Talk:Saint John River (Bay of Fundy)

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

St. John River a Bible Belt?[edit]

Did you know this area is labelled as being a Bible Belt? Stettlerj 21:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably confusion with the Florida St. John's river

Probably no confusion. I've heard the "upper Saint John River Valley" (i.e. Woodstock and area) referred to as the Bible Belt of New Brunswick a few times, though I doubt it belongs in this article. Kirjtc2 20:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. John vs Susquehana[edit]

This article lists the St. John as being the second longest between the Mississippi and the Saint Lawrence, after the Susquehanna_River.

However, it lists the length of the St. John's River at 418 miles, while the article on the Susquehana lists its length at 410 miles, which would make it the longest, a claim I've heard made for the Saint John's.

However, other sources such as [this] list the Susquehana as being longer (447 miles), which would make it the longer river.

Either way, one of the two is wrong, either this is the longest river in that stretch, or the Susquehana is longer. aapold

Yeah, I just saw that the Susquehana was written as shorter... What's up? Which is it?DDD DDD 08:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Susquehanna article was wrong, fixed it's length there. Kmusser 14:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

It's the Saint John River. I do some mapping work for the New Brunswick government and it's always spelled that way. Kirjtc2 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always? I have seen maps ranging from back in the 1600s until early 1900s, all of these maps which refer to that specific river as St. John River do not write out "Saint". Only the city of Saint John is written out. —

Hi,@JaimieAnne: please take a look at the section a little farther down this page, headed Standardized name form to Saint John River. Although in practice both forms are used, "Saint" is the official one according to Natural Resources Canada's Geographical Names Board. If you scroll down a bit you'll find a link to the entry. So Saint John River is the correct name, and it's also the title of the Wikipedia article about the river. By the way, it's a good idea to sign your comments with four tildes like this ~~~~. That way your username and the date and time of your comment will be recorded. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed image[edit]

File:St john river looking south from woodstock, nb.JPG
looking south from Woodstock, NB

--John Bessa (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized name form to Saint John River[edit]

The official name is Saint (not St.) John River. See this entry at the Geographical Names Board: http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique/DAEEJ. And the WP article title uses the form Saint John River. So I've corrected the name throughout the article. HazelAB (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reframe as geography article[edit]

I think the content of this article is too heavily weighted towards history. Most (all?) of that info is amply and better covered in History of New Brunswick, History of Saint John, History of Fredericton, Expulsion of the Loyalists, History of the Acadians, etc. I think the article should look more like Miramichi River. If editors think that the St John River has its own cultural identity then there could be a separate article; e.g. Nova Scotia peninsula vs. Nova Scotia. I propose adding quality ref'd geographical info and removing much of what is poorly ref'd WP:REDUNDANTFORK. --Cornellier (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This river is a major transportation corridor initially defining tribal territory of first nations whose strength and alliances kept it an effectively independent border area through the colonial period until today's political subdivisions were established in 1842. Much of the resource extraction, agricultural and industrial development, and building of riverside communities, road and rail alignments, bridges, and hydropower has been determined by historical border understandings. As such, this river article is more suitable than political geography to summarize history otherwise needlessly fragmented into related elements best understood if presented together in the context of the river which shaped them. The integrated framework you discarded allowed links to the amplifying history articles as appropriate to reader interest and background. Thewellman (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Not "political geography"; my intention is to bring the contents into line with the discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rivers on what comprises river notability, namely hydrology, boundaries, transportation, flora and fauna, water resources, recreation, hydropower, etc. So my goal would be to add information on those subjects, which I've been doing. It's an article about a river! I will add "links to the amplifying history articles" in the history section, if that's what you mean. --Cornellier (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Proposed goal is to make the article more like this featured article: St. Johns River. --Cornellier (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented your suggestion in the absence of support for my own. Thewellman (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see comment at Talk:Wolastoq which I assume is the page mentioned. --Cornellier (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant page?[edit]

Why is this page separate from Wolastoq when both pages cover the same river? This is made even more confusing by the fact that both page names point to essentially the same thing. Blorper234 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the previous section of this talk page to review the disagreement which caused creation of a separate article to replace information deleted by another editor. Thewellman (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, shouldn't Wolastoq be renamed to something more clear such as "History of the Saint John River"? Blorper234 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I am open to ideas as to why the suggested name might be more useful, I don't presently see any advantage to such a name change. I doubt History of the Saint John River would be any easier to find than the present title, which appears as a main article link in the Human history section of this article, while changing the name would require at least a redirect for individuals searching on the original name of the river. I'm still of the opinion this information would best be integrated into the Saint John River article. Thewellman (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that "History of the Saint John River" would be more intuitive and a better "summary" of the actual article. If I were looking for the history of the Saint John River, I would search "History of the Saint John River", and not "Wolastoq". Blorper234 (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you Blorper; indeed I made that suggestion at Talk:Wolastoq earlier this year. You could support the notion there. --Cornellier (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANADA Discussion concerning this page[edit]

There is a discussion occurring at WP:CANADA's discussion board concerning this page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and/or Merger of Wolastoq into this page[edit]

I have nominated Wolastoq for deletion (or merger into this page). The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolastoq.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_John_River_(Bay_of_Fundy)&oldid=1199119545"