pending speedy deletion. No credible references have been found as to the validity of the claim that New Hampshire Roller Derby does not belong in this article. Encyclopediaclown (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on there own web site they train at roller kingdom in MA, They have bouts at JFK but they do not belong nor train in manchester. They train in Nashua As quoted from tehre won site:

" Derby girls come in all shapes, sizes, and ages. Fishnets, tattoos and piercings are not required—some of us have them, some of us don’t. Some of the girls on the roster are lifelong athletes, others had never tried a sport outside of gym class. To be a skater:

* You must be female
* You must be 21 or older
* you must have health insurance and USARS insurance ($55 a year)
* You must sign a waiver that says when you get hurt you won’t sue us into oblivion
* You must be able to attend at least 75% of our events. Right now, we practice twice a week, eventually it will increase.
* You will need quad skates, a helmet, mouth guard, knee and elbow pads, and wrist guards. We can help you choose the right gear for derby—there are starter derby packages available for around $175.

We charge $35 a month in dues to cover rink rental fees. You don’t have to be a great skater—we can teach you the skills you need. We’re looking for women who are determined and willing to push themselves. Think you’ve got the right attitude?

* Check out the new skater page or
* email freshmeat@nhrollerderby.com
* or stop by an open skate at Roller Kingdom at Skate 3 in Tyngsboro, Mass. We hold recruiting nights one Friday a month at 7 p.m.

Team1up (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their website says that they recruit in Tyngsboro, MA. It says nothing about where they practice. Roller derby leagues typically hold open recruitments at open skates hosted by rinks to attract new players who may not be ready for a full practice. Full practices are typically not disclosed to discourage public attendance and to protect skaters. This varies by league. Providence Roller Derby recruits at rinks in Narragansett, RI and Taunton, MA but compete and train in Providence under the Bank of America building. Their practice schedule is kept confidential from the public. Boston Derby Dames' team Boston Massacre recruit at rinks all over the greater Boston region, but compete in Wilmington, MA and practice in Holbrook, MA (yet they are granted consideration as one of Boston's teams). Their practice schedule is also witheld from the public. The Boston Red Sox train not just in Fenway, but also in other areas of the country for spring training, and their recruiters/scouters travel not only across the country but to other countries as well. Skate Free or Die, which is the travel team for New Hampshire Roller Derby, competes and practices at the JFK Memorial Coliseum, with an undisclosed schedule to protect their skaters from security issues. If Fenway Park is home to the Boston Red Sox because they train and compete there, then I do not see how New Hampshire Roller Derby is exempt from this same consideration, especially when their . Also, New Hampshire Roller Derby's use of the JFK is well documented by several publications online and in print. The JFK Memorial Coliseum in MAnchester, NH is their home venue for competing with teams from other states, cities, and regions. They do not practice, train, recruit, or compete in Nashua, NH. Encyclopediaclown (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to make the observation that Team1up has made a couple of attempts to publish a page for ManchVegas Roller Girls that has been deleted for blatant advertising. It appears that this user has a conflict of interest in making unbiased, objective edits to information having to do with a roller derby presence in Manchester, NH. The two leagues are both amateur leagues that would be in direct competition for venue space and recruiting efforts. I am reverting the sports section back to the previous edit, where both teams are present. Encyclopediaclown (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated here : http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/06/squeals_on_wheels_1204776282/

"Following the nationwide resurgence of the crash-and-slam sport over the past three or four years, the group of 20- and 30-something women began rallying here last fall. They now come to Tyngsborough's Roller Kingdom every week from all over the Merrimack Valley and the southern-central sliver of New Hampshire to skate, vamp, and train for on-rink battle. They hope to begin league play in 2009"

"The group assembles at the squat Roller Kingdom building, slung along Middlesex Road just a few minutes from the New Hampshire border, every Thursday night."

Oh and in the nashua telegraph here http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/NEWS01/312070078/-1/XML07

"Members of the first New Hampshire women’s roller derby league, Skate Free or Die Roller Girls, work on calisthenics Thursday at Skate 3 in Tyngsborough, Mass."

