Talk:New London, Connecticut

message: :As world research headquarters of the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, New London and Groton have given birth to many drugs, including Viagra.
This wording is almost too funny to be true. Since when do drug companies procreate? I suggest: "many well-known drugs have been developed in New London and Groton, such as Viagra and atorvastatin". <BR>JFW | T@lk 10:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL Funny 

message: Something is amiss with the references section--looks like a bug, but I don't know where to report it if so. I tried editing the section above in case that was causing the problem, but couldn't find anything wrong there. I suggest linking to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=new+london&_cityTown=new+london&_state=04000US09&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010 if someone can fix this... Szarka 15:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something is amiss with the references section

message: Done a day or two ago, logging it here now. -- OWL | Talk 03:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference section cleaned up 

message: Using the latest standard template, I have prepared a new infobox for this article.
Please look it over at User_talk:OWL/Infobox_City_of_New_London [will not be retained --OWL | Talk 08:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworked Infobox available for review and comment. 

message: # Freed-up 'footnotes' area by moving lat.-long. 'coordinates' display to 'map-caption.'
# Revised coordinates to point to Courthouse instead of P.O.
# Amended 'elevation_ft' data from 50' to 82' per EarthTools.org.
# Tidied up Infobox display by using  to disable the expanding of external links. (I.e., the little square-and-arrow icons don't appear on external links in the Infobox anymore.)
--OWL (Talk) 06:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Infobox City' revised for appearance 

message: Please see discussion at Talk:New London. --Polaron | Talk 13:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to redirect "New London" to "New London, Connecticut" 

message: Comments are expressly invited. Writer, a 3rd generation New Londoner and a new Wikipedian, intends to offer more contributions to this article. If this can be done differently or better, he'd like to know. --RalphThayer 08:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Expanded Intro 

message: With the latest edit, the new outline for the article is:
* (Introduction)
* Geography
* Demographics
* Government
* History
* Prominent features
* Notable residents
* Literature
* Local Music
* See also
* References
* Additional Reading
* External links
The intent in moving the History section from its place before the Geography and Demographics sections to behind them is not to understate the importance of the topic. Quite the contrary. The reader can have a better understanding of the History material if he has already been briefed on the "lay of the land" and the relatively dry though necessary descriptions of today's New London.
Also, sections about Prominent Features and Notable Residents -- most of which are historical -- will be more informative if the reader has the History story fresh in mind. New London is so rich in history that the History section should be the fulcrum and centerpiece of the article. The new location of the History section helps make it so.
Review and comment, please?
RalphThayer 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move of History section 

message: Unless anyone has an objection and can think of an alternate solution, I'm going to remove all of the redlinked musicians and bands, which constitutes most of the list of New London musical artists. The list does not comply with Wikipedia list standards due to its open-ended nature, and as a result of this it has become a dung hill of self-promotion and advertisement. Nothing against the bands to be removed; I've heard some of them, and some of them are pretty good, but the don't belong in this corner of Wikipedia, at least yet. So, if there are any objections, let them be known, otherwise, by the end of the week I'll clean it up. -GlamdringCookies 22:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musicians list 

message: :Image:1977 Topps.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:1977 Topps.jpg

message: Somebody keeps changing the City Manager section in the infobox. It's gotten to the point where I have to keep checking this article every now and then to make sure it's correct. If anybody notices the infobox listing somebody OTHER than MIKE BRONITSKY as the city manager, please change it back?
Thanks,
Renee Dickens  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.207.136 (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  City Manager 

