Jump to content

User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list

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

NRHP HD issues

If I've tagged an article with a checkY Done template, it means I've reached a decision on the item. It doesn't mean that I've done anything at all to the article(s), so don't assume that I've fixed the problems noted.'

CT issues

[edit]

Most of these issues are spelled out at Talk:List of RHPs in CT or Talk pages linked from there. This may be a complete list of already-contended CT issues. Polaron may have additional ones, as assessed by him for New London County within Talk:Poquetanuck.

Early issues

[edit]
1.2.1 Pomfret Street Historic District checkY Done - Leave as separate articles
See the general comment below concerning redirects at <Lesser redirects created>. NRHP nom exists, Doncram has it. Would you mind emailing it to me? Separate articles at Pomfret, Connecticut and Pomfret Street Historic District, text in HD article and paragraph in town article largely duplicate each other, the town article describes "a portion of the town" as included in the HD. Acroterion (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emailed. Actually this one, and some others here, could have been marked as "settled", at least if decision is between P and me. Somewhere, anyhow, P accepted a "Keep separate" decision for this one. I won't comment in most other cases here, as I assume Acroterion wants to take notes here but not entertain a new discussion, repeating that already at Talk:List of RHPs in CT and linked pages. Maybe very short factual pointers responding to Acroterion's comments are helpful, but not debate. doncram (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so; corrections and notes as needed, but no debates here. I am watching the discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck for general guidance on consensus. I appreciate your desire to spare me some work, but I remind everyone that we have no deadlines on Wikipedia, and I plan to continue through the list to the end, then make some proposed resolutions: if there is not too much outrage, we will be able to call some proportion closed. Acroterion (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I developed barely over DYK length, and think there's enough there for a start. It should be clear to anyone who can visit the area that they could add pics and develop it further. doncram (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.2.2 Goshen Historic District, and West G H S checkY Done - Leave as separate articles
Goshen, Connecticut states that the town center is the Goshen Historic District. HD article is a stub. West Goshen Historic District agreed as separate article. Acroterion (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the existence of two HDs, I think these should continue to exist apart, as they would clutter the Goshen article. As it stands right now, neither is backlinked from Goshen. This needs to be fixed. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added links from the Goshen town article to the 2 HD articles, and to one other NRHP property listed in the town. doncram (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.2.3 Southport Historic District checkY Done - Leave as separate articles
Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut) redirects to Southport (Fairfield). Extensive philosophical discussion, no conclusions apart from general statements of position. "Much of the old village of the town" stated as HD, involved in a CT Supreme Court case. Lots of references on the level of protection for the old village, "a quarter of the properties" according to the NYT.. Acroterion (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text you quoted did not say "much of the old village of the town", but rather, "much of the old village is part of a town historic district". I found info on the boundaries of the local (town) historic district (which is where the historic zoning restrictions apply) and added that info to the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC) The NYT article that says the local HD includes one-quarter of the properties also has a map of Southport at this link. That map differs from the census tract map used in the article (consistent with the fact that Southport has no official definition). The local HD is just a small part of the two mapped areas, covering most of the area between the railroad tracks and the river. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot was said (at Talk:List of RHPs in CT#Southport Historic District. This was the blow-up of the whole debate. This is a courtesy notice to say I am now re-starting Southport Historic District article to develop a decent starter article about the HD. doncram (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I developed a starter article, and with KudzuVine's help was able to put in a pretty incredible gallery of HABS pics. doncram (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.2.5 Georgetown Historic District checkY Done - Leave as separate articles
Georgetown, Connecticut mentions the central portion of town is the HD, Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut) says "at the core." Same general issues as Southport. Much discussion of policy. Acroterion (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Satisfies three criteria and is stubby. Should be merged until a time that someone expands the article. --Polaron | Talk 22:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After all the specifics discussed at Talk:Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut)#separate article vs. merge with Georgetown, Connecticut CDP article and at Talk:List of RHPs in CT#Georgetown Historic District, I can't stand for this one to go backwards, leaving a horrible mess for any other future editor to encounter. I want to make a decent starter article here instead. I added "UnderConstruction" tag and did some editing. I will support other cases of 3 criteria remergers where a separate NRHP HD article got no substantial development, where a case for permanent split is not clear, and where it would be simple to explain at Talk page to future editors how they are welcome to do a split if they want to develop a good HD article. But where there is so much sprawling mess and history of warring, it seems important to move forward and do the good split article if permanent split is logical, as here. So be it if i have to do some work to make it comply with the DYK-type conditions. I need to make a short list of cases where i am taking that on. That's all for me tonight. doncram (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to say this nicely, so I'll put it bluntly: Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut) looks like a page from a phone book. There is nothing notable about a list of street addresses of buildings that were inventoried and listed on a National Register nom form almost 24 years ago. These are not individually significant buildings, but rather are cheaply built houses for factory workers. The district is listed on the National Register for its significance as a company town. Furthermore, as noted in the article, parts of the HD have been torn down to make way for some sort of redevelopment. The fact that individual structures were inventoried and listed on the nom form indicates that the compilers of the form did a thorough job -- it does not mean that the entire list deserves to be replicated in an encyclopedia article.
After seeing this developing article and the nom form, I am now thoroughly convinced that the HD article should be merged back into the article about the village of Georgetown. The nom form is primarily about the industrial village and its history, not about the individual small wood-frame houses and tenements found there (as of 1986).
Meanwhile, the village article is rather pathetic in the absence of content about the village's history. A single article about the village, including its location, demographics, interesting history, and movies filmed there, could be so much better than either of the articles that exist right now. --Orlady (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I quote Orlady and reply at Talk:Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut)#development of this HD article. Am partly kicking myself for spending time to do that, instead of just developing the article. Let's just develop the article to be a good HD article, or to be a decent version waiting for a local person to take pics and develop it further, and also develop the "village" article. doncram (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did develop the article further to exceed DYK length criteria and otherwise. I think it is now a decent version waiting for a local person to take pics and develop it further, while otherwise it would have been a very daunting prospect for anyone ever to do anything here. We can't predict which articles will get picked by future editors sooner rather than later, but leaving at a good point like this increases the chances of sooner development. doncram (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion, if you agree could you please close the merger proposal, still open? doncram (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't recommend it as an example for other places - it does resemble a phone book, with about as much context relating to existing properties. Where I've written articles with similar source material, I've opted to forego the long list of addresses. However, ignoring that, it's developed in other respects enough that I'd judge it to be safe from a merge - barely. Acroterion (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the merger proposal. doncram (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The five early issue ones here are all set now, I believe. doncram (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield County issues

