Jump to content

Talk:Pioneer Valley

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

Several Large Bookstores?

[edit]

Admittedly, I live I Franklin county, but I thought that aside from the Barnes & Noble in Hadley, the largest bookstores in Hampshire county were the tow-store local Raven chain and the giant, but one store Odyssey.

I won't contradict you without further information, since I'm only familiar with the downtowns of Noho, Amherst, SHadley and the Hadley Malls, but where, praytell?

--Quintucket 21:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Overlapping articles

[edit]

This article has significant overlap with Connecticut River valley and Connecticut River. I've listed them on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles with the idea that a merge would make sense (at least of Pioneer Valley and Connecticut River valley). How many different articles on this region does it make sense to have? -- Rbellin 23:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. We should deal with overlap and possibly move content between pages, but since this (Pioneer Valley) is listed as a distinct region of Mass in the template, it needs its own article. Rhobite 22:49, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, and also, the Connecticut River Valley is a geographic region spanning eight states. The difference is that the Connecticut river is really just the river, the Connecticut River Valley is the river, its towns, several inland towns, and the river's geology, and the Pioneer Valley is a part of Western Massachusetts only. If you live here, they're all distinct. --Quintucket 20:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Look, I'm not saying that the topics of these three articles are exactly the same. But -- to me, at least -- it would make sense for one article to cover (a) the river, (b) the surrounding geography and culture, and (c) the specific Massachusetts portion (where I, too, lived for many years). The benefit of this would be reduction in duplicated content and no need to keep articles in sync, re-factor, or move material between them. I don't mind the idea of retaining three separate articles, and since there's disagreement I will withdraw the proposed merge. But these articles need serious re-factoring and more prominent links to each other, and they're just not very good right now -- it looks to me like there is about one good article's worth of material spread around the three of them. -- Rbellin 21:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree that there is a problem. The articles do have a lot of overlap, and the writing style and organization are lacking, for instance it's redundant to have sections called "people" and "demographics." We should work on cleanin them up. Rhobite 21:10, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
That's my fault, I expanded the Pioneer Valley article, and then created the CRV article to explain the difference, but I don't know enought about the NH, CT, and northern VT, sections to make it into a good article. I could add a bit about The Brattleboro-Guilford-Putney area, and Keene, but I'm really familiar with very little of the non-MA valley. I hope to learn more eventually, but in the meantime, I'm hoping that someone from Connecticut, Coos county, or Northern Vermont will add something, or at least somebody who knows something. I had meant people to be a subsection of demographics, but I guess that I made it one heading too large.
I'll work on cleaning them up a bit this weekend. It's a habit that I have when I write something that it's always fairly incoherent at first, due to my tendency to slip into tangents. Quintucket 21:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is considerable overlap with Western Massachusetts too. OK, why not merge P.V. into Connecticut River Valley and let Massachusetts and Western Massachusetts link to it? P.V. could simply redirect. Granted, P.V. is different from the upper valley, but it's still part of CRV. If we don't do this, either we need to break the CRV into two or more articles, or maintain parallel text in several places, and that sux. LADave 23:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valley women

[edit]

The "valley women" section is absolute garbage. It's original research and is unverifiable. I'm not going to break the 3 revert rule by removing it, but I need to express my opinion of the section here. It is totally unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, which requires that authors submit verifiable material. Rhobite 01:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

here as a result of RfC. I Agree w/ Rhobite and rv'd accordingly--FRS 02:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very much so. RGTraynor 08:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, with the proviso that if there were such a stereotype and if it were widespread (referenced in crass newspaper editorials, unkind talk shows, distasteful comedy routines, etc.) it could possibly be included if good, verifiable source citations were provided. Did I qualify that enough? I mean, "little old ladies in tennis shoes" is real enough to have become the title of a play. What was there was, however, exactly as Rhobite characterizes it, should definitely be removed, and should not be reinserted. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yah- definatley remove Sethie 23:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even still a live discussion? Sethie 04:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

