Talk:Princeton, New Jersey

New Jersey High‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

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

Untitled

Dubious statement moved from main page: "After the war, in the 1790s, when the United States was first founded and Washington, D.C. was being built, Princeton University's Nassau Hall served as a temporary capital for the fledgling republic."

Make that two: "In 1840, the first radio signal was transmitted at Princeton."

Make that telegraph signal; see Joseph Henry Septentrionalis 03:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/radio.html Vicki Rosenzweig

I found one time that Nassau Hall was used as the temporary capital of the United States in further research. I do believe that Princeton, Trenton, and Philadelphia were temporary capitals while Washington, D.C. was being built during the presidency of George Washington. -- Gregory Pietsch

Yes both Princeton and Trenton were temporary capitals and there was serious interest in making Trenton the permanent capital before the southerners intervened. The debate that resulted in the selection of an area in Northern Virginia took place in Trenton, at that time the nation's capital. Ortolan88 04:51 Sep 13, 2002 (UTC)

Princeton was the capital of the US only once, in 1783. The Capitals of the 1790's were New York and Philadelphia, only.Septentrionalis 03:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before Mercer County was, Princeton was divided between Somerset and Middlesex Counties. Septentrionalis 03:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This should be divided between a statistical article on the Borough and an article on Princeton. About half of the history and features are in the Township anyway.

There are statistical articles on both Borough and Township. The settlement existed (and had most of its history) before either existed, let alone the division.

Street scene

I removed a picture to improve format; it doesn't add that much to the article anyway. Septentrionalis 22:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton/Not Princeton

This is a basic problem with NJ entries: how can we be clear what should be in the general entry, and what in the spearate township and boro entries? For example, several of the corporate locations named are outside boro/twp lines (FMC, Dow Jones), but several "Princeton" schools outside town lines (Chapin, P'ton Junior School) are omitted.

If I had my druthers, the whole lot would be combined in one piece, but that is not wiki style.

The simplest thing is to strip most non-statistical, non-political content out of the boro and township articles, and fill out and wikify this one. And boy does it need wikifying. What say ye?

Also, can we divide up the famous Princetonians among University students, University/seminary teachers, and other residents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natcase (talk • contribs) 05:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly two separate places, but there are many entries where it is almost impossible to distinguish between the two, and that's where this "Princeton, New Jersey" article is useful. If a road at a highway exit leads to "Princeton", should that be to the borough or the township? This article handles that ambiguity, although there are many links here when it can be defined in borough or township is meant. Alansohn 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- There's a lot of repetition among the three entries. This article is a good place to locate those ambiguous situations, but I think we need to clean it up, and then make the boro and township articles more clearly focused on those political and statistical entities.--Natcase 05:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on Princeton Zip Codes is being regularly removed as "irrelevant". Seems logical to include it here as part of a discussion of how "Princeton" is defined. Any further discussion?--Natcase (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy Princetonians

There are basically three catgories of noteworthy Princetonians: Alumni who never lived in town otherwise, University faculty, and everyone else. The first two categories are heavily covered in List of Princeton University people, and I think the first category should be explicitly removed here (e.g. Brooke Shields). There's too many famous alums to justify a duplicate list, and the list here is woefully short. I think we should divide the remaining list here into two parts: (1) Princeton University faculty (but what to do about folks at the INstitute for Advanced Study, the theological seminary and the Choir College?) and (2) other Princeton residents (in otherwords, we list here only people who didn't just go to school here). This will help separate the "grew up here" from the "had a job at the University here". Any thoughts?--Natcase (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that individuals whose only connection was attendance at Princeton University should not be listed here. I'm unsure about the other cases. Alansohn (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit completed.--Natcase (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Schroeder was a resident of West Windsor, not Princeton. His only connection to Princeton is that he attended Princeton High for one year (1972-1973). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.164.144.9 (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

break up the big lead

Any objection to reducing the big fat lead? I propose creating two new sections: (1) Geography, discussing the different "Princetons" and the relationship to Philly and NY, and (2) Economy, mentioning corporate and retail features. The lead would then be very short, a single paragraph. My hope is this would allow us also to remove the "Points of Interest" list at the end of the article.--Natcase (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer relevant Werymash (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08540

No wonder why it's so confusing a zip code! I was trying to differentiate between the Princetons for a research project one time, geocoding addresses into municipalities by hand, and 08540's sprawl made it me difficult for me to assign or associate "Princeton" addresses with any one municipality. Yes, I realize zip code boundaries often don't follow municipal boundaries, but Princeton/08540's situation made association with a town particularly difficult. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make an info box

Should we add one of those boxes for towns, villages, and cities here?--Regaina (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should. It heavily decreases the quality of the article without one of those boxes. I will look into inserting one, but since I am not very knowledgeable about them, it would be great if somebody else could help with that too. Alexroller (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch

This article needs some serious improvement to meet Wikipedia standards. Noteworthy Princetonians needs to be removed or severely reduced to significant people born in the city. Popular culture sections are normally to be avoided. Points of interests needs to be written in prose, not as a list. The lead contains a lot of unnecessary information, and information which is not in the body (the lead is supposed to serve as an introduction to the article). Also needs an infobox. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borough created on January 1, 2013???

