Talk:Merrimack Valley (Massachusetts)

message: Stoneice02 15:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In New Hampshire, the Merrimack Valley region occupies the entire center-southern part of the state, running north to south from Franklin to Nashua.  I live in Concord (in Merrimack County), and the term is in wide use north and south from here.  The list of towns is correct.--Ken Gallager 12:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I grew up in Tyngsboro, and I disagree with this. CSZero 23:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed cities?

message: * Disagree - They really are two different entities.  The Merrimack Valley (this article) is a natural, bi-state area with historical and commercial connections.  The "Merrimack Valley Region" is a specific sub-region of New Hampshire used by numerous organizations in the state to refer to the central part of the southern tier of the state, centered on the Merrimack River.  The two articles really do refer to two separate things.  --Ken Gallager 14:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Merrimack Valley Region?

message: * Agree - Even if they are separate regions, they are both part of the same geographic valley and should be perhaps sub sections of the same article. 209.6.159.88 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, we can have three articles.  Merrimack Valley Region -move to-> Merrimack Valley Region (NH).  The text that is in this article -move to-> Merrimack Valley Region (MA) [there is an equivilent massvacation region].  Merrimack Valley, this article, becomes a geography and history article.  What do we think? CSZero (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see my proposal here (which is in template namespace and nobody watches so nobody ever saw :-P) Template_talk:Massachusetts CSZero (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with CSZero.  It is necessary to preserve the NH region article in some form, because it is one of a complete group of New Hampshire region articles.  --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One more suggestion.  We move this article to MA like I said and leave NH alone.  However, the Merrimack Valley article becomes a disambiguation page for the most part, as the geographical, historical, etc stuff that applies to the valley as a whole belongs in the needing-work Merrimack River article.  I can get working on this maybe this weekend if people agree, and I don't think this article is very heavily watched, so those people may be Ken Gallager. CSZero (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I hear, "people" think that is a great idea! (And actually, I'd only been watching the NH page until today.)  The region and its historical development is so closely tied to the river that the river's own article is the most suitable place for it to be written about.--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Merrimack Valley - 2nd proposal

message: 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. 
Please see the discussion at Talk:Merrimack_Valley.  RK (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: Make '''[[Merrimack Valley]]''' a disambiguation page