[edit]
1.3.1 Wilton Center Historic District checkY Done - Leave as separate articles, there are several historic districts in Wilton
Wilton, Connecticut is rather more than the usual village article. The Wilton Center Historic District article contains the germ of details. The edit history of the HD article is interesting, and bodes ill for any hypothetical editor from Wilton who, encouraged by the existence of the HD article, shows up and adds unsourced details in the manner of Polaron's edits. On the other hand, Polaron should know better. There seems to be a consensus for the current version. Acroterion (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.2 Aspetuck Historic District checkY Done - Move to Aspetuck, Connecticut
Aspetuck Historic District is in the towns of Easton, Connecticut and Weston, Connecticut (what, no Middleton?). Issue is over naming rather than merge/split - Aspetuck vs. Aspetuck HD. Acroterion (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The words "Historic District" add no meaningful content, and so far there is no indication that a separate article on the village could be developed. The HD status can be described in the article. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that when the development of material is only by NRHP editors and/or only using NRIS and NRHP documents, that it seems to be a better, fairer, default to leave a combo article at the NRHP HD name. Like, when there would be no village/hamlet article at all, it seems unreasonable to force merger of NRHP content into a non-existent target. P seems to agree well enough in other cases. Here, I am not sure of sequence of development and i think there is some other source involved. The article was written or revised, however, to be about the HD, first, and to mention "Aspetuck" as well. Given A's judgment in this particular case, I am fine with this one being moved as A prefers, although the lede should then be revised to show Aspetuck first and then mention Aspetuck Historic District in bold, second. Not sure if just anyone can move due to previous history. Should be a non-controversial move that any administrator present here could just implement, IMO. --doncram (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved over redirect. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.3 Brookfield Center Historic District
Brookfield Center Historic District isn't backlinked from either Brookfield, Connecticut or History of Brookfield, Connecticut. Original settlement, old town hall, inevitable Congregational church. No mills? Familiar struggle concerning sources. Acroterion (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link is supposedly through Brookfield Center, Connecticut, but currently points to a dab page. --Polaron | Talk 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.4 Downtown Stamford Historic District checkY Done - Leave as separate articles
Downtown Stamford Historic District "now encompass most of the southern half of Downtown Stamford." Merge battle. Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stamford's a big place too. There are three separate nom docs for the initial designation and the boundary increases, supporting a what can be a substantial article that focuses on the HD. The Downtown Stamford article covers a lot of useful territory on recent architecture and could bear a paragraph or two on the HD. Acroterion (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.5 Main Street Historic District (Danbury, Connecticut) checkY Done - Leave as separate articles
"... consists of much of that city's downtown business district." No significant conflict. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Danbury's a big place, and the HD article should remain separate. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.6 Nichols Farms Historic District checkY Done - Leave as is
Certainly not a stub - a C-class article. "Nichols section of Trumbull, Connecticut." No particular conflict. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a subset of an undefined district called Nichols in Trumbull. As such it appears to be fine under the current title. Acroterion (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No issue indicated for this one, in its entry in Talk:List of RHPs in CT, in collapsed-box of resolved issues items. The list right here was created by copy-pasting from the TOC there. There may be useful notes there for other items, but the indication there for this one is that there should be no issue, that it's a nice article by TomTicker. doncram (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.7 Norfield Historic DistrictcheckY Done - nobody remembers why this is listed here
Is this the Northfield Historic District in Litchfield, Connecticut? Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Norfield historic district in the town of Weston (Norfield is an archaic name for the town center village). However, I'm not sure why it's listed here as this has never been an issue at all. --Polaron | Talk 14:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a subsection for it in the Fairfield part of the Talk:List of RHPs in CT issues list. It's still there, in a collapsed "resolved cases" area, with indication of no issue. doncram (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Norfield Historic District currently shows as a redlink here and in the NRHP county list-article, we have no problem here; it is open for future editors to create. The same redlink can be added to the appropriate CT town article, too. doncram (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.8 Putnam Hill Historic District
In Greenwich, Connecticut. No separate article. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Putnam Hill Historic District currently shows as a redlink here and in the NRHP county list-article, we have no problem here; it is open for future editors to create. The same redlink can be added to the Greenwich, Connecticut town article, too. --doncram (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I added such a red-link from History of Greenwich, Connecticut, along with red- or blue-links to other NRHP HDs of Greenwich. doncram (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.9 Fairfield Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut)
Seems okay and stable as sep article from Fairfield, Connecticut town article. doncram (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.10 Glenville Historic District
Doncram, would you be okay redirecting the neighborhood article to the historic district article? There is nothing substantial to this area once you take out the historic district. People will learn more about Glenville from the historic district article. FYI, this does satisfy the three criteria so a single article is better (even if it is only the historic district that gets an article). --Polaron | Talk 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glenville Historic District article is under development and is marked "under construction" by me, will be brought to over DYK length and put into better shape by me if no one else. P seems to be accepting that. (Note: I have 5 items here where i have promised DYK length and quality completion, according to my tracking.) When clearly over DYK, it will meet Poquetanuck agreement criteria for split. By our process, discussion of merger could be done by merger proposal, but I would strongly prefer for that to wait until after development of article. It would help a lot to have a Google map like P prepared for Southport HD, to inform future discussion. Offhand I think there must be usefulness in keeping Glenville article separate to cover non-HD stuff and hold settlement categories and so on, but mainly i think it is premature to consider merger due to lack of info. doncram (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, that page that you are working on is not ready for prime time article space. Statements like "It covers part or all of the neighborhood/village/hamlet...", "It may or may not include...", and "The district has some significance" are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I am moving that page to your user space while you continue to work on it. Please don't move it back until it is ready for article space. --Orlady (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, funny, i thot your comment was negative about the Glenville article, not the Glenville Historic District one, but it was the latter one that you just deleted/moved. I restored it just now and edited it a little, now this version, using info that had been clarified by the process of development so far. I comment further at Talk:Glenville Historic District where I suggest further discussion of content should continue if necessary. Orlady, you are highly involved in the contention and I don't think it is your place to intervene using Administrator tools in this way. There is a process which is working. doncram (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the embarrassing quotations I provided above were from the Glenville Historic District article, not Glenville, Greenwich, Connecticut. Unlike you, I did not find them funny.
The page move that I performed was not a use of an Administrator tool. You could have done the same. I see that you fixed some of the issues that I highlighted above, but I still contend that in its present form the page belongs in user space. I am not amused by footnote callouts in the form ".[2]:22" or the bulleted list that includes:
  • more.
A user with your extensive experience should recognize that draft articles like Glenville Historic District should be developed in user space, not article space. --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The administrators-only tool you used was the deletion of the article, the complete conversion of "Glenville Historic District" to a redlink, leaving no trace. I could only find the moved article by starting to create a brand new article at the redlink, then i got to see an edit summary about the previous article having been deleted. That was an emphatic, administrator-only move & deletion.
I am willing to discuss content issues at Talk:Glenville Historic District, but why not develop content, instead? doncram (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when I moved that article, I did not leave a redirect behind because pages in article space should not link to pages in user space. When an article on my watchlist is moved, the move shows up on my watchlist (the same thing happened before I had admin tools -- for example, I always saw a lot of logged moves when admins cleaned up after a page-move vandal), so I fully expected that your watchlist would show you where I had moved the article to your user space. I'm very sorry if that was not the case for you with this move -- I definitely did not intend to hide anything from you. Do you not use a watchlist or doesn't your watchlist display page moves?
As for "why not develop content", I am not objecting to your developing new content. All I am saying is that rough drafts such as the one that you created should be developed in user space, not in article space. --Orlady (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whether the moved article actually did show in my watchlist or not, but i did not notice it under its different name. I have been working from explicit lists of articles, such as this page, List of RHPs in CT, Talk:List of RHPs in CT, and a personal list of items i am currently working on. It only showed as a red-link in all of these, after the article was deleted by you. I guess i appreciate you did not expect to have confused me on the location of the removed article, altho that is not the main issue.
Rather, it is extraordinary for an article under discussion in many places, and under development, to be deleted by an involved administrator, especially without even a prod or speedy deletion notice being placed. As you know very well, an AFD would certainly have failed quickly by a SNOW decision to keep. It is your personal taste that stub articles should be developed in userspace, but you have no right to enforce that, and doing so is in contravention of numerous policies and guidelines. I guess no lasting harm was done, though, as I was able to find and restore the article. doncram (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't deleted, it was moved to user space, which isn't an administrative action - any named, confirmed user can do this. Articles in need of development, or that are incomplete, get moved to user space all the time. It's not worth arguing about, and you should either develop it now or move it back into user space until it can be developed. We shouldn't have obviously truncated articles in article space; the NRHP wikiproject shouldn't countenance fragmentary articles. Acroterion (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well i don't see articles getting moved to user space hardly ever. I know it happens sometimes at the end of a duly performed AFD process. And it is an administrative action to remove the redirect after such a move, and one that puts a particular stamp on things that was not appropriate here. But, anyhow, here as promised i did continue to develop the article and have now removed the "under construction" tag i had put on it. It is now DYK+ in length and is a fine starter article that may attract locals to take pics and otherwise further develop the article. So this one is done, IMO. doncram (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] Many articles get started in user space, then get moved or copied to article space when they are "ready". That's a recommended procedure for starting articles, and I hope you will follow that procedure in the future when you want to create an article in outline form as you did with this particular HD article.
Also, I think it's not uncommon for newbies' new articles to get userfied by more experienced users who do new page patrols. (IMO, userfying a newbie's article -- instead of proposing speedy deletion -- is a good way to avoid "biting" a newbie. It probably should happen more often than it does.) --Orlady (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Orlady says, particularly about newbie-biting. I've taken a number of new articles by well-meaning but inexperienced editors who might not understand the violent reaction from many new page patrollers to anything that faintly smacks of promotion, moved the offending article to their userspace, coached them, and then advised them to move the improved content back to article space. It's saved hurt feelings and added useful content, but it's fairly time-consuming. I routinely start in my userspace myself if an article is too big to do in one session. I'd rather it goes up more or less fully developed, illustrated and referenced. It's been essential in my recent import/translation projects. Acroterion (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.11 Greenfield Hill Historic District vs. Greenfield Hill
Argh, i lost an edit with some explanation that i won't reconstruct now. Here, I started separate HD article, in progress. Would 3 criteria be met, anyhow? doncram (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one technically does not since district is not listed under criterion A. --Polaron | Talk 05:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.12 Hattertown Historic District checkY Done - merged with Hattertown
Currently a redirect to Hattertown. Meets 2 criteria (principal community and Event-type) for merger, not sure about 3rd criterion. If meets 3rd criterion, then to be left merged, and i would like to add Poquetanuck agreement type notes to Talk pages. doncram (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the entire text of the article is one sentence, discussion of an article split is wildly premature. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hattertown does in fact satisfy all three criteria. Considering that the settled area is just the immediate vicinity of the intersection of several streets, it is essentially identical to the historic district. --Polaron | Talk 00:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay i added Poquetanuck-type statements at the Talk pages. doncram (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.13 Huntington Center Historic District vs. Huntington Center (Shelton) checkY Done - HD article to stand alone, no article on locale
Huntington Center (Shelton) is just NRIS-based. I expect 3 criteria not met, right? I'll pause for comment, then move to NRHP HD and develop somewhat. doncram (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huntington Center is indeed a village, although it is more commonly known as simply Huntington now. The city of Shelton used to be the town of Huntington and the original town center village was Huntington Center (to differentiate it from the town). However, since the consolidation of Shelton and Huntington, the Shelton borough area is now the town center and the old town center (still known as Huntington) stopped being developed. In short, yes this does satisfy the 3 criteria. --Polaron | Talk 05:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It doesn't literally meet the criterion that "Huntington Center" appears on the CT state list of principal communities. There's no info along lines you say in wikipedia, too. Can you develop a Huntington, Connecticut article about the former town/borough, with the Huntington Center as a section of that? The current Huntington Center article appears to link to an article about the former town of Huntington, but that redirects to the Shelton, Connecticut article where there is no info about it. It seems inappropriate/premature to force merger of an NRHP HD to a differently named article having nothing but minimal NRIS info about the HD, which may or may not be similar in area and history to the village/hamlet/whatever, anyhow. If you get something under construction on that i will hold off, otherwise i would like to start and keep separate an NRHP HD article. doncram (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing. I wouldn't really create an article on the village if it weren't a historic district. How about we just rename this to the historic district and redirect the locality name here? --Polaron | Talk 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.14 Long Ridge Village Historic District
It's a short NRHP HD article; I see no problem. doncram (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.15 Monroe Center Historic District
As Monroe Center Historic District currently shows as a redlink here and in the NRHP county list-article, we have no problem here; it is open for future editors to create. The same redlink can be added to the appropriate CT town article, too. doncram (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.16 Newtown Borough Historic District vs. Newtown (borough), Connecticut checkY Done HD merged into borough
Turns out the HD is a small fraction of borough, if info in borough article is correct (100 acres vs. >2 sq. miles), but I wonder if area info in borough article is for a CDP, not mentioned. Discussing a map needed at Talk:Newtown (borough), Connecticut. Newtown is not listed as a principal community, perhaps because it is like a town? So 3 criteria for merger not met. doncram (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a map (see borough talk page) to clarify things. In essence, the historic district is roughly the original borough as it was in the 19th-century. It has since been expanded. The historical significance of the historic district is the same as the history of the borough in the 19th century. A split is of course better if a more focused article is written. --Polaron | Talk 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the map, that is very helpful. Further followup at the borough article. It's a little ambiguous if 3 criteria are met or not; i am happy enough to leave this as a merged article. Will just add Poquetanuck-type notice at the Talk page and consider this done for the moment. Thanks! doncram (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.17 Redding Center Historic District vs. Redding, Connecticut (a town article)
Acroterion, could you please delete the current redirect from "Redding Center Historic District" to "Redding, Connecticut", a town that all would agree is inappropriate for forced merger. With revision to Redding article, all would be fine if redirect deleted, so that town article and Fairfield nrhp list article will show redlinks. doncram (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This accords with your and some others' preference for redlink rather than NRIS-based stub article. I don't mind a stub so much, could create that instead if redirect is not deleted reasonably soon. I just would like to get through these. doncram (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.18 Ridgefield Center Historic District vs. Ridgefield, Connecticut
I believe 3 criteria would not be met, and I started a decent short article at Ridgefield Center Historic District. I think this is set. doncram (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.19 Round Hill Historic District
Anticipating what i think Polaron will want/agree to, i moved Round Hill (Greenwich) to Round Hill Historic District (by cut-and-paste due to prior history of two edits by P, only, preventing move), and developed it a little. Seems okay to leave like this. 3 criteria not met and/or no current interest to create a separate neighborhood article (only NRIS info used previously). doncram (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.20 Sherman Historic District
I just set up a disambiguation page at that, and created Sherman Historic District (Sherman, Connecticut) as stub article to fend off the anti-disambiguation page deletionists. Structure set, article is started okay. doncram (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.3.21 Stratford Center Historic District vs. Stratford, Connecticut checkY Done develop a separate article on the HD
Acroterion, could you please delete the current redirect from "Stratford Center Historic District" to "Stratford, Connecticut", a town that all would agree is inappropriate for forced merger. With revision i just completed to Stratford article, all would be fine if redirect deleted, so that town article and Fairfield nrhp list article will show redlinks. Ditto to P.S. about Redding Center HD. doncram (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Stratford's too big to be merged. However, redirects are cheap, this one's in accordance with redirect policy, and the HD is universally acknowledged to be in Stratford, so I'm unconvinced that the redirect needs deletion. Acroterion (talk)' 20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Egad! I think you don't mean that. You are saying elsewhere that you don't want stub articles. Orlady is making hay about it, as for example here. Everyone present: Polaron, you, Orlady, me here do believe that it is incorrect to force merger from the NRHP to the town article. The town article here has even been edited (by me) to link to the NRHP name. If only the redirect to the town is deleted, then the town article's link to the NRHP name makes sense, as does the NRHP list-article link to the NRHP name. The right thing here is to have a redlink showing in the town and in the NRHP county-list articles, and therefore the way would be clear for anyone to start a wikipedia article on the topic. And you and others would wish for them not to start it, unless they will do a more-than-minimal stub. So, I think what you really want (at least as I have understood your position), is for there to be a redlink until that time.
Let's not drag discussion of Hmains' categorization initiative onto this page. However, as the saying goes: "Make hay while the sun shines." As it happens, Hmains wants to add all U.S. historic district categories to the "protected areas" categories (notwithstanding the fact that NRHP-listed HDs aren't actually protected) because he perceives that HDs are physical entities and he believes that it is important to slot them in broader physical-entity categories. I have asserted that the individual HDs are in appropriate categories for what they are (villages, neighborhoods, unincorporated communities, houses, schools, cemeteries, archeological sites, etc.), but he complains that many HDs are not so categorized. Considering the existence of vast numbers of nearly content-free stub articles similar to this one, I have to admit that he has a valid point regarding the absence of categories for many HD articles. --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you are trying to get the right thing done there in terms of stopping inappropriate categorizing. I see that your finding common cause with him by differentiating yourself from me ( I think i saw you proclaim "I am not Doncram!" there recently) may help you in the short-term in that. But i wish you didn't have to bash me in his eyes, or set up future misunderstanding, by referring derogatorily directly to me or indirectly to me and others like me who have created NRHP stubs, often for good reason such as settling disambiguation issues. I don't mind really though. --doncram (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When Hmains labeled my removal of the "protected areas" category as a continuation of a pattern of POV-pushing ("You lose again, trying to push your agenda definition of protected areas onto WP"), I was pretty sure he was confusing me with you. (Hard to imagine how that could happen, eh?) --Orlady (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me, I want to finish off the county and then the state. I am willing to create decent DYK+ articles for some NRHP HDs to clarify for future CT/NRHP editors what is allowed (i.e. that they are allowed to create NRHP articles). But I am not wanting or willing to create good quality articles for all of Connecticut myself, and I also don't want to be pilloried endlessly for creating stubs. You can't seriously be wanting to prevent this and other cases from being settled, because you want to force creation of a stub article and/or force a longer article to be created.
Redirects are cheap, in that yes they are easy to create. But they are hugely difficult to remove, it is seeming! Acroterion, perhaps you are forgetting about the 7 or 8 batches of redirects addressed in the cumbersome, long wp:RFD process? That did eliminate a hundred or more of the items from CT NRHP HD contention, as Polaron and others agreed that those deletions made sense. This is one of those. I don't want to open a new RFD batch to cover these and to talk it all out with others who do not have the full perspective again. If you yourself are willing to create stub articles, and to endure the insults that will be slung your way eventually, if you do enough of it, by all means you go ahead.  :) But until you are willing to do so, could you please use the admin. tool to delete the article, so we can be done here. :) This is not controversial; it's an appropriate speedy delete. (Orlady and Polaron, by all means please comment!) --doncram (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes little difference to me, but in general, it's somewhat at odds with policy on the rest of WP, where a new article is just written over top of the old redirect. In this case I'll call it a housekeeping issue and delete it; the precedent at RfD exists. Acroterion (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Okay, if just the redirects at Redding Center Historic District and Stratford Center Historic District are deleted, then I think Fairfield County is done, in terms of structure being resolved and situation stabilized for any future NRHP editors. I developed DYK+ length articles everywhere i promised (on selected cases involving 3 criteria being met). I don't think there are any merge or split proposals remaining open, there are no pages marked "Under Construction" by me, and there is no edit warring, i think. So, A, can you please just delete those 2 redirects? Thanks, --doncram (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Cannondale and Cannondale Historic District -- satisfies the three criteria and was split off unnecessarily. It seemed to be a nicely meshed article before the split. --Polaron | Talk 16:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC) checkY Done} - nice NRHP article developed'[reply]
    That was me splitting it off just now, unaware of whether 3 criteria applied or not. Cannondale article has problems, turns out it was claiming the HD is some different Cannondale Corners "Old Town" type area of moved houses. Developing the separate HD article seems productive, without detracting from existing Cannondale article. Can we discuss re-merger at Talk:Cannondale, Connecticut in a few days, after allowing some development? If there are other 3-criteria cases I would rather know in advance that split would require more work, rather than being informed right after i start developing something. doncram (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems resolved, extremely well, to keep separate. Another editor, User:JohnWBarber, who had dev'd Cannondale article, was invited by P to comment at Talk:Cannondale Historic District and had first reaction against separation. Then upon gaining familiarity with the NRHP doc in the sep article, agrees separate is best, and developed the HD article well. This is exactly the kind of interaction and conclusion that I would hope for in general. It is good and/or important to have the separate HD articles in place, hopefully with NRHP doc, establishing that sep article is okay and facilitating others' constructive involvement. doncram (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. This is what a valid split article should look like -- sufficiently developed content that isn't redundant and that provides the historical context. --Polaron | Talk 16:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silvermine Center Historic District vs. Silvermine, Connecticut checkY Done -Leave merged for now
    Discussion at Talk:Silvermine, Connecticut. Poquetanuck merger criteria do NOT apply, as Silvermine Center is clearly different than Silvermine. However, while NRHP document turned out not to be readily available, there was/is some other info available about the HD. I am not checking the edit history but P or someone commented that it had been developed in the neighborhood article first and it was later copied (perhaps by me) to split-out NRHP HD. Remerged by Orlady, and seemingly local User:JohnWBarber concurred with remerger until NRHP doc obtained, and I am not interested enough to obtain NRHP doc. Seems okay to leave merged now, especially given awareness of local editor that NRHP doc could be obtained and would likely support separate article. I added Poquetanuck-type notices to talk pages. doncram (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now after some more stuff came up and was resolved, I again think all of Fairfield is done well enough, leaving decent structure in place and clear enough guidelines for future editors. The only open matter i am aware of, relatively minor, is for an administrator to move Aspetuck and revise article's lede accordingly. --doncram (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried moving Aspetuck HD to Aspetuck, Connecticut and found, indeed, yes it takes admin privileges to do it. A or O, could you please do this move so that Fairfield County can be closed here? doncram (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Fairfield items