Just stating the obvious.. for some reason i don't see txt anywhere that says every week we train in Manchester nh here.. etc etc etc.All i see is we have bouts in Manchester JFK that's fine that's true... All I'm stating is that there are 2 different groups who are own and run separately.. the Nashua team above and the MVRG who train and operate in Manchester not Nashua.. anyone can have bouts anywhere but training well were in Manchester there in Nashua. I have the uppermost respect for them, But historically This is wrong. Were the only team that runs out of Manchester.

To top it off if i cant create a wiki page with all the correct information for MVRG who can ? Anytime anyone creates the page the wiki trolls come out and take it away. We have valid information site resources & keep it up to date. I'm sticking to my derby guns here and would like to see this resolved asap.

Team1up (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team1up, I believe you have been recently warned about contributing topics and articles where you have a conflict of interest. If you are a part of an organization you need to follow the appropriate standards for Wikipedia. As a member of the ManchVegas Roller Girls, you have not shown a neutral point of view in your edits to articles with information pertaining to New Hampshire Roller Derby.
New Hampshire Roller Derby, like so many other non-WFTDA leagues is currently chartered, insured, and sanctioned by USARS. The JFK Memorial Coliseum is a USARs sanctioned facility for roller derby events and practices held by New Hampshire Roller Derby. This sanctioning can be confirmed on the USARS website through their events listing.
The articles you are referencing are from early last year. Even those articles, including the Boston Globe's article, state that New Hampshire Roller Derby is the first and only roller derby league in NH at the time those articles were written. As far as can be certain, ManchVegas Roller Girls were not formed as of January 11th, 2008 according to an article in the HippoPress: | http://www.hippopress.com/music/nite080110b.html. The league has not practiced at the rink in Tyngsboro, MA for some time now, due to its loss of USARS sanctioning for roller derby.
Also, playing by the WFTDA rule set does NOT make a league governed by WFTDA or affiliated with the organization. It's just a standard rule set. Pioneer Valley Roller Derby in Holyoke, MA and Central Mass Roller Derby in Worcester, MA and even New Hampshire Roller Derby play by the WFTDA rule set but are not WFTDA affiliated. The WFTDA website does not list ManchVegas as an affiliated OR member league. Encyclopediaclown (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames -- ManchVegas?[edit]

Is "ManchVegas" really unique to Manchester? It's a rather common form of ironic nicknaming seen in a lot of cities: first syllable + Vegas, e.g. DorchVegas (Dorchester). --71.235.98.27 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of twenty-something hipsters I've never heard the term Manchvagas used. The amount of article space given to discussing it far outweighs it's real world use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.45.107 (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard adults use the term, which has been in use for a generation at least. T-Shirts are sold with the term printed on it. It's a factual, in-use term. The amount of space given to it is because it was merged from another article because of ruthless deletionists' repeated attempts to delete it. - Nhprman 16:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, definitely a real term. Google "ManchVegas" right now and you get thirty thousand hits, mostly looking like they're referring to NH, whereas "DorchVegas" gets one tenth as many and is split up between Dorchester in the UK and a bunch of Dorchesters in the US (and maybe Canada and Australia? I'm not sure.) Trying Google Books you also get a bunch of hits for "ManchVegas" all in books or other sources referring to New Hampshire, going back to 2004; "DorchVegas" gets zero Google Books hits right now.
"ManchVegas" was already in common use in the 90's when I was in college in NH, (like, some people always said "ManchVegas" instead of "Manchester", every single time they mentioned it, rather than it being a jokey one-off) and we're all in our thirties now obviously. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments above make it clear "ManchVegas" is common and notable enough for inclusion. Growing up in Manchester in the 1950s and 1960s, our favorite term of affectionate abuse for our hometown was "Manchesta city of culcha." I'm sure that's not notable, and I mention it only to give a nostalgic smile to any of my age-cohorts who read this page. betsythedevine (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Manch-Vegas isn't in exclusive use in the city itself either. I live in Dover, NH (nearly on the border with Maine) and "Manch-Vegas" is used quite often over here as well. 21:30, 19 January 2011

There are no WFTDA leagues in New Hampshire, whatsoever[edit]

Skating by WFTDA's rules does not make a league a member of WFTDA. I'm not from New Hampshire, I'm not affiliated with either local league, and I'm sure they're both a bunch of great people.