[edit]
  • "Over the last three decades the archetype of the "Valley Woman" has emerged." - no it hasn't. Please cite a mainstream use of this term.
  • "These Valley Women are generally extremely liberal in their political views since many of them grew up during the 1960's" - conjecture
  • "It is not uncommon for them to sport natural grey hair, sometimes in the form of a mullet, and on occasion accented with a rat tail." - juvenile and uncited, sweeping generalization
  • "Valley Women are often found driving Subarus plastered in political bumper stickers." - sweeping generalization
  • "They also often congregate at the Whole Foods Market in Hadley" - sweeping generalization
  • "Valley Women are undeniably a cultural phenomenon of the Pioneer Valley" - if they are a 'cultural phenomenon' there have been articles written about them. Rhobite 02:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Valley Women section is unsourced and, even if there were citations supporting it, nevertheless unencyclopedic. IronDuke 20:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming?

[edit]

I admit that there are plenty of cultural niches I don't follow, but to have the primary cultural breakdowns be Art, Bookstores, and Gaming is not what I'd call a fair representation. "Art" as a broad grouping is fair -- the area's undeniably rich in the arts. The area is well-known in New England, at least, for its many bookstores. Their presence is almost a tourist magnet. But I have a hard time believing that "Gaming" is nearly pervasive enough a part of culture to merit top-level categorization within "Culture." Music should be there, and more could fit.

I'm not denigrating game-playing, but it is not a defining characteristic of the Valey. If one wants it to be, then just saying it is in a Wikipedia article is not where one ought to start.18.173.1.42 18:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an avid RPG and board gamer myself, and I agree; it's a fringe activity at best, indulged in by a mere fraction of the population. RGTraynor 19:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

The Five Colleges are mentioned (and now listed) twice for Hampshire County. Actually I think I prefer the second way (listed under "Culture" instead of "Demographics"), but as it is now it's redundant. Other opinions? Stev0 06:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map Colors are Poorly chosen

[edit]

I hate picking on something that took effort from someone else, especially when I'm not in the position to fix it myself through a general lack of expertise or aesthetic/artistic skill. However, the colors on the map really should be changed. I see no orange, unless the large yellow part is in fact the orange listed in the caption, in which case, the yellow is missing. Choosing a peach color for the map generally, then orange, yellow, pink etc. just adds to the inability to tell things apart. Please choose bold contrasting colors. Black, red, blue, green, orange, white, and even an appropriate shade of grey not too close to black or white. The purpose of a figure in general is to enlighten the viewer, not sow further confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.102.88 (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map colors don't seem to indicate anything useful and the caption adds to the confusion, misidentifying towns completely. A replacement map is needed. --Crunch (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The orange town in question is Deerfield, not Greenfield. --Prlambert76 (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culture section

[edit]

The entire Culture section is currently unsourced and also completely made up. Lesbian capital of the United States? It is certainly just like the Pixies song? {Gephydro —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

File:AIC Spfld.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:AIC Spfld.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) 01:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mattoon2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Mattoon2.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) 01:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BORRRINNNG

[edit]

how can u people read this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.234.37 (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's Wikipedia B-Movie Fan (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Valley name

[edit]

I didn't see mention of this in the article and I need to do some more research since a cursory online search turned up nothing but I had read years ago that the name "Pioneer Valley" was a marketing term coined by several local Chambers of Commerce in the early 20th century. This makes sense as you drive around the major roads of the time and enter the "Pioneer Valley". There are signs in "odd" places that don't really mark the boundaries of the Connecticut River Valley. For example, there is a sign on Rte 5 in Longmeadow that says entering and leaving the Pioneer Valley but it's also not on the CT/MA border as the article indicates. There's also a sign on Rte 2 in western Franklin County that is neither in the Valley or at the county border. If someone has any further information, please post it. Dbroer (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pioneer Valley. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pioneer Valley. 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: 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) 11:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pioneer_Valley&oldid=1204414156"