Talk:Nantucket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Residents or vacationers?[edit]

I think we should make a distinction between true residents and second home owners. A resident lives in a place whereas many , perhaps most, of those listed live (reside) elsewhere. I propose we either split the list or rename it to be inclusive of second/vacation home owners. My preference is to split the list since I would find it useful to easily distinguish between those who actually live on the island and those who just visit. Jojalozzo 19:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, not all are sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, e.g. Don Callahan. Mentioning names here should be subject to WP:CITE with a reference demonstrating that they live or maintain a home here. I recommend commenting out entries that don't meet these criteria, until they do. User:HopsonRoad 23:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that notability must be determined by having an article or by citation. I disagree that we should relax the requirement to include home owners who are not legal residents. I would support splitting the list or changing the section title to "Notable residents and home owners" if we want to include non-resident notables. Jojalozzo 03:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Climate section[edit]

G. Capo added a useful climate summary. I encourage this entry to include references. User:HopsonRoad 13:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I added in the source for the Köppen climate classification. This is used to determine the criteria of the different climatesSsbbplayer (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Ssbbplayer, for that. I'd like to see a true reference here. The Köppen climate classification article itself mentions Nantucket explicitly under GROUP C: Temperate/mesothermal climates. However, there's no in-line reference in that paragraph at all, much less one that attributes the climate classification for Nantucket. Fig. 6 in the first reference (Peel, M. C. and Finlayson, B. L. and McMahon, T. A. (2007). "Updated world map of the Köppen–Geiger climate classification". Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11: 1633–1644.) doesn't appear to have enough resolution to discern the climatic classification of the Island. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 17:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Geography[edit]

The Geography section contains segments on Coatue beach, Hummock and Miacomet Ponds, the Popsquatchet Hills, and Squam Swamp that are unsourced or improperly sourced and contain non-notable material. They appear to reflect original research, which is disparaged in the Manual of Style. User:HopsonRoad 00:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ref request on people list[edit]

This is a simple list, such as you find in "see also." Presumably the ref request is on whether or not that person ever visited Nantucket; that is, why is that person on the list? That information is given in the blue link, which is an adequate ref. If it is not in the link, the name does not belong on the list. Where blue links provide adequate references you do not need notes. To put them in chokes the article with redundant references and defeats the purpose of having a simple list. Let us say you do have a ref. Then it goes in the article referenced by the blue link, so it would not appear here.Branigan 10:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your clean-up, Branigan. The reason for the ref request was that the source article did not necessarily connect the person listed with Nantucket. Many entries pertaining to living people smack of original research, especially since in an earlier iteration there were folksy descriptions of what part of the island the mentioned person lived. User:HopsonRoad 12:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Guidelines for adding entries to the list of notable residents and recurring visitors[edit]

Should we clarify guidelines for the content of #Notable residents or recurring visitors and, if so, how? Jojalozzo 18:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Yes - The section on notable residents or recurring visitors is a perennial point of friction on this page. I think we took significant steps when we restricted the list to residents and recurring visitors and when we agreed to require sources for new entries. I think we should emphasize our consensus not to include one-time or infrequent visitors in the comment at the top of the list and I think we should suggest the descriptive text be brief to avoid giving that list undue weight. Perhaps there is other guidance that we can agree on to reduce the likelihood of disputes arising over the content of that list. Jojalozzo 18:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes – Some proposed entries have been chatty and anecdotal. They appear to have been based on personal knowledge, rather than properly sourced, according to WP standards. Understandable as pride in the subject is, it's inconsistent with WP:NPOV. I commend Jojalozzo for his gentle discussion of this topic, here. User:HopsonRoad 19:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes in agreement with Jojalozzo and HopsonRoad. Jojalozzo's official proposal below seems to be the best as well. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • The current guidance comment for that sections is

    <!---Please include a reference to demonstrate that an entry is a recurring visitor or a resident--->

I propose adding guidance (see underlined suggestion below) to emphasize the exclusion of one-time or infrequent visitors and to keep explanatory text brief:

<!--- Please a) include a reference to demonstrate that an entry is a recurring visitor or a resident, b) do not add entries for one-time or infrequent visitors, and c) keep explanatory text simple and brief --->

