Talk:Dover, Delaware

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dover, Delaware article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

United States: Delaware High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Delaware portal This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as High-importance).

Cities: Regional capitals

	Cities portal 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
	This article is supported by the project's regional capital taskforce.

Population estimate

Alright, this back Alright, this back and forth on the wording about the 2006 estimated population is getting ridiculous. The last edit summary stated "rv edit containing unsourced claim that the estimate was made prior to 2007; all we know is that it was published on June 28, 2007; we don't know when the estimate was made." This revision and many other before are based on statements that are incorrect. The sentence regarding the population estimate is cited with a reference to [1]. This source clearly states that the estimate from the Census is from July 2006 and was published in July 2007. The reverted wording "As of July 2006, the population was estimated to be 34,735." states the facts and provides a source. Despite the revision's edit summary, it is a sourced statement about an estimate from July 2006, plain and simple. Additionally, as an estimate, an exact date of July 1 does not need to be stated. It is overly specific for a number that is only an estimate. I am reverting this again and ask that the wording not be changed without a clear explanation of how it is incorrect. VerruckteDan 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two dates that are relevant in this discussion. First, there is the date the estimate is for: that's July 1, 2006. Second, there is the date the estimate was made. The date the estimate was made is the date on which the US Census Bureau arrived at the conclusion that the number they would publish as the July 1, 2006 estimate for Dover was 34,735. This date is unknown to us.

It is therefore important that the article does not say anything about when the estimate was made. All the article should state is the date the estimate is for.

Let us compare the reverted wording "As of July 2006, the population was estimated to be 34,735." to the sentence "As of March, we were down to three teachers.". This sentence means that someone could have said in March: "We are down to three teachers." So, could someone have said in July 2006: "The population of Dover is estimated to be 34,735."? Not unless the estimate had been made at the time of speaking. Had it? We have no way of knowing.

The "unsourced claim" in the sentence "As of July 2006, the population was estimated to be 34,735." concerns the date the estimate was made.

Timeineurope 01:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sentence "As of March, we were down to three teachers" means "In March, we were down to three teachers" or "By March, we were down to three teachers." It doesn't imply anything at all about when a statement was made about how many teachers there were in March. It's a simple past-tense sentence, as is the version of the sentence you're continually reverting. The "as of (date)" construction is frequently used on Wikipedia, and indeed is often linked: See the articles linking to "as of 2006". --Malepheasant 01:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read more carefully. I never said it implied anything about when a statement was made about how many teachers there were in March. What I am saying is that for the sentence "As of March, we were down to three teachers" to be true, it must have been possible for someone to say in March: "We are down to three teachers." Timeineurope 01:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, because at first there were five teachers. Two of them left without telling anybody (or each other) so only three remained, but nobody knew about it until April. This is roughly akin to what a census (or census estimate) attempts to enumerate: Data are analyzed and a figure is assigned to a date after that date has passed. In the interest of readability, Wikipedia has to assume a certain baseline knowledge among readers of an article about a specific topic -- in this case, a reader coming upon a population statistic should have a basic understanding of what a census (or a census estimate) is and how it works. Editors needn't jump through hoops attempting to explain this in every article about every governmental unit in the country, because to do so is distracting from the topic, especially in the lead section, and especially when it results in a sentence structure that is dramatically atypical to those of similar articles. --Malepheasant 03:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First: The point is that for the sentence "As of March, we were down to three teachers." to be true, the sentence "We are down to three teachers." must have been true in March.

Second: Wikipedia just cannot include incorrect information. The sentence "As of July 2006, the population was estimated to be 34,735." has not been shown to be correct.

Compare the sentences "On July 1, 2006, the city had an estimated population of 34,735." and "As of July 2006, the population was estimated to be 34,735.". Is it really the case that the first is "distracting from the topic" and the second isn't? It is the case that the first is verifiable and the second isn't.

I fail to see how my sentence is "dramatically atypical to those of similar articles", not to mention why it would matter.

Timeineurope 04:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing about the statement "As of July 2006, the population was estimated to be 34,735." that is un-sourced/unverifiable/incorrect. There are no 2 relevant dates to this situation, the date is July 2006, that is when this estimate was accurate per the Census Bureau's analysis. The date the estimate was made is irrelevant, and never mentioned or implied in the above statement. The "As of" wording tells readers exactly that: As of "date" the population was estimated to be "number". Where does this make any reference to a date other than the date the estimate is for? This is the common method of presenting Census estimates across Wikipedia and therefore I think it can be presumed that readers are familiar with the wording and understand the meaning. Given this, I don't see a compelling reason to change the wording from the "As of" method. VerruckteDan 13:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First: The "As of" wording is not the problem. I'd be perfectly fine with "As of July 1, 2006, the city had an estimated population of 34,735.".

Second: The date the estimate was made is implied in the sentence "As of July 2006, the population was estimated to be 34,735.". This sentence implies that the estimate was made no later than July 2006.

For the sentence "As of March, they were down to three teachers." to be true, the sentence "They are down to three teachers." must have been true in March. In the same way, for the sentence "As of July 2006, the population was estimated to be 34,735." to be true, the sentence "The population is estimated to be 34,735." must have been true in July 2006. Was it? Not if the estimate was made in, say, September 2006 or December 2006 or April 2007.

Timeineurope 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this argument doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so how about a compromise on the wording. I suggest: "As of July 2006, the city had an estimated population of 34,735." VerruckteDan 15:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this sounds fine. --Malepheasant 01:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this sentence strictly as a compromise. As this means we have ourselves a consensus, I will edit the article accordingly. Timeineurope 18:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation

Toward the bottom of the Transportation section appears this excerpt concerning railroads: "At one time Dover had a daily Amtrak passenger service; however the line now is just used for local freight." I wonder if there is a source that would verify that Amtrak ever scheduled any service to Dover? Sometime between October 1963 and September 1966, the Pennsylvania Railroad ended the last passenger service of which I have any evidence or awareness. (Possible confusion: since the end of 2001, Amtrak has had a station stop at Dover, New Hampshire.) In the absence of corroboration, I would suggest replacing "Amtrak" with "railroad" — or omitting the modifier altogether — in this sentence. JawboneJohn (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

The article states that the name derives from dwfr. However, the article on Dover, England states that it derives from the River Dour, which runs through the town. Outski1966 (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was named after one of the founders who settled in the area 2603:6080:1703:6791:31C7:3990:72BA:E370 (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]