[edit]

Outstanding issues in Fairfield County:

Currently separate articles. Are 3 criteria met? (Note, was not mentioned in Fairfield compliance section below.) Also, the Glenville Historic District article meets DYK length criteria for split already. --doncram (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merger criteria not met, as this is not a Principal community and perhaps other criteria for merger fail too. I assume you're reading the NRHP nomination doc reference that i added to the South End Historic District article, along with some beginning development of that article. I think it is on track to be a good separate article, providing a more detailed-level discussion of the historic properties in the district than is appropriate in a neighborhood article. So, IMO this is good structure set up, leaving for future editors to add pics and to develop further. --doncram (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"South End" is indeed a GNIS populated place and other criteria are satisfied. aditionally, they are also "substantially similar". Also, please don't assume that it takes your putting a link in an article in order for me to read the nomination form. I do read them (except for the detailed inventory) before commenting on a specific locale. In this case, a merge is very appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 06:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to be clear, South End is not a Principle Community so 3 criteria are simply not met, altho if u say 1 or 2 of the other criteria are met. I do question why you or anyone would read and rely upon NRHP nom form or any other source without adding into the relevant article. I am building material; i hope u and others will build material rather than just sit back and criticise. Again, 3 criteria are not met, so this is stable as separate NRHP HD for locals or visiting editors to take pics, add pics, develop material. I presume your suggestion that "a merge is very appropriate" is conditional upon the current state of development: if there was going to be no further development, and a print Wikipedia was going to be printed next week, then consolidating first might be beneficial. But, in the time frame of 1 or 2 years forward, it is better to encourage and to facilitate development of more detailed, illustrated articles. --doncram (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said in the currently-collapsed section above, in answer to whether 3 criteria applied, "This one technically does not since district is not listed under criterion A." And the NRHP HD article got developed somewhat, by me, under understanding that it was separate. So the Poquetanuck agreement default outcome is currently implemented. For this and other cases noted here, or where merger or split tags have been added to articles, perhaps a new, shorter, separate list would be useful, towards managing a second phase of review. I don't want to start that now, and I don't know who else has patience/time/interest for that. Perhaps it should wait for 6 months or something, and encourage article development within current framework, first. Anyhow, how about we focus, here and now, on getting through a first phase clearing any possible complaints about whether Poquetanuck default agreement is implemented? About this one, barring a local editor or another visitor taking pics and choosing to develop one way or the other (like JohnWBarber arriving and editting some other cases), I think this is okay as is. Perhaps a Talk page statement covering the currently-merged-per-agreement status, corresponding to the Talk statements I've added to currently-split-per-agreement ones, should be added, at Talk:Greenfield Hill Historic District. P, if you agree, could you try writing something there? --doncram (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) The "More Fairfield Issues" section is ready to close, IMO. I would like for closing of these sections to indicate that there are no outstanding issues at the level of whether Poquetanuck agreement has been implemented, and whether stability is obtained for editors to actually add content. Poquetanuck agreement has been implemented here. There can remain disagreement about whether an HD should be split or merged to a town/village/hamlet/neighborhood article in a way different than the Poq agreement sets, but I suggest any such items get noted in a Phase II list for further consideration and involvement of some other editors, outside this mediated process. I would further propose that no Phase II changes away from Poq agreement default should be considered for six months or so, or at least until a serious amount (say 1x or 2x DYK-length) of development using NRHP document happens on a given topic. Again, there's stability on these items, this section can be closed now. --doncram (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeport city HDs (also in Fairfield)

[edit]
The 2 issues here were 2 HDs that were redirected to Black Rock (Bridgeport) article. I just revised that article and created two separate NRHP HD articles for Black Rock Historic District and Black Rock Gardens Historic District, which should resolve this well enough. --doncram (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These two should probably be remerged unless you are committing to expanding these articles very soon. This is especially true of "Black Rock Historic Distrcit", which has the same history as the neighborhood/village. If you're not planning on expanding them, I will merge what you have written so far in the main article soon. --Polaron | Talk 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Those two articles are pretty minimal, although at least they don't contain any placeholder language or blanks to be filled in. I think these would be good candidates to userfy for further development -- although the relevant information (with its sources) also can be included in Black Rock (Bridgeport). --Orlady (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles are identified as stubs, which serves as a call for expansion. They are a huge improvement upon the previous situation, where there was outright false information, added when only NRIS-level information was readily available. I didn't check the edit history to see who added it, but the neighborhood article asserted the Gardens district, which is in fact a WWI-era housing project, was something else, an arts district that also exists in the neighborhood. The situation now is fine, giving readers and editors the correct view that each is a notable topic for getting photos and developing further. And a good reference source, the NRHP document, is provided for them to work from. And, the 3 criteria are not met for either one, I believe. --doncram (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polaron, from your previous and recent comments about the shipbuilding in Black Rock, you seem obviously interested in that history. That's fine, that's great. By all means, why don't you use the NRHP document to add more about that history to the Black Rock neighborhood article. That's like using biography information in a NRHP document about a house associated with a famous person, to add to the wikipedia article about the person. It does not require that you decimate the NRHP HD article, which can and should be about the current historic district, what can be seen there, what is so far preserved there. A good NRHP HD article is like an article about artifacts in a museum, only the artifacts are bigger. What can you see about the past, in what is there, what history is evoked. You see that the NRHP document has specific detail about the named houses and other houses and buildings in the district, more specific than is appropriate in an article about a much larger neighborhood, where it is simply not appropriate to describe each building. It is fine if you are not interested in developing that detail in an NRHP HD article, but you do not have to kill the NRHP HD article in order to write about what you want, elsewhere. Let it be, so that others who are interested in the historic district, per se, can see that they are welcome to develop that, which they should be. There has been 7 months now of contention, unnecessarily, largely over this point of misunderstanding. --doncram (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is killing anything. You seem to always imply that a merge is a loss of content. We will make sure that everything in the current historic district article is merged properly and given the appropriate context. Merging is not deletion -- please stop conflating the two. --Polaron | Talk 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern shown here and previously on this point. But merging does destroy something, namely the clear establishment for readers and editors that the separate topic is accepted as notable and it may now be developed. And, my thinking has evolved through these discussions. Preserving detail that I had written was perhaps of considerable importance to me in past cases, and I did accept some previous merging with the condition that the detail be preserved, I seem to recall. But based on our discussions, I now think that it is simply inappropriate for us to merge the NRHP HD material into a neighborhood/hamlet/village article (unless they really are substantially similar, not the case here), because the information is really not appropriate for the other article. That includes the NRHP infobox, any "metes and bounds" info that has been developed, any detailed lists of houses with or without addresses and phone numbers. Here, it would look bad, IMO, in the Black Rock neighborhood article, to put in the NRHP infoboxes. That would be infobox clutter, in my view. And, if the other material was added in, it would seem appropriate to most editors, me included, to delete or edit down the too-specific NRHP details from the general neighborhood article. You could go out of your way to ensure no information added by me was lost in the merger, as Orlady has done in some other cases, but that leads to there being inappropriate information in the other article. It is clear to me that these two NRHP HDs are valid wikipedia topics. Merging what has been developed would be a step backwards, both for the merge target article and for the NRHP HD topics, in my view. Again, thanks. doncram (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • South End Historic District, for which P stated merger criteria apply "Yes Yes Yes (0.12 mi)", but i think that is incorrect, because "South End" is not a Principal community. Since this currently shows as a red-link I think there is no pressing issue, if P agrees that anyone can create an NRHP HD article at this red-link if/when they want to. Or, does it make sense to start this article now just to begin to sort out what the NRHP HD covers? I notice in the outline of neighborhoods within the Bridgeport, Connecticut article, "South End" is listed as an area having several smaller neighborhoods. I think there is no "South End" neighborhood article, so nothing to force merger to anyhow. doncram (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is silly: I went to create the article, only to find that there is no South End Historic District in Bridgeport! So I don't know how this was deemed to meet merger criteria. There are at least two other cities in CT that have "South End" neighborhoods and have NRHP HDs of the South End Historic District name. I split out the Stamford, CT one from a South End of Stamford article, and it is now at South End Historic District (Stamford, Connecticut). This serves to support a new disambiguation page and to provide a decent starter article for any local or other editor to develp further. 3 criteria for merger do not apply here either.

