Talk:New London, Connecticut

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Connecticut High‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

LOL Funny

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".
JFW | T@lk 10:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Something is amiss with the references section

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)[reply]

Reference section cleaned up

Done a day or two ago, logging it here now. -- OWL | Talk 03:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked Infobox available for review and comment.

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)]. If there is no objection, I shall incorporate it into the article in this weekend. --OWL | Talk 02:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --OWL | Talk 08:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Infobox City' revised for appearance

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 <span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> 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)[reply]

Proposal to redirect "New London" to "New London, Connecticut"

Please see discussion at Talk:New London. --Polaron | Talk 13:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Expanded Intro

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)[reply]

Move of History section

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)[reply]

Musicians list

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:1977 Topps.jpg

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)[reply]

City Manager

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)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. I'm coming back to this page every day now to find somebody has changed it to Martin Berliner. Can we lock this page for editing? The City Manager is MIKE BRONITSKY.

Thanks, Renee Dickens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.207.136 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the New london government owned website the city's manager is Martin Berliner. the website is http://www.ci.new-london.ct.us/ as well as numerous articles in the New London Day online newspaper articles as recent as 1/27/08 listing Martin Berliner as the City manager.

--Avatar 06349 (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

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)[reply]

Guess I'll be spending a nice evening with CommonsHelper :) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of books

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New London, Connecticut. 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{dead link}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The population of New London could be updated. The census currently presented is from 2010 and then there is an entire section about the census in 2000. The Arts and Culture section of this article is a bit underrepresented. Most of the links are working correctly except for the "Ocean Beach" link under the Principle Communities section. Olivervail (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ocean Beach Park redirect is incorrect

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kelo vs New London overview is excessive

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Jgcoleman: Thanks for following up on this section—it is much more suited to the article now. —Dilidor (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgcoleman:Kelo v New London was a landmark case before the US Supreme Court (hardly "esoteric"), and is worthy of coverage in an article about the city, regardless of whether or not the issue received sufficient local media coverage at the time. Jguttenburg (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jguttenburg, I think you might have not noticed the date difference? This version [1] 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)[reply]

Jordan vs New London

Is there any plan to mention the city's other major case (Second Circuit), which ruled that the city was allowed to discriminate based on intelligence when hiring police officers (commonly known as "too smart to be a cop")? See http://www.aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html and https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-smart-to-be-a-cop/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jguttenburg (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Dilidor, would you please explain your consistent deletion on a cited point from a major news outlet? This was a federal case and is notable. Also, please explain the "there are errors, there are mis-spellings, there are many problems" comment you just made? I see none in the truncated text, nor is it wp:undue, though I do agree with you that the original version was far too long. Thank you, Markvs88 (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Markvs88: On the contrary, the material is far too short to warrant its own subsection. I would have merged it into the previous material, but it has nothing whatever to do with the Kelo case. Frankly, I think it's an insignificant case because it had no greater ramifications and involved only one resident, whereas Kelo had immense ramifications and affected the entire community. Nevertheless, if you think that the "smart cop" case is significant, you can certainly elaborate on it. But there will need to be enough explication to flesh it out to a full subsection.

On a separate note, never call out an editor in the subject header. —Dilidor (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too short? How does that work? First you removed the *much* longer version by Jguttenburg without putting anything into talk, then you removed my shorter re-addition, again without putting anything into talk. I agree of course that it has nothing to do with Kelo, but it doesn't have to, as it's not just one person. The judgement was awarded to the defendent: the New London local government was affirmed of its hiring practices. That's clearly relevant to the section. Remember, this was a Federal case [2]. I disagree with your POV there, this can very easily be made into its own article.

Re: the heading. I am sorry about that clearly my bad and I apologize. Markvs88 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstatement

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)[reply]

@Jguttenburg: 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)[reply]

I've added the citation as requested, and appreciate you leaving the article intact. Jguttenburg (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]