Here's an OFFICIAL listing of WFTDA member leagues. You won't find the letters "NH" after any of the cities listed. Not yet, anyways. TimBRoy (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed Manch-Vegas' affiliation to USARS (USA Roller Sports). They are not listed on the WFTDA site as members, they are listed on the USARS site as a member league. NH Roller Derby is as well. Perhaps a compromise like this that references cite-worthy sites would suit you folks better than edit wars? TimBRoy (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TimBRoy, I'm not sure if your changes were lost in the reverting by Team1up, did you mean to list NHRD as an USARS league? Skate Free or Die and New Hampshire Roller Derby are actually two separate entities, with Skate Free Or Die! Rollergirls of NH being a team governed under New Hampshire Roller Derby. I know that New Hampshire Roller Derby is a league currently chartered by USARS. The distinction seems to be a bit hairy. Does the team or the governing league get entered in as the club? Encyclopediaclown (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopediaclown Nah, I didn't touch that. I wanted to think that over a bit. Roller derby leagues tend to work with a different business model than most sports organizations. They are a league made up of local teams, which is part of a larger organization like WFTDA, OSDA or USARS. You might want to see how that's dealt with on other cities' pages. My primary reason for editing this page was to remove something which was clearly not true and replace it with something that was true. What you have in there MIGHT be factually correct but not in the most common format, or it might be fine. I couldn't say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimBRoy (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After some further consideration, I decided to make NHRD's appearance on the list consistent with MVRG. Inasmuch as they appear to be single team leagues, USARS works a bit better, as it's the organization which the club plays against other members of. Roller Derby leagues as they exist at present are all pretty much single-city entities. In other words, for the purpose of a city's list of teams, the league can be considered a team, and USARS, WFTDA, OSDA or Renegades could be considered the league. TimBRoy (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TimBRoy - The only issue I have with saying that USARS is a governing body of any roller derby league is that USARS (as they relate to roller derby, I'm not sure about other roller sports) is just how some leagues get their insurance. Interleague play is not usually determined by membership to USARS, but by availability of the leagues participating. As far as I know, NHRD is the only league in New England still insuring through USARS, and yet they have played WFTDA leagues - Maine and Providence to date - and will eventually play the Boston Massacre (because it is the only way they will be able to obtain one of the membership requirements for WFTDA). To what extent is an organization like USARS a governing body? They provide no standard rule set, do not rank member leagues, and do not sanction events in the way that WFTDA or OSDA does. The only reason they charter leagues and sanction facilities is because they have a contract with AIG - AIG will not pay out on claims that occur at an unsanctioned facility or with an unchartered league. USARS also charters/insures some OSDA leagues... Would it be more appropriate to say that USARS is not a governing body but a third-party method of insuring? Encyclopediaclown (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopediaclown - USARS is not an insurance company. That's a common misperception about the organization. From their web site: "USA Roller Sports (USARS) is recognized by the Federation Internationale de Roller Skating (FIRS) and United States Olympic Committee (USOC) as the National Governing Body for Competitive Roller Sports in the United States." Both leagues are listed as members of USARS as per the link I provided elsewhere on the chat page. USARS does sanction roller derby events, which they actually generally list on their web sites. In fact, they require a sanction for derby bouts for the event to be covered. Roller derby gets regular features in the magazine they produce for their members, and they seem to be in the starting stage of planning to hold tournaments for member leagues. Basically, unless they drop USARS membership, I'd file both leagues under USARS until they gain WFTDA, OSDA, or even Renegades membership. It's an organization of leagues that they are member leagues within. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimBRoy (talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least the Green Mountain Derby Dames (Essex Jct./Colchester, Vermont) are members of USARS and located in New England. Pioneer Valley Roller Derby (Holyoke, MA) does not use USARS nor are they affiliated with WFTDA (ineligible due to having a men's team). I'm not certain about Central Mass Roller Derby's affiliation. Maine, Boston, Providence, and Connecticut are all affiliated with WFTDA and have dropped their USARS affiliation. USARS also tracks and archives scores as well as writes articles about bouts they sanction. Amy "Bitches Bruze" Moore (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, we don’t play by usars, we play by wftda rules and hence the wftda affiliation. If i could get the wiki page up without it being taken down it is stated in there as we play by their rules & working towards getting to be wftda qualified. Team1up (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USARS does not have a rule set. ManchVegas is listed as a member of USARS, not as a member of WFTDA. Unless you can provide a reliable source that indicates ManchVegas is affiliated with WFTDA, please stop altering this information. Make your case as part of the discussion page instead of continuing to revert. Encyclopediaclown (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ Team1up:It really doesn't matter what rules a league plays by. If they are a member league of WFTDA, they would be listed on the WFTDA web site as a member league. The league is NOT a member of WFTDA per the WFTDA web site. More than 95% of the 400ish leagues around the world skate by WFTDA rules. Only 77 of them are currently WFTDA member leagues.
I have provided cites that establish that ManchVegas is a member of USARS and is not a member of WFTDA. That column is for affiliation, not for "What rules they skate by." If it were for the rules set, both leagues would be listed as WFTDA, would they not? In your writings here, you're pretty clearly displaying evidence of a conflict of interest, by the way. TimBRoy (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect, as NHRD is now a WFTDA Apprentice, Can we remove this whole section.. since its not needed anymore. WiiBlockHer (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that, NHRD was just inducted as a full member of WFTDA yesterday (6/17/10) so a big chunk of this discussion page could be cleaned up, if so desired. Anguissette1979 (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