(unindent) I think Bridgeport is done well enough, leaving structure established for local or other editors to add to, using the NRHP references that i added. doncram (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again i think the articles covered in this section have stability, conform to Poquetanuck agreement, and this section should be closed. --doncram (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford County HDs

[edit]
  • 1.5 Hartford County HDs
1.5.1 Hazardville Historic District vs. Hazardville
Are 3 criteria met? Currently split. --doncram (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, 3 criteria not met. --doncram
As you are aware, I refuse to have anything to do with applying the arbitrary pseudo-objective criteria that Doncram and Polaron agreed upon at Talk:Poquetanuck. Using a more holistic evaluation approach, I contend that the Hazardville and Hazardville Historic District articles are about the same topic. The nom form clearly indicates this. It says (in part): "Hazardville is a section of the Town of Enfield... The village owes its origin to the Hazard Powder Company that operated along the nearby Scantic River from 1835 to 1913. The village grew up on the main street, now Hazard Avenue, that runs roughly parallel to and approximately 1,500 feet north of the river. The powder company site, known as Powder Hollow, and its adjacent 19th-century community are the subject of this nomination." In addition, I note that the HD is not limited to extant buildings, but includes potential archeological resources (remains of the gunpowder factory) in Powder Hollow. The village and the associated historic district should be covered in one article, which I believe should be called Hazardville, Connecticut. --Orlady (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the criteria are well-meant and objective, although somewhat arbitrary, and seem to be working basically to stabilize articles so that content can be developed (and, apparently, possibly criticized). I hope you don't mean that you prefer for edit-warring back and forth to be restored as way of deciding what should prevail every 5 seconds. It feels like a great luxury to have some stability, and to have the NRHP document reference added to the article by me, and for you to be reading from that. The default here is to have separate articles, and thereby to allow development of the NRHP HD one without frequent interruptions. IMO, it is premature to have a merger discussion. Let the article be developed by editors who actually are local, or who visit, and who add pics and develop. Offhand, your own selected quote "The powder company site, known as Powder Hollow, and its adjacent 19th-century community are the subject of this nomination" seems to suggest that the NRHP HD is focussed on the 19th-century community, and it is therefore different from the modern-day community which should be the focus of the neighborhood/village/hamlet article. So, let those be different articles and let them develop, for others down the road to address who might earn their way by adding pics and substantial development. --doncram (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't measure the distance between the GNIS coordinates and the centroid of the HD, but I did read the nom form (when NPS Focus was working) and I read other material about Hazardville when I was writing content for the Hazardville article. I reached the conclusion that the village was listed on the National Register as an historic district. However, I guess by now I should be used to being told that my opinion counts for naught; the distances between centroids are clearly all-important. --Orlady (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After some time: The articles seem stable and no one is blocked from adding material. If I can interpret the last statement as a concession to leave it this way, then we have a (perhaps unhappy) consensus and are done for here. --doncram (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.5.2 Glastonbury-Rocky Hill Ferry Historic District
Merger/split discussion completed with involvement of ferry article editor User:Denimadept, with consensus to keep split. Discussion archived, linked from Talk:Glastonbury – Rocky Hill Ferry Historic District. doncram (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.5.3 Newington Junction vs. Newington Junction North Historic District, Newington Junction South Historic District and Newington Junction West Historic District
3 HDs currently merged at Newington Junction, which seems fine to me. I think just adding Poquetanuck-type notices to Talk pages is needed. --doncram (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added Poquetanuck-type statements to South, North, West HD redirect Talk pages and to Talk:Newington Junction, so seems done okay for now. --doncram (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.5.4 Tariffville Historic District vs. Tariffville
Are 3 criteria met? Currently merged, at Tariffville. --doncram (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, 3 criteria not met. I started or re-started separate NRHP HD article. --doncram
Yes, but both articles are lacking in their current form and would be better served by a single combined article until someone comes and develops the article. --Polaron | Talk 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the structure is well-set and hopefully stable now for editors to develop. Premature IMO to discuss merger, when development is needed. Build by developing NRHP HD article from the NRHP nom doc, for example. Serves local editors who could add pics, and anyone who will visit and develop the material, to work ahead. The point is to set up a reasonable structure for future development, and it is no problem that current articles may be stubby. We are not closing off a final version of Wikipedia this week; we are laying out a structure that invites development for next year and beyond. --doncram (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But one of the criteria for merging is when one or both articles are not developed fully. In most of these cases, a better narrative can be presented when the locality and the designation are combined. Again, let's look at the actual facts in the nomination form to make the final judgement. --Polaron | Talk 13:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is important. What is productive to do now, IMO, is to leave the article pair as they are now (allowing others to develop when they get pics / when they feel like it), or to proceed and develop the NRHP HD article now. I added just a few bits of info from the NRHP nom; there is plenty of info available to be used in developing the NRHP HD article. Down the road, I personally expect, offhand, that it will still make sense to keep them separate, although I have not invested much time into really considering it and if i actually visited, took pics, and was developing the article I could well agree and choose to merge as part of creating a polished work. But we are not anywhere close to having developed what can be done. Trying to get several people to focus on a merger decision now, based on reading the nom doc and discussing hypothetically what the merged article vs. split articles would look like, how they best would be written, if someone were actually going to develop write them, would seem like a waste of time. It is premature to have that discussion and to try to make that decision, in the sense that the decision would be easier later, after development of the NRHP HD material. If we saw now that there was no NRHP material to develop, then it would be more reasonable to press for a decision sooner. For example, although i did not like it, it was argued recently that NRHP detailed info was not going to be available in short-term for some case where the NRHP nom does not happen to be on-line and JohnWBarber among others wanted merger. Here there is plenty of material, there is a way forward for you/me/others who actually wish to develop material, without requiring A's and others' attention in a formal decision process on this one now. If you were to pick the one situation most ripe for an informed merger/split decision, this would not be it. Why don't we focus on developing material within stable structure for awhile, and not try to add value by arguing structure/mergers/splits in advance of material being developed. --doncram (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if you actually read through the nomination, you'd find that a single article is best as they are about the same thing. There is indeed plenty of material to develop one nice article about all things "Tariffville". Any development can easily be done within one combined article. --Polaron | Talk 15:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your assertion that "Any development can easily be done within one combined article". Maybe yes, maybe not. Tariffville is a case of a NRHP HD article corresponding somewhat to a village/CDP article with its CDP demographics. I can't think of a single merged CDP and NRHP HD article that is well-developed. I am sure one could merge a short amount of info into a CDP article, but not make a comfortable fit with an extensively developed detailed NRHP article. If there are examples where it works well, i could only imagine it if the HD area, CDP area, and village/town/whatever areas coincide. It seems awkward, i would not know how to proceed with organizing it and I do not imagine many/any other NRHP HD article developers would. Given the choice with Noank case, I chose to separate the NRHP HD and then develop; i would not want to develop within CDP article. One problem besides area and topic-type mismatches is that the CDP info is not sourced comparably to the good NRHP document-based footnotes that NRHP developers use. It would advance matters if someone would develop or find some good examples of combo NRHP HD - CDP articles. But the state of the art in our article writing is that there are no good examples, AFAIK, and forcing a merger is likely to make it awkward for would-be editors, rather than facilitating good development. Given also that 3 criteria not met, i think best to leave separate. --doncram (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.5.5 Collinsville Historic District (Collinsville, Connecticut)
Are 3 criteria met? Currently merged, at Collinsville (Canton, Connecticut), which should probably be renamed, itself, to "Collinsville, Canton, Connecticut" or "Collinsville, Connecticut". --doncram (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per P below, 3 criteria met. Poquetanuck-type Talk page notices added, so seems done for our purposes here. --doncram (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.5.6 Old Wethersfield Historic District vs. Old Wethersfield
No question, this is to remain one article, seems okay being at "Old Wethersfield" although "Old Wethersfield Historic District" is the official name, it seems. History of name not yet sorted out, in terms of whether Old Wethersfield name was coined as part of defining the historic district, CT's biggest (and oldest?) HD. Possibly was originally only "Old Wethersfield Historic District" and then gradually the HD part got truncated off in common use. That to be discussed at article Talk. Never was an contended issue here, is resolved. --doncram (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marion and Marion Historic District -- Satisfies two of three criteria. It does exceed 1500 bytes of prose but most of it is taken from the original Marion neighborhood article and not from the NRHP. Since the historic district is primarily based on architecture, most of this historical text should go back to the neighborhood article. In any case, this should probably be merged until properly expanded. --Polaron | Talk 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, IMHO. The HD article accomplishes clarification which was very difficult to establish, that Marion HD is not the same as Marion. Marion HD extends into a different town. This was sorted out in discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut/Archive 1#Random deletion of Marion HD from New Haven County list. Also the article is > DYK-length and can/should be expanded using NRHP doc. And it does not meet 3-criteria for remerger. Remerger would be a big step backwards, IMHO. The two articles are complementary in a good way, permanently. (Polaron, where you are making a re-merger request, can you please try to find and link in the previous discussion?) doncram (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not quite right. Although the historic district does represent only a thin sliver of Marion, the neighborhood as it is commonly thought of currently does extend a bit into Cheshire where a I-84 serves as a natural boundary. In any case, my information and opinions don't appear to matter anymore in these discussions so I'll leave it in your hands. --Polaron | Talk 19:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well that is not what the Marion, Connecticut article now says. Your info and opinions do matter. I was just stating mine, perhaps forcefully. I will defer to Acroterion making whatever determination here. And I do want to cooperate and get done the re-mergers where 3 criteria met. doncram (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Marion, Connecticut article is currently prominently labeled with a "disputed" template. This was placed there by Doncram to indicate that he does not believe the statement that the Marion historic district is "in" Marion. Since the Marion article consists only of a general geographic description and zip code information (the history section was moved to the HD article), it looks odd to label it as "disputed." Since the only sources cited for the Marion article are the GNIS and zip code databases (additionally, the NRIS database is the only source cited for the HD-specific content in the HD article), it is difficult to see a basis for disputing the accuracy of the assertion that the HD is in the neighborhood it is named for. I think the easiest resolution of the "dispute" would be to indicate in the Marion article that the approximate southern boundary of the Marion neighborhood is I-84 in Cheshire (this is what Polaron says to be true, and his personal knowledge is at least as good in this case as anything cited in the article), then delete the disputed template. Can this be considered? --Orlady (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I copied Orlady's comment to Talk:Marion, Connecticut and responded there. It seems best to me to leave the articles separate, especially as the very facts of Marion are disputed/unknown. Best to allow development of the NRHP HD article to generate material, which might possibly end up resolving the other dispute. Seems okay now, for our purposes here, to me. --doncram (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I think Hartford County issues are resolved well enough here; article structure seems stable and okay/good for our purposes. I don't see any more 3 criteria ones noted below. --doncram (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, ready to close. Have stability and have implemented Poquetanuck agreement defaults. --doncram (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record (since no one seems to care about my opinions, maybe "the record" will note them some day), some time ago I put merge templates on Hazardville, Connecticut and Hazardville Historic District, for reasons largely discussed above. I don't believe that the subject matter is well served by the current separation, which separation seems to based solely on rigid application of the totally arbitrary "Poquetanuck agreement" criterion that asserts that a >0.17-mile separation between the centroid of the HD and the centroid of the "place" indicates that the HD and the place must necessarily be covered in separate articles. Not only is that arbitrary rule particularly ridiculous in the case of large HDs (this one is almost 2 square miles in total area, compared with a 3-square-mile CDP), but after reading the location description in the NRHP nom and comparing it to a map, I believe the that the HD coordinates are wrong -- the actual center of the HD is probably pretty close to the coordinates given in the Hazardville article. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About Hazardville, may I make a suggestion. Orlady, you seem to think that implementing the Poquetanuck agreement here, which allows/encourages editors to take pics and develop the sep. article about the HD, is not a good outcome. I thought likewise about Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut) and some others where I had invested time previously in finding out about the areas, where the Poquetanuck agreement's default was for there to be merger. So I invested more time in developing the Southport and other articles with material from the NRHP nomination, meeting letter of split requirement in the agreement, and I think also convincing others that separate was best. Here, could you do the equivalent, of developing a good amount of material, at least DYK+, about the historic district. Not about the earlier history, but about the buildings still standing that show architecture of interest and/or meaningfully evoke prior history. You could do that in the currently separate article for the HD. If, having done that, you still judge it would be better to merge, I will not oppose. --doncram (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I bother? Currently, the only content elements in the HD article that are not also in the Hazardville, Connecticut article are the NRHP infobox, NRHP navbox, and the sentence "The four "dominant" buildings in the district are the school, the institute, the Episcopal Church, and the Methodist church.<ref name=nrhpinv3/>{{rp|34}}" My position is that the two articles would be better off as one. Why should I need to expand the stubby HD article in order to support that position? The two articles should be merged now. (Why do you suppose it is that I have the impression that you feel that you own these HD articles, and no one may take anything away from them without begging your permission?) --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think identifying what are the most significant buildings in the district, and pointing editors/readers to page 34 where the significance discussion is located in the document, is indeed helpful towards encouraging pics and development of the article. There's plenty of material for a good detailed article, and it seems best to allow that to be developed by NRHP-interested editors. --doncram (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hartford city HDs