Jojalozzo 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Concur with the added guidance above, proposed by Jojalozzo. User:HopsonRoad 19:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A list of visitors to a location is trivia, and needs to be purged. Visitors to ANY location, recurring or not, are generally not notable and non-encyclopedic.
  • Cited home-owner/residents can remain per guidelines, but may require a second article if it gets too large.
  • Any non-cited list elements should be purged.
  • Red links in a wiki-list are pretty much meaningless and should not appear, unless the article about that particular member will be written in a timely fashion.
  • Non-list articles should not contain link-farms.
Hope that helps. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
An interesting point, GenQuest: "Visitors to ANY location, recurring or not, are generally not notable and non-encyclopedic". It seems to me that an important part of Nantucket's notability is its list of recurring visitors. User:HopsonRoad 11:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Not so. It's is trivial to anybody not-local and is certainly non-encyclopedic. Can you imagine the bloated lists of "People visiting or vacationing in Chicago... New York City... Miami... Honolulu... etc." that could be added to articles? It's fancruft, pure and simple, and detracts from the article, as well as from Nantucket itself, which has plenty to offer besides a list of who may have once passed through there. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Your point is well taken. However, those communities are so large that it would be appropriate to mention that they are the permanent or seasonal homes to notable people in specified walks of life, without naming them. It's also noteworthy that they draw visitors from all over the world. Absent the recurring visits of glitterati, Nantucket would be much less notable than it is and only as notable as other attractive communities with interesting histories—e.g. Burlington, Vermont. User:HopsonRoad 23:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Implementation[edit]

I have placed the proposed text in the Notable residents or recurring visitors section multiple times, such that it can be seen at least once, as one edits a portion of the list. User:HopsonRoad 22:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I added "and d) person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry." to the criteria in order to keep the list manageable and populated with people who are notable by WP standards. User:HopsonRoad 23:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing RFC[edit]

I came here from WP:AN to assess onsensus. It's clear how to handle this issue, so no action from me is required. Chutznik (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Where to put miscellaneous items?[edit]

An editor placed the following unreferenced text in the Geology and geography section:

In the winter of 2013/2014, severe erosion of Siasconset Beach and Bluff placed several homes as well as Baxter Street and its utility corridor in jeopardy of falling into the sea. The SBPF (a homeowners association) and the Town of Nantucket jointly undertook action resulting in the installation of a 900 foot long geotextile tube (TITANTube) sand filled structure consisting of three tiers (rows) of tubes, sometimes referred to as geotubes, backfilled with sand cover.

Geology and geography are slowly changing attributes of the island. This contribution is more about current events or even climate change or possibly governmental action in maintaining the island's assets. Perhaps there should be a section where such contributions can fit better. User:HopsonRoad 02:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nantucket Lightship Basket[edit]

We need an image of a Nantucket Lightship Basket.

If you have one in your home, please take the baby out of it and put it into another basket. Then, get your camera out, take a photo of it, and upload it here. Then, return the baby to the Nantucket Lightship Basket and give it a nice bottle of warm milk. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Unenrolled vs. unaffiliated[edit]

The PIPE recently suggested the term, "unenrolled", instead of "unaffiliated" to describe Massachusetts voters, who have chosen not to be aligned with a party. It's clear at Massachusetts Directory of Political Parties and Designations that "unenrolled" is the correct term of art for that state. However, I feel that the term "unaffiliated" still speaks to a broader group of readers, who would puzzle, as I did about "enrolled". What do others think? User:HopsonRoad 17:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nantucket – Cape Cod[edit]

An editor is claiming the distance from Cape Cod to Nantucket is 30 mi. A simple measurement in Google Earth demonstrates that the distance from points along the shore from Harwich to Hyannis are about 18 miles to the National Wildlife Refuge on the northern tip of the island. Let's find a cited distance, e.g. the ferry route from Hyannis to Nantucket Town, and use that. User:HopsonRoad 21:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

By ferry it is 29.1 miles from Hyannis to Nantucket according to google maps (that includes a bit of road). Not seeing 18 miles unless perhaps from the far southern tip south of Chatham to the northern tip of the island. —DIY Editor (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess that's where the 30 miles comes from, but it's still WP:OR, either way! The 18 miles, is as you say. User:HopsonRoad 22:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
This source says 30 miles by ferry Hyannis-Nantucket:
  • Tessein, Terry (2003). Fly Fishing Boston: A Complete Saltwater Guide from Rhode Island to Maine. The Countryman Press. p. 224. ISBN 9781581578652.
User:HopsonRoad 22:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Nantucket becomes an island[edit]