There seems to be an obsession about size in the introduction. It gets alot boring reading through it. Isn't the introduction suppose to give a person a thumbnail sketch of the city? Shouldn't the thinking be that if a person is going to only read one paragraph about about the city, that is what you would want them to know. I know Manchester has more going for it then being the biggest fish in the pond. Dave 2346 (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the intro got bogged down with the fine points of people counting, so I moved the NECTA details into the Demographics section. Now there is room in the intro for more interesting overview info about Manchester, should someone feel inclined to take that on.--Ken Gallager (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The intro is necessary to include all points... 115.117.146.153 (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. If you put all points in the introduction, it wouldn't be an introduction, would it? It would be the whole article.--Ken Gallager (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester, Nashua... Tyngsborough?[edit]

NHRD practices at least 2/3 of the season and bouts at Manchester's JFK Memorial Coliseum (see citations on both New Hampshire Roller Derby and Nashua, NH pages). They are currently listed on the Nashua page but should also be listed in Manchester. Because I am affiliated with this league, and given the apparent history of this page, I do not feel comfortable making the addition (in compliance with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policies). Additional references can be provided as needed for this. Anguissette1979 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added it here. I left a comment on the Nashua page, wondering why it's listed there. --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ken : With All Due Respect, to my knowledge NHRD practices at Roller Kingdom on the Nashua/Ma border for the year and has games "bouts" at JFK. Kinda like how MVRG practices at there own facility here in Manchester but has games "bouts" at the West Side Arena. So if I am correct they should be listed in both places. Maybe make a notation on that this is where they host Games and make Nashua there Home practice space for the rest of the year. But i won't add anything/tweak anything since the "conflict of interest" is also in my court. Just trying to make sure everything is correct. WiiBlockHer (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that Roller Kingdom is not in Nashua. It's in Tyngsborough, Massachusetts. If they practiced across the river in Hudson, they'd be listed in Hudson, not Nashua. A similar example is with the Rockingham County Courthouse. Several years ago, the state moved the courthouse out of Exeter onto undeveloped land in neighboring Brentwood. Guess where the county seat of Rockingham County is now? Not Exeter anymore, even though Exeter is clearly the more significant community.--Ken Gallager (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