message: Several of the pictures need to be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons so they are available for other Wikipedia projects. --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess I'll be spending a nice evening with CommonsHelper :) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fifteen images were moved to Commons and the bot move cleaned up, two old bot moves were checked, and about 30 other New London images on Commons were recategorized. Done. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Under the heading "Literature", eight books are listed.  I'm not sure how this list of books relates to New London, or how it contributes to the article.  Thanks.  Richard Apple (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the Literature and Further Reading sections need to be gutted. Some of the Literature section is set in or related to New London, but it should be in prose form. The Further Reading is effectively useless - there are dozens of equally valuable books about the city - and it's basically spam at this point. Unless there are objections, I'll do the surgery soon. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of books 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on New London, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070808112910/http://www.census.gov:80/population/estimates/metro_general/List7.txt to http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro_general/List7.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080314164126/http://www.sots.ct.gov:80/RegisterManual/SectionVII/townorder.htm to http://www.sots.ct.gov/RegisterManual/SectionVII/townorder.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article could use some information about the local economy and major employers. -- Beland (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on New London, Connecticut. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Added  tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The last census was in 2010, and Wikipedia frequently keeps info on the previous census.  Also, if links and info on the article need updating, why don't you take a few minutes and update them?  Magnolia677 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In section 4.2 the Ocean Beach Park link redirects to Ocean Beach Park in San Diego CA which is obviously not the right place/page.  I don't know how redirects work so I don't know how to fix it myself.  I do not believe there is a page for Ocean Beach Park in CT, which is sad because I grew up across the street from it, but, maybe its just not notable enough.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.78.3.135 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The park certainly isn't famous and probably isn't even well-known outside of New London county.  I was born and raised in Western CT and never heard of it prior to now.  However, it's still a well-documented park of 50+ acres; I think that's sufficient enough to validate an article.  The real difficulty with smaller places like Ocean Beach is simply that the pool of potential authors is very small, usually limited to the handful of interested Wiki editors that live/lived in the immediate vicinity. Finding somebody that cares to write the article is the real challenge.  If you have the time and interest, then by all means, create an article for it. —Jgcoleman (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I live in the NL area and grew up going to Ocean Beach, but I don't know of any documentation that would support an article on its history. However, I did remove the incorrect link.  —Dilidor (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a very cursory search through web results on Google and then through advanced search on Google Books.  My impression is that there is useful material out there spread disparately on various websites and in some books on New London and Connecticut recreation/tourism, though probably only enough to put together a start-class article even when pooling information from 5 or 6 sources.  It would be a labor of love.  I  certainly don't have any special interest in writing it though, I was simply discussing the topic with the contributor.—Jgcoleman (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ocean Beach Park redirect is incorrect 

message: An editor of this article undoubtedly feels very strongly about the Kelo vs New London case and, admittedly, has done a very good job composing a thorough overview.  However, the fact of the matter is that said overview is more than excessive for a general article on the topic of New London. This is a phenomenon on municipality articles that I've observed over the past couple years in which fairly recent local news is afforded an undue degree of importance, and an undue amount of article real estate, almost entirely by virtue of the fact that it has happened to occupy our attention in the local media at some point during Wikipedia's relatively short history.  This article is supposed to contain information of general encyclopedic interest on New London, not a three-paragraph overview of one court case on one esoteric topic that took place in just the last 12 years of New London's 370-year history.  By comparison, only two sentences are dedicated to everything else related to New London government.  In fact, more has been written in this article on the topic of the Kelo case than almost every other topic the article addresses. Local news is valuable, but not necessarily encyclopedic (imagine if every auto accident on I-95 reported in the news was recorded on the I-95 article). When determining the encyclopedic import of local news for a Wikipedia municipality article, my rule of thumb is to address the topic as it would be written about 50 years from now.  In other words, if an ordinary person is reading this article 50 years from now (at a point in time well removed from the topic as a current topic), would he or she most likely scratch their head at why such long-winded explanation is offered for a relatively narrow topic in the New London article? If so, then it should probably be significantly reduced or removed altogether. My impression is that the Kelo case really ought to be condensed into one succinct paragraph, at most, to bring it more within the scope of a general interest article. If a reader happens to be very interested in the particulars of the case, then they are free to peruse the cited reference material to gain more detailed insight. I'm posting here in the talk page to offer an opportunity for discussion before I go ahead and begin making editing a condensed version of the Kelo case. —Jgcoleman (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur entirely. I have done some heavy-edits in the past to neutralize bias and cut way back on the excess, but it is still far too much detail. In fact, I would suggest that the entire 3 paragraphs should be deleted and replaced with a single-sentence synopsis; as you point out, it is a small event in the city's 350+ years of history. However, please put a "see also" notice or equivalent at the top of the section which points to the Kelo v. City of New London article.  —Dilidor (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Jguttenburg, I think you might have not noticed the date difference? This version  of the article from February 2018 had a much longer (and overwrought) synopsis of the case, which diverged from what this article is about: the town. What exists today is reasonable, especially since the case has its own article. Markvs88 (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelo vs New London overview is excessive 

message: As noted previously by Markvs88, the subject is too short to warrant its own article, but long enough to be its own subsection. I maintain that the subject is significant enough to justify inclusion in the New London article, based on it's national news coverage, which is supported by over 215M references when searching the term "Jordan v New London" in Google. In deference to Dilidor, I have shortened the article significantly, and added additional citations. 
Perhaps including these significant court cases would be better placed under a different heading than "Government".
Jguttenburg (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a vast improvement, but you need a citation to support the final sentence. I still assert that this case is interesting only for its "laugh factor", particularly its smarmy media title of "too smart to be a cop." It did not set any legal precedent, and it had no long-range ramifications whatsoever. Nonetheless, I've left it alone.  —Dilidor (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reinstatement