[edit]
  • 1.6 Hartford city HDs
1.6.1 Downtown North Historic District (and 7 other historic districts in Downtown Hartford)
Here, the roles in previous discussion have been reversed. Orlady has fought to keep in detail that is in my view irrelevant, too detailed and also too undeveloped. To play out the opposite role, I should say it is horribly "embarrassing" and perhaps move the article to someone else's userspace. :) I actually did try moving the material to somewhere else that I thot would be appropriate, namely the NRHP list-article for Hartford. Seriously, the whole section Downtown Hartford#Historic districts of Downtown Hartford should simply be removed from that article. The discussion between Orlady and me at Talk:Downtown Hartford died out. I'd welcome another view. Also, it could be productive to start developing the separate NRHP HD articles, so that those articles could eventually provide info that could be summarized in the Downtown Hartford article. doncram (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started separate NRHP HD articles for all eight:
and this involved creating/fixing related disambiguation pages elsewhere. I added NRHP docs to only some of these but i think it is clear they are valid wikipedia topics and there is enough for other editors to start with in every one now. Further i edited down the Downtown Hartford article again to simply link to those separate articles. Seems the detail info is fine to have and to develop further in those articles, but most of it is not suitable for the bigger level downtown neighborhood article. I think this is done for now, or for our purposes about article structure. Discussion about what should be included or not in the Downtown Hartford article should continue at its Talk page. --doncram (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) This is ready to close. No issues contended here. --doncram (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tolland County HDs

[edit]
  • 1.7 Tolland County HDs
  • Rockville and Rockville Historic District -- Satisfies three criteria and is very stubby. Ought to be merged until properly expanded. --Polaron | Talk 22:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get why you want the remerger and others as it will make a lousy CDP/mixture article, and create future work, and be confusing for future editors, even if we put in notices at Talk pages. But okay by me since you want it, and i note only an external link (which should be saved in merger) beyond NRIS info, so far. I moved "Rockville (Vernon)" to "Rockville, Connecticut". Who to do the merger? doncram (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The historic district appears to be the same as the former incorporated city, except for some hills and lakes. The CDP is actually a bit larger than the city. In any case, there is no substantial content currently and you can always split it out if you're going to do a proper expansion. Will you be ok with me restoring my version? --Polaron
    I was just taking a shot at doing the merger, find ur note here only when i come back to get links to Plantsville Talk page notices. Please do fix up the merged article, which i didn't do a terribly good job at. doncram (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the confusion here. Stafford Hollow is the name of the original town center village of the town of Stafford. The point here is that there should be one article for Stafford Hollow village and the historic district. There is no suggestion to merge the historic district into the town article. --Polaron | Talk 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for clarifying about the town. Hmm. It seems you want to assert that Stafford Hollow is the same as Stafford, the Principal Community of that name in the town of Stafford. "Stafford Hollow" does not exist as a Principal Community. The 3 criteria for default merger are not met, in my view. I am not seeing sources referring to Stafford Hollow, besides the NRHP document. Currently seems best to me to move "Stafford Hollow, Connecticut" to "Stafford (village), Connecticut" or something like that, and to have "Stafford Hollow Historic District" be a proper, well-referenced separate article about the details of the HD (allowing and asking for local editors to add pics and develop). --doncram (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the nomination. --Polaron | Talk 21:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nom does seem to give primary name "Stafford Hollow" to the place, favoring it over "Stafford", but it is just one example of usage and in particular it is a 1987 document. It may be that common usage has changed. Google maps does not recognize "Stafford Hollow, Connecticut" (altho there is a Stafford Hollow Road somewhere) while it locates "Stafford, Connecticut" right there i think. Stafford is the Principal Community name. I see no reliable sources for Stafford Hollow in quick glance at Google search results. I'll open a Requested Move at Talk:Stafford Hollow, Connecticut to get input from article name/move specialists. --doncram (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google Maps is not an authoritative source for village names. The State Register and Manual [1] confirms that Stafford Hollow is a valid village name. --Polaron | Talk 17:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending resolution on the Stafford Hollow requested move, i think Tolland County issues are done for our purposes. I see no mention of other 3-criteria cases, and in List of RHPs in Tolland i see several stub NRHP HD articles with only NRIS info, so I don't imagine there is wish to merge with any other developed articles.

The requested move at Talk:Stafford Hollow, Connecticut was closed in favor of not moving. I happen to think the arguments were uninformed (and note no other sources besides 1987 NRHP document were provided by anyone, despite calls) but I accept the outcome. So we should act as tho Poquetanuck agreemnt conditions were met. I just put Poquetanuck-style Talk page statements in place. So this is done well enough, should be stable. --doncram (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: P notes below three more merger-criteria-met cases:
I think there's nothing but NRIS info, so nothing to merge to, so I assume/hope that it is agreed the NRHP HD can be kept and developed. I am not trying to change the Poquetanuck agreement, but I don't think we were anticipating having cases where there was simply no hamlet/village/section information developed at all. I think the right thing to do is to let the NRHP HD article exist, and be developed without interruption, with onus for DYK+ development upon any new corresponding hamlet/village/section article. --doncram (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's nothing but NRIS info, so nothing to merge to, so I assume/hope that it is agreed the NRHP HD can be kept and developed. --doncram (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's nothing but NRIS info, so nothing to merge to, so I assume/hope that it is agreed the NRHP HD can be kept and developed. --doncram (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabor a point, but IMO the Rockville, CT article represents an unattractive merger of CDP with NRHP HD info so far, including famous people and other unsourced material. If i were going to develop it seriously myself, i would only do so by splitting the NRHP HD out and doing a properly sourced NRHP HD article, then later summarizing some info from it in the CDP and village/whatever article. However, the situation is stable with Poquetanuck-style Talk page statements giving permission to any other editor to split it out. It just would be nice to know of any good merged CDP - NRHP HD examples, and this is not it, IMHO. --doncram (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is ready to close. No remaining issues on article structure allowing development of material. --doncram (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windham County HDs

[edit]
1.8.1 Broad Street-Davis Park Historic District checkY Done - two HDs in Danielson, both appropriately backlinked.
Not sure why listed; this is fine as the NRHP HD article that it is. --doncram (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.8.2 Wauregan Historic District and Wauregan, Connecticut
User:Nev1's comments at Talk:Wauregan were offered as a third party, seemed insightful. Too bad we didn't listen to Nev1 and others; I do believe a tally of other editors' opinions (of editors who actually developed articles on historic sites and who commented early on) would predominately go that way. Restarted Wauregan HD article. Are 3 criteria met, by the way? doncram (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the nomination? This is clearly the same as the village. The other editors in that discussion apparently aren't familiar with Wauregan's history. The split by Doncram just now iss an unnecessary and provocative move. --Polaron | Talk 00:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's clear from the nomination that the historic district is the village. However, I fully expect that there will be a campaign to keep a separate article about the HD in order to provide full coverage of the boundaries of the historic district, as well as describing the condition of individual workers' houses as of 31 years ago. (Apparently the sum of the parts is now greater than the whole.)
Back when Nev1 commented, I got the strong impression that s/he was judging a U.S.-specific situation on UK terms. In England, a community like Wauregan would likely have at least ten centuries of history, whereas an HD would focus on one aspect of the community. In this U.S. instance, however, there's no such complexity to sort out (and no substantial difference between the village and the HD). --Orlady (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever about your pre-judging, unfairly. I was gathering information, which you are now using to snipe with. Previous discussion was inane and/or not present, it was just edit warring to prevent development. See this is the whole previous discussion, i think. doncram (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[partial outdent] I don't know if I was "pre-judging", but I honestly thought this one had been settled back in September when the articles were merged into Wauregan. Is that what you mean by "pre-judging"? When you say "I was gathering information", are you referring to the information that you assembled in article space at Wauregan Historic District? If that material is intended only as your notes, they belong in user space until they are well enough developed to form a decent article. --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the previous discussion was all at Talk:Wauregan. It died out in August, with no response from Polaron about my request for him to share the NRHP document that he mentioned having. The last comments were by me, noting that there was no merger proposal present and that there had been no resolution of the previous discussion, which no one contradicted. I don't see where you'd get the idea this was settled by any consensus.
Orlady, what i meant by "your pre-judging" was your "However, I fully expect that there will be a campaign..." comments, which is obviously your judging, beforehand, what would ensue.
What i meant by "gathering information" was, first, creating a properly formed reference with link to the NRHP document, a link which I presume you followed to read the nomination. That is simply helpful to inform the discussion. Secondly i had begun absorbing some of the nomination information and forming some material beginning to describe the HD, in the article. That should be understood as helpful, as establishing that at least that much can be said, and building what is common knowledge among the several of us interested. I had not at that point come to a judgment myself what is the right way to go in terms of semi-permanent structure of keeping the HD info in a separate article or merging it into another article.
So, what I meant by "unfairly", was that you were presuming I had decided more than I had, and you presumed i would follow a certain course of action. Maybe we should go back to avoiding making personal comments, particularly ones tangential to the topic of discussion. I regard your comments here as unnecessary and personal. I may have gone off with a bit of personally toned stuff elsewhere, too, recently. But let's just cut that out. I basically just want to finish up these article structure decisions, again in part by building links to NRHP documents and developing some common information.
Now, further common information developed is that P assesses the 3 criteria for merger are in fact met, and I accept that. So I wouldn't now start a separate article without meeting Poquetanuck agreement conditions. But here, since the NRHP HD article is already in progress, I want to take a little time to review the NRHP doc and the Wauregan article and consider what to do next. I'll put an "Under Construction" tag on the article for now, and either I will further develop it or merge it myself. --doncram (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I developed it further, to over DYK length meeting Poquetanuck agreement terms. The separate article contains some detail about metes and bounds and going towards listing out properties. So the NRHP HD article is suited to further development about individual properties. The summary, in a sentence or two, about it in the Wauregan article is actually pretty good. I think this is set now as complementary articles. --doncram (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still, a unified article makes sense here as these are not two different places. Neither article is too long for a split by length. No substantive reason based on actual facts for a split. --Polaron | Talk 05:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the content of the two articles, I'm unconvinced that a separate article is warranted. NPS Focus is down, so I'll return to this after reviewing the nom. Acroterion (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more noted by P as meeting 3 criteria:

About this, copy my comment from another county above: I think there's nothing but NRIS info, so nothing to merge to, so I assume/hope that it is agreed the NRHP HD can be kept and developed. I am not trying to change the Poquetanuck agreement, but I don't think we were anticipating having cases where there was simply no hamlet/village/section information developed at all. I think the right thing to do is to let the NRHP HD article exist, and be developed without interruption, with onus for DYK+ development upon any new corresponding hamlet/village/section article. --doncram (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No issue as long as there is ony a single combined article, whatever its title may be. --Polaron | Talk 05:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While this HD article is the stubbiest of stubs, the parent place has seven HDs, and it seems ungainly to combine this one. I'm inclined to leave it as a stand-alone stub. Acroterion (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The parent place in this case is Dayville, which is just a redirect. I would be opposed to the creation of a separate Dayville article. --Polaron | Talk 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another questioned as to whether it should meet 3 criteria is:

I think there's nothing but NRIS info, so nothing to merge to, so I assume/hope that it is agreed the NRHP HD can be kept and developed. --doncram (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at all in Plainfield, Connecticut. Will review nom. Acroterion (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windham County NRHP list is different from all the others in that it is now fully developed out in stubs. I think there are no remaining issues. Current article structure should be confirmed. --doncram (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New London County HDs

[edit]
1.9.1 Noank Historic District checkY Done - no further controversy
Previous agreement, then >DYK-length article. No issue. --doncram (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.9.2 Norwichtown Historic District checkY Done - Merge
There appears to be no debate that Norwichtown HD is associated with Norwichtown. The HD is moderately well described in references, and it appears that Norwichtown has no defined boundary that can be discerned from our sources. The HD article is a stub, and the Norwichtown article could easily support an HD subsection. I see no obvious reason for the articles to exist apart, based on the principles stated below. Should material be developed on the redlinks the HD could stand on its own. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created articles for all 5 red-links there and I developed the Norwichtown HD article from this 12/26 version to this current version which exceeds DYK length. I believe this now serves well enough to make way for future editors to add pictures and further develop the specifics of the HD, which is clearly different from larger Norwichtown. Commented atTalk:Norwichtown Historic District and will watch there for further discussion. doncram (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No further discussion happening there, i think current structure oughta be confirmed for our purposes here. --doncram (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.9.3Poquetanuck Village Historic District and Poquetanuck checkY Done - no further controversy
Agreed that met terms of Talk:Poquetanuck agreement. Merged. --doncram (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.9.4 Quaker Hill Historic District (Waterford, Connecticut) and Quaker Hill, Connecticut
Satisfies the three criteria and is stubby. Ought to be merged per agreement until properly expanded. --Polaron | Talk 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it meets the 3 criteria as its .17 miles distance was reported a long while ago by Polaron within the Talk:Poquetanuck discussion ( and possibly also at Talk:Quaker Hill, Connecticut ), and it is a "principal community", and it has "Event" type significance per NRHP.COM. But, this is one of the 4 New London County ones selected for discussion, and additional info was dug up. Leading Orlady to conclude, making the last statement in merger/split discussion at Talk:Quaker Hill, Connecticut#Redirect/split discussion, that "Given the dearth of information about the HD, I think it's premature to start an article about it. However, when there is information to base an article on, it probably ought to be a separate article. The Quaker Hill section of Waterford is much larger than than the HD, and the area's history is not likely to be the primary topic of the Quaker Hill article." Now, since the NRHP docs became available on-line, there is enough info to base an article on. And I started with that, adding NRHP doc to the article and beginning to add some info, and P was helping I thought. This is a case of actual info trumping the 3 arbitrary criteria which are to apply when actual info is not available. If P is suggesting this one now because he believes that actual info supports merger, that is to be discussed at its Talk page. doncram (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see a future situation where a split is good here. However, the historic district article is very stubby and has no context. You can always enforce a split by expanding the article. The same is true for all the other cases, right? Just write a decent historic district article to split it off from the main article. --Polaron | Talk 01:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HD article developed to exceed DYK length. I leave it marked as a stub to call for expansion, but it is now a good starter article for any local to add pics to or to develop further from the NRHP doc. Without HABS pics (none available) or other pics, it's not immediately attractive for me to develop further, so I am done for now, tho will watch its Talk page. doncram (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one does not land in the "seems obvious" category for me.
The National Register listing does exclude the boat, but it does include the ferry slip (as a noncontributing property) and an historic "ferry house," and it is clearly about the ferry crossing. The HD is described as a colonial-era "river landing settlement", and the nomination states that "the district is historically significant as a representative example of the type of settlement that developed around these important transportation links [i.e., ferries] across this major waterway." The current draft article about the HD fails to mention the history of the ferry (in operation since 1769), although that history is a major feature in the article about the ferry itself -- and the ferry (apparently the whole crossing, including both landings) is a State Historic Landmark. IMO, the history of the ferry and the historic/architectural aspects of the "river landing settlement" on the Hadlyme side of the river ought to be addressed in a single article (i.e., the one about the ferry), rather than discussing the ferry and its history in one article and the architectural details of the river landing settlement in another.
A further complication is that there is (according to the NRHP nom form) a local historic district in Hadlyme, named the "Hadlyme Ferry Historic District," of which the NRHP-listed HD is just a small part.
Although I don't think that there is anything "obvious" about the best handling of this multifaceted topic, I submit that a good way to address it would be in these two articles, but scoped somewhat differently than they are right now:
(1) Chester–Hadlyme Ferry, to cover the history of the ferry; the current operating ferry; the various local, state and NRHP historic designations; and the historic aspects of the historic district.
(2) Hadlyme Ferry Historic District, to cover both the local and NRHP-listed historic districts of this name, with primary focus on the lists of houses and the architectural details that are apparently of great interest for certain contributors. --Orlady (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady has thereby suggested keeping separate, which seems to be agreeing with me on the one matter of import here, whether separate articles are confirmed. As an aside: the HD is all about the architecture, so yes the architectural details are of interest and belong in the HD article. So this is done i think for our purposes here, i think. doncram (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was subject of a Requested Move at Talk:Mashantucket Pequot Reservation Archeological District, decision by Abcedare(sp?) to keep separate based on discussion/info then provided. My view was/is that there needs to exist an article on the NHL district as a place, as opposed to being merged with an article about a tribe, and that using the NHL name to focus on the archeological aspects is appropriate. I think this is stable and okay, with the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation being a redirect to the Tribe article as other(s?) wanted, but having the NHLD article as it is now, to be developed to cover more archeological info if/when someone is interested and informed and able. --doncram (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tribe should be a separate article but the reservation should redirect to the archeological district (it is wholly contained in the archeological district) and not the tribe. --Polaron | Talk 15:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No more material has been developed since the Requested Move decision. Someone just interested in the reservation probably wants what is the Tribe article, not to be redirected to a different article on archeological sites (not much developed, too). However a reader interested in National Historic Landmarks would be reasonably well served by the article on the archeological sites, even in its current state. I agreed with RM decision, based on info available; no sufficient reason to overturn, IMHO. --doncram (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meets 3 criteria. Currently merged, has a sourced statement explaining relationship. Talk:Baltic, Connecticut shows an early version of a Poquetanuck-style statement accepting merge, and requesting to other editors not to split capriciously, which Orlady misinterpreted and/or contested. Possibly archiving or deleting material to clean off the Talk page would help, but otherwise this is okay, structure-wise. --doncram (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meets 3 criteria. NRIS-only info-based article at NRHP HD name, other redirects, nothing to merge to. Seems okay as is now. --doncram (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meets 3 criteria. Merged at Burnett Corner. Only based on NRIS info, except one link to the CT list of Principal communities to assert that Burnett Corner is a name. It would be easily argued that there is nothing to merge to, that this is an NRHP HD article which should exist at NRHP HD name. But it was an early one of New London County discussions and I am okay with this as is now. Will add Poquetanuck-style Talk page statements. --doncram (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I expanded this article (Burnett's Corner, Connecticut, to be precise) using material from the NRHP nom form. Since the nom form gave both names as alternate titles for the district (both "Burnett's Corner" and "Burnett's Corner Historic District") and this tiny community does not seem to have any official definition as a village, I can't see any justification for ever creating two separate articles. However, I did not touch that long "Poquetanuck" statement on the talk page. --Orlady (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good, I hope that means you agree with what they ask, that no one should split the article unless they a) do some work and b) judge that splitting is best. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asserted by P below to meet 3 criteria but it does not as "Downtown New London" is at best a neighborhood, not a Principal Community. There's a good starter article in place. --Doncram
And i think there is no Downtown New London neighborhood article, even, so there's nothing to merge to. --doncram (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asserted by P below to meet 3 criteria. Merged article at Greeneville, Connecticut name, with odd pic of a church that looks like its back, but may be its front in fact, that i believe Polaron found and added. I just clarified relationship of NRHP HD vs. village/neighborhood in the article and added Poquetanuck-style Talk page statements. Seems okay. --doncram (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asserted by P below to meet 3 criteria. --Doncram
Besides fact that "Hallville" seems not same as "Hallville Mill Historic District", there's no separate article to merge to. Hallville redirects to what i think is NRIS-only based HD article. So seems okay. --doncram (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asserted by P below to meet 3 criteria. --Doncram
There's a merged article in place at Jordan Village, Connecticut, mentioning a Jordan and a Jordan Village Historic District, with "significantly similar" clause in place (ready for anyone to replace if they would develop a sourced characterization of relationship). I'll just add Poquetanuck-style Talk page statements now...doing. Seems done. --doncram (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) County seems done, Poquetanuck agreement default implemented everywhere and no serious disagreements, i think. --doncram (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Haven County HDs

[edit]
  • 1.10 New Haven County HDs
The general issues were discussed at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut/Archive 3#New Haven County HDs
A batch of New Haven County redirects were addressed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 13#various New Haven County, CT, redirects, with all being deleted except Stony Creek-Thimble islands and Russian Village Historic District which had redirected to Southbury, Connecticut

About Russian village, the discussion was:

Retarget to the stub at Russian Village, or move Russian Village to the full historic district name if that is preferable. --Polaron | Talk 14:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Retargeting makes sense. I edited the redirect as Polaron suggested. --Orlady (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Good we agree the original redirect did not make sense. I've moved the NRHP HD info to the NRHP HD name, and added a bit more, and converted "Russian Village" to a disambiguation page. If someone wants to create an article on the "village" at "Russian Village, Connecticut" they could do so, but any further discussion should not be here. Thanks, this one is resolved, i believe, so am striking it out. doncram (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That one still seems done. --doncram (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1.10.1 Stony Creek-Thimble Islands Historic District checkY Done - Keep separate
Per comment on article talk, best left separate for disambiguation; they're related, but have different coverage and natures. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P has below assessed 3 merger criteria for the other 7 CT counties but not New Haven County yet. Possible issues from NRHP list:

Are criteria met? A separate NRHP HD article, with just NRIS info, an NRHP doc reference which i had added from hard-copy NRHP doc i collected, and unsourced commentary about relationship to Branford Center CDP. I think ok as is. --doncram (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are criteria met? I think criteria not met. I think HD is not same as CDP, esp. as CDP apparently includes 2 separate HDs. Will pause for comment, but expect to split and develop somewhat. --doncram (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Branford Center is indeed a section of town. Remember that town center villages/neighborhoods are usually known as "Downtown X" or "X Center" to avoid confusion with the town as a whole. The fact that CDPs in urbanized areas of Connecticut are often larger than local usage of a place name should not affect things. Branford Center is a well-known neighborhood. Historical, cultural, architectural information about Branford Center should be in the article on Branford Center. Just because it so happens there is a CDP by that name encompassing the neighborhood should not change things. One can describe the different boundaries and clarify things in a single article. Besides, the only thing a CDP adds is demographic and land/water area information, which can easily be set off as their own section. --Polaron | Talk 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no sourced info present in the current article which supports merger; there's just an unsourced statement that "The Branford Center Historic District, which represents the area of the traditional town center, was listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places in 1987." and the NRHP infobox. Per the Poq. agreement, I will proceed and start the separate article on Branford Center Historic District. I'll pause though, in case someone else would like to offer to develop DYK+-length material on the NRHP itself (details of the NRHP itself, not about the previous history of Branford). --doncram (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't split this needlessly. Branford Center is a well known community. While the CDP named for Branford Center does extend into Branford Point, there is absolutely no need to have a separate article on the CDP, the neighborhood, and the historic district derived from the neighborhood. --Polaron | Talk 21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you are not willing to develop the NRHP material. Polaron, you made the choice to have your way with the Principal Community ones, so that your preference would be imposed upon NRHP-interested editors. Here, there's no reason by Poq. agreement to impose your preference upon NRHP-interested editors. Repeating, there's no example AFAIK of a good merged NRHP HD - CDP article. I think the best way to proceed is to set up a separate NRHP HD starter article, that can attract locals or visitors to take and add pics, to develop, etc. While forcing a merger inhibits that development. Again, I offer if you say now you want to develop a DYK+ length article on the NRHP HD (about the NRHPness, not prior history) in a timely fashion, and then propose merger, I will agree now not to oppose the merger. If you think it would be a bad outcome to go with the default agreement by Poquetanuck, are you willing to do some work to earn a different outcome, or not? --doncram (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to split first then have someone propose a merge? Why can't someone develop a wholistic article on Branford Center covering all its aspects. One can then easily add a statistics section and a section highlighting some of the architectural stuff. The history section would apply to both the historic district and the neighborhood (they are the same after all). Doesn't that make for a better experience for the reader? --Polaron | Talk 23:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i'm looking at the NRHP nom doc now. 65 pages, lots of detail. Description of boundaries, alone, runs several pages. I can't immediately figure out whether the boundaries are very similar to boundaries of a CDP, but it is clear there's lots of detail for an article describing the contributing properties that would exceed what is reasonable to include in a CDP article. To resolve this open item for now, hopefully, i will just start the article, yes. Starting it. You can add it to a list of cases where you want something different than Poq. agreement, for some further phase of this. Or perhaps with article started you could just add more material to it so that you yourself will agree that it should not be merged. --doncram (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anothe split started by Doncram unnecessarily while discussion is ongoing. You do make it hard to assume you're acting in good faith. What would you think if I merged articles now? --Polaron | Talk 18:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge, but I agree that the article in its present state doesn't doesn't describe anything unique: the prose could apply anywhere. Acroterion (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion, is this comment meant for Branford Center, or is it misplaced? If it is for Branford Center, it doesn't seem to make sense as your comment doesn't seem applicable (it does describe something unique to Branford Center). Further, am I allowed to implement your decisions or is Doncram the only one authorized to do so? --Polaron | Talk 16:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did and do interpret A's comment as meant for Branford Center, that the separate HD article is clearly enough good on its own as a starter article to be kept separate. I think it being separate and developed as far as it is will encourage locals/visitors to take pics and develop about the topic. Although, point taken, it's not the best writing since Shakespeare died. :(
I think Polaron's comment and question here were prompted by my edit removing merger tag, with edit summary referring to A's judgment here. Polaron restored the merger tags and posted here. First, thanks Polaron for proceeding like this; it seems civil and proper enough. In removing the merger tag, I was invoking A's judgment on this page that was per my preferences. In other items on this page such as Fenwick Historic District, A had judged counter to my preferences, and no one was jumping to implement. To respond i did since implement the merger for Fenwick and any others, and P followed up with edits in the merged article(s). So, A could possibly respond further, but I think it's basically moot: there are no decisions taken by A that are outstanding. --doncram (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria not met. NRHP HD name currently redirects to Shore Line Trolley Museum, which has NRHP infobox and unsourced, my-guess--to-be-inaccurate statement that "The museum encompasses the Branford Electric Railway Historic District", i.e. has only NRIS-based info. Appears that NRHP HD should have sep. article or be a red-link. Will pause for comment, but expect to create separate NRHP HD article to allow for development and link to the Trolley Museum article. --doncram (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not split without reading the nomination form. Do not assume these are different. In fact, these are identical. --Polaron | Talk 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Polaron on this one. The museum includes a lot of trolley line, etc. --Orlady (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that. The properties are identical. Historic district primarily consists of old trolley cars and railroad tracks. --Polaron | Talk 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor, Staib, has stated willingness/interest to develop the article, and the NRHP doc is now available, and the doc supports keeping one article. So my self-labelled "guess" was indeed wrong, and Polaron's private info appears correct in this case. I don't get why P would not provide a source in discussion at Talk:Shore Line Trolley Museum. I still don't know whether P had consulted the NRHP doc or not. But, this is done for our purposes here: there should be just one article. It's not clear to me whether the article should be renamed to the NRHP HD name, and I have raised that for discussion at the article Talk page. But that's for discussion at the Talk page, possibly a wp:RM, not for here. --doncram (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are criteria met? Currently a NRIS-only NRHP HD article, i think ok. --doncram (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently NRHP HD name redirects to East Rock, which does not mention the NRHP HD. --doncram (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The park and the trap rock should be the same article. The neighborhood is only related to the park in so far as part of the park is in the neighborhood, which is also named after the trap rock. --Polaron | Talk 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, East Rock Park should have an article separate from East Rock. East Rock is the traprock ridge that is the central feature of the park, but the park also includes an extensive lowland area of woodland, floodplain, a parkway road, playgrounds, etc., at the foot of the ridge that is a central feature of the East Rock neighborhood (and I believe is adjacent to the Wilbur Cross High School campus). I don't know how much of the park is included in the HD (and NPS Focus isn't working, so I can't check), but it's likely that the HD includes the entire parkway road system (not just the part on the mountain) as well as some buildings and the monument on top of East Rock. Let's hold fire on creating the park article, though, until NPS Focus is up and running again... --Orlady (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NRHP nom form[2] is accessible today, and it confirms my impression that East Rock Park deserves a separate article. The district boundaries apparently are the same as the boundaries of the 427-acre park, which is partially in Hamden (although it belongs to the city of New Haven). The park is much larger than East Rock, and the HD does not include any of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. --Orlady (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The park is bigger so the existing article should be moved to "East Rock Park" and the rock formation can be described in the park article. A similar situation exists for Sleeping Giant State Park (although the article is at the rock formation name). On the other hand, West Rock is separate from West Rock Ridge State Park although the contents are largely redundant. --Polaron | Talk 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, East Rock is a geologic feature and a landmark that deserves its own article. Meanwhile East Rock Park is a larger tract that includes an historic scenic drive, recreational facilities, a rose garden, the war monument, and other elements that are only peripherally related to East Rock itself. In contrast, Sleeping Giant State Park is pretty much indistinguishable from the Sleeping Giant mountain -- they might be split into two articles at some point, but the park doesn't include any non-mountain elements like rose gardens.
As for West Rock and West Rock Ridge State Park, as with East Rock the state park is much larger than the geologic feature, but I suppose because it's less visible from the center of the city and has less public access, people may not grok the distinction. Is it also on the National Register? (I would think the scenic drive -- now closed to traffic, I believe -- and Judge's Cave should qualify for the National Register, if not too seriously affected by vandalism and lack of maintenance.) --Orlady (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I agree more with Orlady's arguments in favor of splitting, covering NRHP topic of the park with its naturalist-style landscaping, etc., separately. There's no requirement to merge by Poq. agreement. I may try to draft an article on the park. --doncram (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Separate article started. --doncram (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the New Haven county cases are done well enough; this section could be closed. --doncram (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following up: A could respond to P's question under Branford Center Historic District discussion above, but otherwise I think again we are done well enough here for New Haven county cases. --doncram (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Haven City HDs