OK. It's about time. I know that like 4 years ago, the ManchVegas article survived a barely noticed deletion discussion. Still, there does not seem to be anything much at the ManchVegas article that couldn't be said here, I don't think we're well served with two articles here. The term is certainly used often, but its just not worth keeping a seperate article about. Any ideas? --Jayron32 03:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging. How about putting the "ManchVegas" info in the Culture section? (Removing duplicate info as needed, of course.) --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also support merging. As Ken said, place "ManchVegas" into the cultural section... no reason for seperate article--Ericci8996 (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need for a separate article. Go ahead and merge. Robofish (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography - ridiculous data[edit]

just a short while back, I chose to remove the climactic data presented. Given Manchester's location not too far from the Atlantic coast, and its low-lying location, the normal winter day-night (diurnal) temperature range should NOT be even close to 27 °F. Among NE stations, I have seen 20 °F for some areas away from an urban heat island, but rarely any larger: winter ranges here mostly tend to fall between 11-17 °F.
Apparently, I checked the list of New Hampshire stations listed here, and the closest one to the city centre of Manchester appears to be Massabesic Lake, which is clearly in a rural setting. As Wikipedians, we are supposed to depict an urban-influenced climate in an urban location. Thus I intend to change the station to Nashua. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 05:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at a map for this? Part of Massabesic is within the city boundary of Manchester itself, the remainder being in the adjacent town of Auburn. Does it really make sense to choose a completely different city 20km+ away? That's all I'm going to say because I'm no climate expert. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes, which reminds me that I completely neglected to provide the map link. It's just that the 27 F (15 C) diurnal range is ridiculous and reflects the relatively rural setting of the lake rather than the urbanised setting that we are aiming to depict. And 20 km+ isn't that unreasonable; some airports are located that distance away from their city centres, yet Wiki still oddly uses such articles. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 13:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The diurnal range may be ridiculous, but is actually accurate. Nashua, some 20 miles to the south, does not have the same temperature fluctuations that Manchester does. I cannot explain why this is so, but it is. If you change the data, you will be guilty of making the information misleading and incorrect. OneEyedCat (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
whatever. I am adding on NOAA sourcing. Hopefully 1981-2010 data will have a station at Manchester Regional Airport. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 12:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't really satisfy your objection, however, because the airport is farther away from downtown than the Massabesic Lake station. Perhaps the data isn't "ridiculous", but merely "interesting" and worth presenting as is.--Ken Gallager (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that it seems to me that all this data is saying is that Manchester isn't an especially urban location or is not an especially standard urban location. If we include data from Nashua then it should be clearly labeled as data from Nashua rather than Manchester.
I think that it would be better to include the data that is actually from Manchester with a note that it's from the part of Manchester in the vicinity of Lake Massabesic as opposed to being from downtown Manchester, and that the actual temperature in downtown Manchester may have differed due to the UHI effect you mention; we can even refer the reader to the Nashua climate data as a possibly more representative downtown temperature. That would be more encyclopedic and in line with the goals of the Wikipedia project, I should think, rather than presenting the Nashua data for Manchester without caveat. (Although if you can point to some existing consensus on the duty to "depict an urban-influenced climate" I'd be interested in reading it. It just seems odd to me that we would have a mandate or other motive to depict anything other than actual, documented information about the subject of the article.)
...oops, okay, that's what the article says right now. I'm just going to wikify urban heat island. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and anyone care to comment on the validity of the snow data? I find it far more doubtful, so take a look: the NOAA source we used in the article says that the September snow average is 0.2 in, while October's is 0, and September has a greatest daily snowfall of 4.3 in, while for the same figure October has a trace amount. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 21:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it sounds strange, but I'm inclined to say it's real rather than they messed up their records somehow. If you divide a single 4.3 inch snow event over 30 years, you get 0.14 inches of snow per September. I remember a significant snowfall in the early fall of 1989, but my memory had put it around October 4. September 27 is not that far from there, so I'd go with the published record over my memory. What's much stranger is that they don't have any measurable snowfall for October.--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhoods[edit]

How the heck is a description of the neighborhoods in a city irrelevant to an article about that city?

Dkriegls, it sounds to me like you aren't actually reading the guidelines and policies you are citing. Notability is about whether or not a particular topic gets its own article in Wikipedia independent from others, not about classifying the details of a particular topic that are already in an article "notable" and "not notable".