Flooding of Buzzards Bay did not make Nantucket an island. That would have been flooding of parts of what is now Nantucket Sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C500:72A6:6D2C:3A19:F0D3:A8D8 (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed Good point! User:HopsonRoad 01:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nantucket, Massachusetts. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 04:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2018[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear, and it is reasonably noted that the political entity is subsumed into the geographical entity with identical boundaries. bd2412 T 16:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nantucket, MassachusettsNantucket – Nantucket is three things: a county, an island, and a town. I think it should be called by the new name because it is more concise. 2603:3005:802:3800:FC25:765B:CA38:908A (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support The article covers all three aspects of the term. Furthermore, "Nantucket, Massachusetts" is never invoked in idiomatic speech or writing, since there is only one Nantucket in the English lexicon—adding "Massachusetts" does not add clarity. From WP:NAMINGCRITERIA:
  • Recognizability – "Nantucket" is highly recognizable.
  • Naturalness – "Nantucket" is what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – "Nantucket" is unambiguous.
  • Conciseness – Adding "Massachusetts" is unnecessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with Martha's Vineyard.
User:HopsonRoad 15:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Note that the WP:USPLACE guideline exempts localities that are cited with one name in the AP Stylebook from being in the "locality, state" format, e.g. "Boston", "New Orleans", "San Francisco". Accordingly, one never sees "Nantucket, Massachusetts" in newsprint—only "Nantucket", likewise "Martha's Vineyard". User:HopsonRoad 16:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I see that Nantucket was moved to Nantucket, Massachusetts in February, 2017 with no apparent discussion, whatsoever. User:HopsonRoad 16:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
It's really hard to argue against moving it back. - Denimadept (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and User:HopsonRoad. Nantucket is more like other populated islands like Long Island or Oahu than, say, Miami Beach, Florida; it is notable as an island. The fact that Nantucket forms a single town of the same name is incidental to the topic. Look only next door to Martha's Vineyard or to any of the other Islands of Massachusetts to see that the superfluous state name is not applied in these cases. —  AjaxSmack  16:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support to match Martha's Vineyard. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per proposal. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support commonly known as an island, not a town. feminist (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support undo the original move. - Denimadept (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if as the nominator says, Nantucket is three separate things, there should be three separate articles. Keep the article on the town where it is, make Nantucket an article on the geographic feature, and make Nantucket County, Massachusetts about the county. John from Idegon (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Contrary to John from Idegon's !vote, Denver County, Colorado is merged into Denver, and Martha's Vineyard is a single article despite covering both the island and the city. ToThAc (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That's apples and oranges, ToThAc. Denver city and Denver county are a consolidated unit of government. Not the case here. We have one article on three separate subjects. John from Idegon (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • And I would contend that Martha's Vineyard is also being handled incorrectly. John from Idegon (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Martha's Vineyard is an island with six municipalities, each of which has a WP page. It's a constructive suggestion to have separate island, county, and municipality pages for Nantucket, but each would be a candidate for merging into this article since there wouldn't be much content in the government entity articles. It's really the island topic that dominates and that's the majority of content in this entry, thus what makes the name change appropriate. User:HopsonRoad 18:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:USPLACE says Articles on populated places in the United States are typically titled Placename, State (the "comma convention") A populated place (human settlement) is a community in which people live. Per the lead of this article, Nantucket is an island about 30 miles (50 km) by ferry south from Cape Cod, in the U.S. state of Massachusetts. There is no guidance stating that U.S. islands should be titled Island, State. Cape Cod has human settlements, but it's title isn't Cape Cod, Massachusetts. See also Staten Island, Alcatraz Island, Yerba Buena Island, North Bass Island and Mackinac Island. If there is no consensus here, this should still move back to its longstanding title from which it was boldly moved due to a more liberal interpretation of USPLACE. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC) And, of course, also Manhattan. wbm1058 (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Forbes article about home value[edit]