It looks stupid to say the borough was "created" on January 1, 2013 when "Princeton Borough" has existed for a long long time. Princeton Township no longer exists. Princeton Borough still exists. It sounds more like the borough "expanded" and absorbed all of Princeton Township. Can someone point to a source that specifies something "new" about the new Princeton Borough other than its much larger size? Because otherwise, the beginning of this article needs to be edited to indicate that really, Princeton Borough has existed for a long long time and just recently absorbed Princeton Township, nothing more. Famartin (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wording will be up in the air, but the new Princeton is a successor to both the former Princeton Borough and Princeton Township. While the new Princeton is also a borough, it was formed ab initio in 2013, as described in the Profile of Princeton on the new borough's website which states that "It is composed of the former Township of Princeton and Borough of Princeton which consolidated effective January, 2013 and is now known as Princeton." It may seem hard to appreciate, but the 2013 creation date is accurate. Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps incorporated is better than created. Regarding the naming, it is not up in the air, the ballot question was clear, the new municipality will be called simply "Princeton", not "Princeton Borough", even though it will use the borough form of government.The State of NJ has issued a new municipality code and is not reusing either of the former municipality codes. I am a resident volunteer on a Transition Task Force subcommittee and personally attended meetings where the attorneys were clear - we are to be called Princeton. I also called the Mercer County Clerks office to confirm today.Henry Singer (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For now, the term Princeton alone is being used to distinguish it from either of the two old municipalities that it replaced. While you are correct that the new Princeton is a new municipality that replaced both the old borough and township, a true merger, it is unlikely that there will be no municipal title other than Princeton. It most likely will be Borough of Princeton or Princeton Borough, but for now it's too soon and they want to distinguish it from the old borough which ceased to be on Jan 1. A call to the clerk's office is not a cited source, however, and in time when the dust settles the new municipality will probably be known as Princeton Borough (although it's not the same entity as the old borough but a new municipality created by a merger). 98.221.141.21 (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Princeton Township, New Jersey and Borough of Princeton, New Jersey into this article

A proposal has been made that the articles for Borough of Princeton, New Jersey and Princeton Township, New Jersey should be merged into this article in the wake of the consolidation of the two municipalities to form Princeton as of 2013.

Support Don't see any reason for these other articles to remain separate. Time to merge. Who's with me? Famartin (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are articles for about 100 Category:Former municipalities in New Jersey. While the Princeton article will take in some of the content from the articles for the former borough and township, the historical, demographic and other details belong in those articles and should remain there, as has been done for other defunct municipalities. Alansohn (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remember that period of there being two municipalities was only 1894 to 2012. Prior to that Princeton Boro was not a municipality and was part of the Township. In any case, it has always been one Princeton community. The consolidation was not a merger of two separate communities.Henry Singer (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Plenty of former municipalities have their own article. I see no reason why the former Borough and Township shouldn't. ^^^Only 1894 to 2012 is almost 120 years! Sure, the consolidation was not a merger of two separate communities, but it was a merger of two separate municipalities. We should just make sure this fact is clearly explained in this article. Also, shouldn't the maps be updated? For both this article as well as for the Mercer County and the List of municipalities articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.82.135 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but I feel that the two old articles should be kept but they should be gutted and be no more than a paragraph explaining that they ceased to exist Jan 1, 2013, and contain the final census info. That seems to be the protocol with other former municipalities, like Pahaquarry and Island Beach. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the separate municipalities remain a matter of historical interest and there is no need to merge the articles. I also do not believe they should be "gutted," although some material can probably be removed, such as the standard sections on current representation at the county, state and federal levels. I suspect that the reason most former municipalities have very short articles is that Wikipedia probably never had very much about those municipalities in the first place, which is not the case here. Neutron (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The former municipalities existed once, so they still merit articles of their own. To the guy 2 up: "gutting" is a bit extreme. To the guy 1 up: keeping them totally intact is the opposite extreme and leads to redundancy. I say transfer all pertinent, current, relative information to this article. 209.212.22.27 (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest the articles be kept "totally intact." But I also don't see the need for "rush" that seems to be going on here. The municipalities have been consolidated for two whole days. I believe there is a template that says that an article needs to be updated, maybe that can be placed on the two "old" articles, and then a rational deliberate process of eliminating duplication can occur. I don't think there is a need for immediate, radical change to these articles. Obviously in many places the present tense needs to be changed to the past tense, and some of that has already occurred, I am not sure whether it has been completed. Neutron (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Neutron's reasoning makes perfect sense to me. BACbKA (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month since the last comment made here and I think that with six opposes and two supports that the merge proposal has been rejected. Since the proposal was first made, the Princeton article has been beefed up, while the articles for the former borough and township have been trimmed a bit, fulfilling much of the spirit of the proposal even if the two old articles remain. I will remove the merge tags from all three articles, but if anyone believes that this should rightly be kept open longer they can make their case here and reinstate the tags. Alansohn (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add the book Enchanted Ivy to books set in Princeton?

It's technically set in two Princetons, ours and an alternate universe's, but I don't think that disqualifies it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.188.102 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Princeton, New Jersey. 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) 07:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long list of colleges in lede

These are not referenced in the article, and should be transferred there with a few details. Valetude (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Municipality of Princeton Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki

Hi all, I created the page in huwiki by translating the intro of the enwiki article, but I cannot add interwiki for some reason, could somebody please do it for me? Here is the link: [1]. Thank you! 188.143.44.25 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone here review Draft:Whole_Earth_Center so it can be posted finally?

Draft:Whole_Earth_Center has been stuck in Draft space since early April 2024. I'm frustrated that, 4 months later, there is no sign of anyone reviewing it. Can anyone here help? I'd like to add articles about other places around Princeton, but can't bring myself to do it if it's so difficult to get a perfectly legitimate topic accepted in Wikipedia. Harborsparrow (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harborsparrow, this is an article for a local business where all of the sources appear to be ordinary local coverage. Unusual, maybe, but I'm not sure that the current version meets the notability standard. To better meet that standard, I would strongly suggest adding more in-depth coverage that goes beyond sources in the immediate area. Alansohn (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]