The bit you quote in your edit comment from the style guide, "material within an embedded list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail" is immediately preceded by the phrase "Consideration should be given to keeping embedded lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope:" and it's in a section called "Size". It doesn't have anything to do with deleting lists you come across.

If your personal opinion is that mentioning and describing the neighborhoods of Manchester as defined by the city's own planning board is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article about the city and shouldn't even be rewritten as prose the way the guideline you link to recommends, make the case here. Don't just toss around links to guidelines and policies that are vaguely related to your edits and act as if your edits are somehow anointed by them. I have no idea why you think "Consensus is not to list this" - it hasn't even been discussed and it appears that you're trying to make up consensus on the spot to support whatever action you take.

At the very least, clean up after yourself. Take care of the preceding paragraph that now ends in a dangling colon. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I delete long lists from city pages that add little value (IMO) to readers of the article and are not typically found on any other city pages (I used 'consensus' when I meant standard practice; which can be considered assumed consensus). I have grown to default on deleting lists of neighborhoods because almost all the other lists of neighborhoods I have come across in smaller cites were promotionals for subdivisions and housing developments. I understand that this is not the case here and I understand that you think there is good reason to keep this info on Wikipedia. Big city pages like Chicago have separate list pages for neighborhoods. I think Manchester is big enough to warrant such a list. We can work on creating that list together. The main reason I think it shouldn't be included here is that its creates a vague inclusion criterion for other lists that go "into unnecessary detail". There is nothing notable about this list that wouldn't also fit for a list of Mayors, city Aldermen, historical alderman, city wards, top employers (I see that a lot). I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument, I just think there should be clear inclusion criterion based on notable information. So lets make a Neighborhoods in Manchester, New Hampshire list page. Dkriegls (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was inclined to agree with S. Bandersnatch, as this is the largest city in the state, it has numerous distinct neighborhoods, and it follows up on a discussion of the city's neighborhood planning. So why would someone want to remove that information? However, I see that Dkriegls has offered to work on a Neighborhoods page, so I have gone ahead and started it. Have at it, folks! --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before we go creating such articles willy-nilly, we first need to consider if there is reliable, independent, published information which we could use as sources for the information. Something more substantial and reliable that real-estate listings or a bare list of neighborhoods. Something which discusses, in depth, the history and details of each neighborhood would be good. We should write articles because source material exist, not because it makes us feel inferior that Chicago has articles about individual neighborhoods and Manchester doesn't. If the only justification is that, we need to reconsider the wisdom of such a move. If, instead, someone has a book on their shelves which has lots of good information on the subject, which is just waiting to be used as a source, then have at it. --Jayron32 12:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's based on the city's 2010 Master Plan. I've copied the source ref over to the neighborhoods list. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dkreigls, it appears to me that you do not understand some basic Wikipedia policies and concepts. There isn't "notable information" and "non-notable information" in Wikipedia terminology and you can't make individual edits and claim that they're supported by consensus based on your personal interpretation of guideline pages and patterns you think you see: that is not what consensus means.
You should not be going around and based upon your personal judgement of whether a city is big enough or important enough deciding how long the article should be and eliminating tens or hundreds of hours or more of other peoples' work actually researching and writing encyclopedia content in those articles to enact that judgement. It's one thing if you think something is promotional spam after carefully reading and looking at the topic but things like accounts of the neighborhoods or past mayors of a city are certainly appropriate to be researched and documented on Wikipedia. An entire encyclopedia can be written on a single city - this is called a city gazetteer and they were written hundreds of years ago when most of the cities in the world were smaller than Manchester is now. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no reason to limit the topics it documents encyclopedically or the amount of encyclopedic content on those topics.
If you think there should be inclusion criteria limiting what Wikipedia can document encyclopedically based upon whether a topic is big enough or important enough, go start a project page advocating this and try to get it adopted as a guideline or policy. Don't go around deleting chunks of researched and written encyclopedia content based on your personal judgement and call it consensus. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I belong to and am active in both the WP:WikiProject Cities and WP:WikiProject Lists, neither of which make a default inclusion criterion for lists of neighborhoods. Many editors, including myself, think that style and presentation have just as much to do with access to information for readers as content does. There are plenty of editors that argue against the cumbersomeness of articles that include everything and the kitchen sink. I've addressed the rest of your personal attacks and critics of my interpretive ability on my talk page where it is more appropriate. I ask that you keep this thread WP:Civil and focused on discussions of editing this page. Do you support creation of a separate page for the neighborhood information as Ken Gallager so graciously did? Dkriegls (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether it's maintained in this article or in a separate one as a notable topic itself as long as you aren't eliminating encyclopedic content that other people have gone to the trouble of researching and writing. I am not going to fight with you on your talk page. When you are making edits in support of your argument or philosophy about Wikipedia, please do not toss around links to policy or guidelines to imply that they support your personal editing decisions, nor quote them out of context for such a purpose. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While we're are on the topic of cleaning up Neighborhoods. Other WP:Manual of Style issues that need to be addressed include turning the blue links to outside websites into references. Also, citation 12 to nhpr is a dead link, and the outside link to LivableMHT should be removed altogether because of its open advocacy and NPV issues. The links to its maps seem okay. Dkriegls (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created the original section & list of neighborhoods in Manchester. I also created the LivableMHT neighborhood map that is linked to in the article. Both the neighborhood names and boundaries are based on the city's 2010 Master Plan, mentioned by Ken Gallager. I original set up the list in the hopes that others would build upon it with more information. Similarly sized and prominent cities in the region, such as Providence and Portland have both informative overviews of their neighborhoods in their main pages, as well as much lengthier descriptions in their respective neighborhood pages. I think something similar would be appropriate for Manchester, and I'm happy to see that Ken Gallager has started a separate Neighborhoods of Manchester page. The Neighborhoods of Portland page seems especially good in terms of style and content. FrankLloydMike 05:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Neighborhoods in Manchester, New Hampshire should probably be more prominent. Maybe a "main article" link at the top of the section. The prose still left in the city article would make a great lead section for the new list article. Dkriegls (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Record temps[edit]