There is disagreement about whether to mention and reference a 2008 Forbes article listing most expensive zip codes, which included Nantucket among the highest. Since housing costs are an extremely important part of modern Nantucket life, I believe the article needs information reflecting the situation and this seemed a reasonable way to do it. I would like to return the reference; any reason why not? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up: I found a recent article on the same topic, rather than a 10-year-old item, and have placed it in the introduction. For casual readers who know of Nantucket only from old whaling stories, it's a valuable piece of information about the article's subject. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I concur completely, DavidWBrooks, and appreciate your finding an updated reference. Originally, Miketarq01 removed mention of real estate prices with the edit comment, "removed statistic with defunct source" and John from Idegon concurred with that edit. If it's the freshness of the citation that was of concern, then your edit should address that. If it's whether the relatively high cost of real estate isn't worthy of mention, then we have some more discussing to do. HopsonRoad (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Over-long list[edit]

The list of "notable residents and recurring visitors" is now 64 people long, which is idiotic - that's a trivia pit, not anything helpful to the reader. My personal preference would be to kill it entirely, since Nantucket attracts too many "notable" people to list, and replace it with a sentence or two somewhere in the article saying that many famous and important people own property or reside or regularly visit the island. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I see your concern, DavidWBrooks. However it seems that Nantucket should have the same basis for having notable residents as other places in WP. I suggest that we drop the "and recurring visitors" in the title and change the intro to: "While many notable people own property or regularly visit the island, the following are or have been notable residents of the island:". It would then be appropriate to go to the top section of each entry and prune out those that did not mention a period of residency on the island. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable approach. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 Implemented You can check to make sure that no stragglers remain! HopsonRoad (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Why enumerate Nantucket founders?[edit]

What is the value of enumerating all 31 names of Nantucket's founders? I propose eliminating at least all those without blue links. HopsonRoad (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per snowball clause (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)



NantucketNantucket, Massachusetts – Per WP:USPLACE. No reason to go against standard here. IWI (chat) 22:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose See consensus for the current name above at Talk:Nantucket#Requested move 6 January 2018. HopsonRoad (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nom and per the January 2018 discussion which provides reasons for the stand alone name (it's an island, etc.). There once was a man from Nantucket Randy Kryn (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated above. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. It's been a year, but the reasons for the page's current name haven't changed. ONR (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing has changed since the last RM. feminist (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unnecessary disambiguation, it appears that USPLACE only applies to settlements, not other kinds of places (unlike UKPLACE that also applies to other kinds of places such as islands eg Orsay, Inner Hebrides and Jura, Scotland but anyway only disambiguates if needed unlike the US). This is an island with a town on it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per all above. Nantucket is known as such, not "Nantucket, Massachusetts" as there are no other Nantuckets. Stereorock (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the previous responses. Calidum 19:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Demographic Change Resulting in Political Change[edit]

I recently made an edit that was reverted stating that the large political change in the island/county has occurred due largely to demographic change. I base this on the census results showing dramatic growth between the 1970 Census through 2000. This shows that the original population, even with natural growth (births), represents perhaps a third of the population today, the rest probably being transplants from elsewhere in ultra-liberal Massachusetts, or the Northeast in general.

I don't really have a horse in the race and this is cursory analysis, just noticed the change and figured this was the best explanation. The trend begins at least after 1976, where Gerald Ford got the vote by a greater margin than Reagan's nationwide landslide of 1984, and between 1970 and 1990 the population nearly doubled (3,770 - 6,000). This can't be accounted for by births alone, especially in Massachusetts where the non-immigrant birthrate is especially low. LikkerdySplit (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, here, LikkerdySplit. Wikipedia:No original research tells us that, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research", which is what inferences that you or I might make from what we see in presented data would be. Instead we rely on the research of others to provide those inferences, as presented through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

The etymology in the first lines contradicts the etymology in the section "Etymology". Can someone who knows how it is change it to be consistent, please? Kennin (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out, Kennin. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Original inhabitants?[edit]

There is precious little about the original Native American inhabitants of the island, and nothing whatsoever about what happened to them when the island was colonized by the English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.174.100 (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I specifcially visited this entry for this information and was suprised to see that there was nothing. Given their involvement in whaling history it seems odd to not be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.80.180 (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)