Talk:Connecticut River

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

Caused by subduction?[edit]

If the Connecticut River was indeed caused by subduction and not rifting, then I was wrong. But exactly how did subduction have a part in its creation? How was the river valley formed? What constitutes its geology? These details belong in this article. Alas, I do not know them well. :P - Gilgamesh 07:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tributaries[edit]

Does someone still think this section should be split off? Jim.henderson 01:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. The page is only 13k, and the section isn't that big either.
—wwoods 15:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization[edit]

This is a small point, but since I made the change, I thought I'd add an explanation here. I had added this article to a number of categories and another editor, acting in good faith I'm sure, deleted them, probably because there is a Connecticut River category and that category was thought a sufficient link. I looked around to see if we have a guideline or policy against doing this, and we do. See Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule as well as Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines. So if Category:Connecticut River is a subcategory of Category:Long Island Sound, the article "Connecticut River" is also listed in Category:Long Island Sound. Noroton 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox formatting issue[edit]

In Firefox, the "Drift Boat Fishing Guide" photo overlaps and covers some of the text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.167.130 (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can we improve this article?[edit]

It clearly needs more detail. I've added some really good books in the "Additional reading" section which are ripe for use, but I can't do this alone. In fact, it's not really my focus. - Denimadept (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref links didn't work??[edit]

I added ref links of the form <ref>[http://blah.com title]</ref> and the results look quite wrong. What'd I do wrong? This is in the Water Quality section. - Denimadept (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need Geological History[edit]

The The Mashantucket Pequot Museum exhibits start with a section on the last ice age covering the area, and goes into the processes that formed the Connecticut River valley. I was hoping to find at least as much information here, but the geological history is missing. But I just turned up this link with some background. http://www.wesleyan.edu/ctgeology/Glacial/GlacialGeology.html (64.252.144.18 (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, there's a start. You're welcome to do the research and expand the article. If you're working on a school project, add your report to the article after you get the graded assignment back from your teacher. Wouldn't want to be accused of plagiarizing yourself, right? - Denimadept (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know this is more than 4 years late, but I just found more. I added the "Abyssal Depths" reference, which appears to be a page about the biology of the Connecticut River at the site of the French King Bridge. There's a lot of stuff there we apparently don't know much about. - Denimadept (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watershed?[edit]

The article needs a map of the river's watershed. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Memorial Bridge 1922.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Memorial Bridge 1922.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Valley (region centered roughly on Hanover, NH)[edit]

"Upper Valley" redirects to "Connecticut River". I don't know if there's an agreed-upon definition of this unofficial region straddling the VT/NH border and centered roughly on Hanover, NH. In fact, I came to wikipedia to find out that exactly. FWIW, the website of the Upper Valley Chamber of Commerce provides a list of about 50 "Upper Valley Towns": http://www.uppervalleychamber.com/uvtowns.html The Valley News, a newspaper based in Lebanon, NH bills itself as "the news source for the Upper Valley" and lists about 25 towns on this "about the Upper Valley" page: http://www.vnews.com/uppervalley.html

Should there be an Upper Valley page defining what towns are part of this region? Or a section on the Connecticut River page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabulous (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At one time it was a separate stub but never developed into a full article. Other editors eventually merged them all into this article. I agree that the Upper Valley region is sufficiently well-defined and documented that it could use its own article. Have at it! --Ken Gallager (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At very least, an explanation in this article as to what the Upper Valley is would be helpful. 76.118.43.224 (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've put an initial two sentences in the river geography section. Obviously much more can be said, and if the thing takes off, it would be good to move it to its own article. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of the article doesn't seem to follow WikiProject Rivers very well. Was this intentional? Student7 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it just grew that way. - Denimadept (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Connecticut River. 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: 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Connecticut River. 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) 05:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the beginning of the river be more specific?[edit]

This may seem as kinda stupid but I had a thought thinking that maybe the size of the river when it is small at 4th Connecticut lake should be detailed. It's just a thought B-Movie Fan (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every river is tiny at the source; saying that it's tiny at the source doesn't tell the reader anything. If it had an unusual beginning - if, say, the river emerged from an underground cavern already three feet wide and flowing fast - then it would be worthy of mention. But otherwise, detailing it at the source is like saying "the water in the Connecticut River is wet". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here that the "beginning" of the river doesn't hold particular importance. However, I feel as though the differences between the narrow northern regions and the wide mouth of the river could be better demonstrated with some graphics. When you're fishing the mouth of the river for Striped Bass it seems wild that the you could be wading for trout in Canada in the same body of water.Quesadi11a (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that is the case for every single river in the world (unless, like the Merrimack River, it is said to "begin" at the confluence of two existing rivers). You can wade through the Nile and the Congo and the Amazon at some point near their start. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wildlife or fish[edit]

I'm thinking of mentioning the wildlife or fish or something about up there. There are a couple of online sources about the 4th lake and it's fish and how it might affect the river and the other lakes. Or should any 4th lake info be on it's own lake page? It would make a bit more sense for the lake to have it's own page with lake info than the Connecticut River page. Because there is a pretty reliable source that mentions the types of fish, and the amount of water it discharges and how the lake affects the river, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Movie Fan (talk • contribs) 16:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is rather large, it might be appropriate to place the information in the Fourth Connecticut Lake section of the Connecticut Lakes article. Thewellman (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. thank you. :) B-Movie Fan (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sites of interest[edit]

I think the "sites of interest" section should be removed - wikipedia is not a travel guide, and this list is weirdly arbitrary and subjective. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's currently weighted to one specific area. Applying the same weight to the rest of the watershed would result in an extremely long list. The only way I could see keeping a list would be if it only referred to sites whose purpose was learning about the river itself. The only one in the list meeting that criterion right now is the Connecticut River Museum, so for now the list should go. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone. Let's see if anybody objects. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Only" state capital[edit]

Following a quick mention of this in the Wikimedia Discord, I'd like to discuss the sentence Hartford, the Connecticut River's second-largest city and only state capital, is at the southern end of this region on an ancient floodplain that stretches to Middletown. Focusing on the word only, it seems the sentence is referring to Hartford as one of the cities specifically along the river. So, assuming a source confirms this, this actually means that Hartford is the only capital city of any state that's along the river, which makes sense to mention considering there could otherwise be more than one of them. Thoughts? {{u|Bsoyka}} talk 03:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:2601:182:281:A1C0:0:0:0:A744, User talk:Trainsandotherthings, User talk:DavidWBrooks. {{u|Bsoyka}} talk 03:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see - my error. As the sentence stood I read it as being Connecticut's only state capital, which of course would be silly. Maybe we could tweak the wording so it's clear we're talking about the only capital of any state? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the wording is a bit strange, what do you have in mind? {{u|Bsoyka}} talk 14:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made an effort - what do you think? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, it seems like a stupidly trivial thing to say. Second largest city seems relevant, but most rivers have zero state capitals, and I'm not sure any have more than one. Why even mention it? --Jayron32 17:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not necessary or important. As long as it's clear what is meant I don't think there's any harm. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of trivia, there are three state capitals on the Missouri River - both Dakotas and Missouri. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Connecticut_River&oldid=1194703669"