In case there were any doubts, here are the November record highs (in °F) for some major (regional) cities on the Eastern Seaboard (i.e. south and east of the Appalachians) south of Manchester, NH:

  • Boston: 83
  • Providence, RI: 81
  • Hartford, CT/Springfield, MA: 83
  • Albany, NY: 82
  • New York: 84
  • Scranton, PA: 80
  • Allentown, PA: 81
  • Harrisburg, PA: 84
  • Philadelphia: 84
  • Baltimore: 87
  • Washington, DC: 86
  • Richmond, VA: 86
  • Norfolk, VA: 86
  • Raleigh, NC: 85
  • Greensboro, NC: 88
  • Charlotte, NC: 85
  • Wilmington, NC: 87
  • Greenville, SC: 86
  • Columbia, SC: 90
  • Charleston, SC: 88
  • Atlanta: 84
  • Savannah, GA: 89
  • Jacksonville, FL: 88
  • Orlando, FL: 89
  • Tampa, FL: 90
  • Miami: 91
  • Key West, FL: 91


Even though NOAA/NWS's period of record for Scranton/Wilkes-Barre dates only back to 1948, I rest my case. GotR Talk 18:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weather.com has 91 as the record in Manchester in November, see [1] and select the "record high" check box. That's a reliable source. You need a different reliable source to say that is wrong. Sorry, "It doesn't feel right" doesn't cut it. --Jayron32 21:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weather Undergound has the record high temperature for November occurring on November 27, 1954, and lists 91 degrees. Again, if you have a source that corrects this, that's fine. But you can't go on feelings alone. --Jayron32 21:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it isn't "Verifiability trumps truth", but "Verifiability and truth". My conclusions are not based on feeling, as you falsely accuse me, but on what is physically possible–only Columbia, SC and the southern half of Florida have 90 °F+ November records. Analogous, Simply because Weather.com has Boston's record low at −30 °F does not make Boston's record low −30 °F. See my talk for clarification. GotR Talk 22:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what you say is the truth? You've not established that with any sources? As far as I know, that figure is true, and I have no reason to believe that either Weather Underground or Weather.com is deliberately deceiving me or has faulty methods in their determinations. I've never said that verifiability trumps truth. I'm merely saying that a) I wasn't in Manchester in 1954 to know myself and b) two reliable sources both report that number. So, how do I know the number isn't true? Because you're not comfortable with the number based on a random collection of other numbers you found? --Jayron32 23:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop playing dumb. These "numbers" are not a "random collection" if you create a scatterplot with each city's latitude on the X-axis and the corresponding Nov. record high on the Y-axis. Barring everything else, lower latitude → higher sun angle → warmer non-summer temperatures. Until you illuminate me otherwise, there is nothing that can plausibly explain why Manchester, NH has a more extreme NOV high than almost all the locations above or how it can, as compared to OCT, despite significantly reduced sunshine, host a significantly higher NOV record.
We editors are behooved to learn not to immediately accept anything and everything, as illustrated by my example for Boston. And AFAIK, Weather.com and Weather Underground derive their averages from NOAA, which, as you should know from their supposed magical heat island in Baltimore, is not error-free. GotR Talk 00:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not playing dumb. What I am saying is that if NOAA is wrong, then show me a source which says they are wrong. It's quite simple: find something, anything, written in the entire world that contradicts the above. Not just your own feelings on the matter, but something someone wrote down in another reliable source. I've never said that NOAA was infallible. I'm just asking for a source to show they are wrong here. --Jayron32 00:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's to hide?[edit]

We watch BYUtv "Story Trek"[2] where they do stories of citizens in rural and urban neighborhoods. They were in Manchester, New Hampshire, and were told by police in two patrol cars that it would be illegal to do such a story in Manchester. What's that about? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)-- Is there a lawyer in the house?[reply]

I don't know, but it doesn't sound like it has anything to do with this article. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger rail (future)[edit]

There's a section in the article entitled "passenger rail (future)". Has this happened? Does this section need to be updated or deleted? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Manchester, New Hampshire[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manchester, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air Travel[edit]

I am not certain I understand the value to include all of the major New England airports in this section in a fairly localized article. I would suggest removing all information about air travel in this section from the words "Alternative airports include". Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Manchester, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Manchester, England from the 'Sister Cities' section[edit]

There is no evidence online of Manchester, NH and Manchester, England having any signed agreement to be sister cities. Manchester, England website makes no mention of Manchester, NH: https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/info/100004/the_council_and_democracy/5903/international_civic_links

I managed to find that there was a proposal made back in 2013 but it looks like nothing ever proceeded past that. https://www.fosters.com/article/20130211/AP02/302119981?template=ampart

So I've removed it from the page as the original edit back in 2017 was made with zero citations from an anonymous IP that has since been blocked for vandalizing Wikipedia. Flibblesan (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anselm College[edit]

A veteran editor has removed mention of St. Anselm College from the article's list of educational institutions, making the obvious point that the college is not located within the city limits. The deleted text in fact made that point as well and served to correct a common mistake by reporters and others who write that the college is in Manchester. I spent hours finding and correcting as many Wikipedia articles as I could which repeated the mistake; there were dozens. So this is a check to see if anybody still reads this talk page. Should we or should we not mention the fact that St. Anselm is regularly and mistakenly believed to be in Manchester? I suppose someone in rebuttal could say, "Harvard isn't in Manchester either", or any other college, but the fact is that it is an extremely common mistake to place St. Anselm in Manchester. Ken Gallager (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the deleted text, so people won't have to search through the edit history:
Ken Gallager (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And less than one month later, an editor puts St. Anselm back into the list, incorrectly listing it on the Manchester/Bedford border. I will restore a version of the above text so as to head off further well-meaning attempts. Ken Gallager (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation section[edit]

I added details about the bus service, and how that service has been cut back in recent years. But it looks like most of that was removed from the article, and I'm just not sure why. It's especially odd to see such a tiny Bus section now, compared to the long Passenger Rail section. After all, there is bus service in Manchester today but no passenger rail service. And let's be honest, the chances of passenger rail ever returning to the state of NH is very low. So why not cut down on the rail talk and give readers more useful information about the bus? DakaCookies (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester,_New_Hampshire&oldid=1211472421"