[edit]
Dropped infobox, added wikilink. Request deletion of redirect so that neighborhood article and NRHP list both properly show a red-link. --doncram (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polaron effectively agrees, i believe, as noted in comment below Orange Street Historic District. --doncram (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again request deletion of redirect. This is done if redirect is deleted. This and other ones like it are done for our purposes if the redirect is deleted, which requires an administrator's help. --doncram (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel this one redirect deletion request, as I started the article as part of informing discussion Prospect Hill neighborhood and Prospect Hill HD article. Polaron has made a nice map and it is well on its way :). --doncram (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done No deletion of redirect, per consensus. Acroterion (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added wikilink. Request deletion of redirect so that neighborhood article and NRHP list both properly show a red-link. --doncram (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polaron effectively agrees, i believe, as noted in comment below Orange Street Historic District. --doncram (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again request deletion of redirect. --doncram (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done - now redlinked Acroterion (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this should ultimately be split. But please make sure you don't split until you can contextualize its relationship to the neighborhood and what distinguishes one from the other two. Collectively, these three districts cover the whole residential/commercial portion of the East Rock neighborhood. --Polaron | Talk 18:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i don't care to do all the splitting out now. Prefer for now just to set proper structure up, by deleting redirects, showing red-links. Added wikilink. Request deletion of redirect so that neighborhood article and NRHP list both properly show a red-link. --doncram (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polaron agrees, I believe. --doncram (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again request deletion of redirect. --doncram (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done - now redlinked Acroterion (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ninth Square is highly notable--much coverage available--on its own. Expect to split and facilitate developmt. --doncram (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that a split is better here. This sub-neighborhood is also a special taxing district. --Polaron | Talk 18:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for red-linking. I added wikilink to the Downtown New Haven article. --doncram (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again request deletion of redirect. --doncram (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done - now redlinked Acroterion (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected in 2008 by P to City Point (New Haven), a neighborhood article which does not cover the HD. Does not meet criteria. Red-link or separate article needed, i expect. --doncram (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split out. Polaron agrees, per note below Oyster Point Historic District (next) and per edits in Howard Avenue HD article. So this one is done i think. --doncram (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected in 2008 by P to City Point (New Haven), a neighborhood article which includes NRIS-only info on the HD. Does not meet criteria. Oyster Point currently points to a location in Australia, needs to be a dab page. Expect to set up separate NRHP HD article and include it on a new dab page. --doncram (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Howard Avenue can probably be separated but Oyster Point and City Point should have only one single article. Again, please read the nomination first to see what I mean. --Polaron | Talk 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for variety, I have tried editing the City Point article to develop the Oyster Point Historic District material there, per Polaron's request. I made some progress but find it does not go easily. There are writing problems with the merger. The request about reading the nomination and so on, and making a merged article work, is a request to others to do the writing and take on built-in difficulties (like, how narrate suitably that just one of two HDs in the neighborhood will be covered in the neighborhood article, while the other can be split out; how organize material on history of neighborhood vs. context for historic district; it is a harder writing task to make it all work out). The suggestion that a merged article would be better is a request/burden being put on others. In almost all cases it would be simpler for others to write a straightforward article about one thing, the historic district. If you want to make requests that others take on more difficult writing tasks, and/or disallow them from the easier or more natural approach, then you should demonstrate how with your own writing. --doncram (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself don't have to do it if you can't make it work. Someone local will eventually get to this. There is no deadline. Also, once the differing beoundaries are mentioned, you can simply just write about the historic district as the historic district. In discussing the history, you probably don't even need to differentiate. This is in fact true for most historic districts that are also localities. --Polaron | Talk 06:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria not met. Redirects to a differently named, larger neighborhood article to which I added link to Quinnipiac River Historic District, not otherwise mentioned. Request deletion of the redirect, then all is fine, red-link would show in neighborhood article and NRHP list. --doncram (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historic district covers riverfront areas of Fair Haven and Fair Haven Heights. Split is better in the long run even though history overlaps quite a bit with Fair Haven. --Polaron | Talk 21:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria not met. Redirects to a differently named, larger neighborhood article to which I added link to River Street Historic District (New Haven, Connecticut), not otherwise mentioned. Request deletion of the redirect, then all is fine, red-link would show in neighborhood article and NRHP list. --doncram (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split is better as River Street is a tiny portion of Fair Haven. --Polaron | Talk 21:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears criteria not met. Prospect Hill (New Haven) article includes assertion it includes Hillhouse Avenue Historic District. Red-link or sep. article to facilitate developmt needed, i think. --doncram (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historic district is nearly identical to the non-Yale residential areas of the neighborhood. A single article is better in this case. --Polaron | Talk 21:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That assertion is not supported in article, no source provided. I think the right thing to do is split out (implement Poquetanuck agreement default) and allow merger proposal to be discussed at a Talk page. I would view a merger proposal premature at the moment given no sources, no development yet provided. Development of a map showing census tract, official neighborhood, and HD boundaries (all knowable) would be helpful, first, too. But yes, item could go into a Phase 2 list of merger proposals to be considered. --doncram (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split would be inappropriate. This is one case where the boundaries are virtually the same. Please check nomination. It is true the article is incomplete, which only means we should add the information in that article and not in a separate article. --Polaron | Talk 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I checked the nom doc and compared it to New Haven's neighborhood map and I find the historic district is not nearly identical to the neighborhood, and I find the historic district includes and features Yale buildings such as the Divinity School complex, and there is plenty of good detail in the 79-page NRHP document about details of architecture etc. that are not appropriate for a good neighborhood article to serve as a reference. When I look, as you ask, it is my judgment that the far better approach is to facilitate a NRHP HD article, and eventually someone may be able to put some good summary information about it into the neighborhood article. I completely disagree with your assertion that split would be "inappropriate", and having separate articles is the default agreement, too. --doncram (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The historic district excludes Science Hill and Hillhouse Avenue, which is also on a separate census tract. Everything else is included and is identical to what is considered the residential portion of Prospect Hill. Architecture is one of the major unifying themes of this neighborhood and it is very appropriate to discuss it in this article. --Polaron | Talk 06:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to check the nom and I did. It (linked here]) is a longer nom and includes architectural drawings at the end so it it uploads slowly; i haven't found the author to refer to Jan or David or whoever else more specifically as author, tho it is clearly not one of Constance's. From my review and from my experience writing NRHP HD articles in CT and elsewhere, I judge that a separate NRHP HD article really needs to be clearly allowed. The way forward to improve the neighborhood article is to facilitate development of a good, detailed NRHP HD article, which further enlists locals or visitors to take pics and further develop good information. That is most efficient in developing the neighborhood article sooner rather than later, IMO, because it will more likely ensure good info is developed that can be summarized nicely in the neighborhood article. That is best also for allowing detail available from the long NRHP nom, and not forcing other editors to contend with unnecessary editing difficulties, such as struggling with the obvious-to-me constraint that too much addresses- and architectural-type info would overwhelm the usefulness of the neighborhood article as a reference article on the official neighborhood, an important article on its own. So showing a redlink or starting with an NRIS-based-at-least stub is the best way forward, is my considered opinion. --doncram (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another provocative split by Doncram. You are disregarding the fact that this is in contention and you just disregard others' opinions. --Polaron | Talk 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way, perhaps in your first reaction to the first edit beginning to create a separate article, now in process. I developed it somewhat more, over DYK length already, and I think already clearly beneficial to have in the wikipedia. It will take some time to develop this; I started building links to architect articles which on its own will take a good amount of time. I would welcome your contributing to developing the article. (By the way, some of your statements above appear now to be incorrect, as it turns out the district excludes other parts of the neighborhood, such as properties along Whitney Avenue. Also by the way, it turns out the district extends into the Dixwell neighborhood.) --doncram (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow the planning map, yes since that map always uses streets as the boundaries rather than the back property lines as is more usually taken like how census tracts are divided. Locally, propeties fronting Prospect Street are all in Prospect Hill and properties fronting Whitney Avenue are all in East Rock. Don't rely too much on one way of dividing neighborhoods. --Polaron | Talk 19:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Doncram unilaterally created the HD article and Polaron put merge templates on the articles, I started a discussion at Talk:Prospect Hill (New Haven). I strongly support merger. Looking at the gerrymander-like boundaries of the HD and reading the nom form, I concluded that the historic district nomination was about politics (related to Yale's plans to build new facilities), not some special uniting element that uniquely defines that collection of properties. I am puzzled at the idea that the Prospect Hill HD extends into the Dixwell neighborhood -- are you getting it confused with the Winchester Repeating Arms HD? --Orlady (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I read the documents and reviewed the maps. IMO, you're expressing your opinion about merger too strongly. Your opinion is based in part on your jumping to assume that facts I have been writing about here and in mainspace are wrong. Letting articles develop builds information, such as the now clear facts that Prospect Hill neighborhood includes parts of 3 HDs and the Prospect Hill HD includes parts of 2 official neighborhoods. A judge in a court case has to let "discovery" happen first. --doncram (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for Hillhouse Avenue, I concur that it is generally considered to be on Prospect Hill, although I haven't looked to see how the city has drawn its official neighborhood boundaries. It is sufficiently distinctive, and sufficiently interesting architecturally and historically, that it fully deserves its own article. The title Hillhouse Avenue is appropriate; the fact that the National Register listing added the words "historic district" did not change the name of the street. --Orlady (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I split this possible item out of Prospect Hill discussion just above, to allow for any discussion. Not aware there was any contention. If there is just disagreement about name of article, let that take place at article talk, does not require consideration here. --doncram (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, Doncram, but I am speaking from local knowledge. Let me be blunt (and non-PC). The Prospect Hill neighborhood is defined by the existence of a hill and it was long associated with Yale, money, and whiteness. Dixwell is in the valley and has some history of being associated with not-Yale, not-money, and not-whiteness. If the official city neighborhood map labels part of the Prospect Hill historic district as "Dixwell," then I believe there's something wrong with the city's map. --Orlady (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've loaded the city neighborhood maps for Prospect Hill, Newhallville, and Dixwell, and I think I see the problem (here and elsewhere). The boundaries of the Dixwell neighborhood don't make a whole lot of sense. Part of the north boundary of the neighborhood is Munson Street -- essentially the southern boundary of the Winchester factory complex. This explains why some of the worker housing built up around that factory is not part of the city's definition of the Newhallville neighborhood (even though it was called Newhallville area back when it was built). The northeastern corner of the neighborhood is the corner of Prospect Street -- the street that runs along the crest of Prospect Hill (and that may give the neighborhood its name) -- and Hillside Place -- a street that runs up the side of Prospect Hill. For reasons unknown to me (but likely related to city planners' desire for maps of a convenient size), the city has defined the Dixwell neighborhood very expansively. The city map should not be treated as the sole arbiter of neighborhood boundary. (I see that Polaron has reached a similar conclusion regarding the way the East Rock neighborhood is defined -- saying that Whitney Avenue is not the real edge of the neighborhood, but is used as the boundary because the boundary needs to be a street...) --Orlady (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that views of where Prospect Hill starts and ends vary considerably among different groups. Perhaps Yale undergrads who live out in the flat area perceive that the Hill starts with wherever Hillhouse starts sloping up. Perhaps Yale staff, students, residents who have more daily association with Hillhouse or Science Hill area reserve Prospect Hill term to refer to higher up. Who knows what real estate agents selling property on the west side of Whitney Avenue prefer to use, maybe they want to claim Prospect Hill membership not East Rock. Probably Yale students don't know or care about distinctions between Newhallville vs. Dixwell, while locals who live over there have very specific views. Remember that New Yorker cartoon showing NYC residents' perspective vs. the rest of the country. Everybody's "personal knowledge" varies. For the encyclopedia we have to use reliable sources. Anyhow, discussion of the city's maps and neighborhood definitions can continue at Talk:Neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut. The current separate articles seem fine to me: no one is prevented from developing further material; the separate articles appropriately facilitate continuing development; the detail in the HD article encourages locals/visitors to add pics and develop, etc. So i think we are done well enough for here. --doncram (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed infobox and left link. Request deletion of redirect so that neighborhood article and NRHP list-article show redlink. --doncram (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that a split works better in this case. --Polaron | Talk 21:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again request deletion of redirect. --doncram (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done - now redlinked Acroterion (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears criteria not met. NRHP HD was redirected to a New Haven neighborhood article which has NRIS-only info about the HD. (BTW, all of the official City of New Haven neighborhood articles should be updated to define and clarify their official status, IMO.) I will revise to link to NRHP HD name. Request deletion of redirect so that link in neighborhood article and in NRHP city list shows properly as red-link, yet to be developed. --doncram (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the historic district refers to the commercial portion of the neighborhood, a split is unnecessary as the current article is a stub anyway. A combined article with more meat would work better. --Polaron | Talk 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all these cases, could you please develop a sourced discussion of the historic district either in the article which you wish to have as the merged article, or the separate NRHP article if there is one. If there was material in place, that won't necessarily convince me all the way that a merger is better than split, but it would be building the wikipedia rather than uselessly arguing, and I certainly would read it, and it could well give me cause to consider whether a merger makes sense. The redirect in place now is effectively an unsourced, unsupported assertion and should be removed from the Wikipedia IMHO. Supporting your reasoning here does not help readers and future editors of that article, and it just makes this process longer. This Talk subpage of A's userspace was meant only for brief notes, not extended discussion of overlaps and so on. Do you want to A and O and me to hang on for a few days in this phase 1 review while you develop the article? Or, I could split it and leave for a phase 2 proposed mergers process to happen sometime later. --doncram (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another provocative split by Doncram. The historic district (the downtown area) works better discussed together with the surrounding suburban housing. --Polaron | Talk 13:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By starting a stub article, I am just trying to finish out this process. And, it turns out again that facts are different than represented by those arguing strongly against allowing an article on an NRHP HD topic. Checking the maps, I find that the HD is in two neighborhoods, with about a quarter of its area (mostly one big building) in a different neighborhood. And the size of the HD is negligible relative to the neighborhood size. (About the relevant facts of the HD for this one, could you and i both just add info to the article rather than argue about facts here.) A decent article on this one could detail the 34/35 buildings in the district, attracting locals or visitors to take pics and develop further. It seems most helpful to set up the NRIS-based article, and to keep it separate, I am more convinced once I start in on it. I simply don't understand why you are so convinced, in advance, in this and many other cases, that a merger is desirable, in the absence of sources. Yes, there is a coincidence of name, but that means little, as has been proven dozens or hundreds of times in Connecticut NRHP HDs vs. villages/hamlets/neighborhoods already. P, also, you declined to develop NRHP material in your prefered merger article, or to ask for any length of time to do so. Prolonging this for 6 months with no clear plan, preventing NRHP-interested editors from proceeding, is not acceptable IMO. Let's just develop the articles, in this case separately. --doncram (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are still overly relying on these neighborhood planning maps, which do not always conform to the original settlements. Prior to city and town consolidation, the whole western part of the town of New Haven that was outside the city of New Haven was Westville. The historic district represents the village center and the surrounding areas later developed into suburban housing. --Polaron | Talk 16:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it seems appropriate to develop about historic, past uses of Westville name, in the Westville neighborhood article (including using the NRHP nom doc as a reference there), and to cover the specifics of HD in the HD article. Discussion about neighborhood boundaries at Talk:Neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut. --doncram (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I revised to link to, instead of show NRHP infobox for, the NRHP HD. The NRHP HD extends into another neighborhood and otherwise pretty clearly should be separate. Request deletion of redirect so redlink will show. --doncram (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does cover most of one and a little bit of another so a split is probably not useful. --Polaron | Talk 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I think you mean so a split is probably useful, right? Either way, could you please develop a sourced discussion, helpful whether it is merged or split. --doncram (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, a split is not called for, unless there is sourced information clearly indicating a reason for a split. Newhallville is the name of the neighborhood where the Winchester plant used to be. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you are speaking from any sourced info, so I will reply at same level: From the name of the NRHP HD alone it seems about the Winchester plant and its history, while Newhallville is primarily a residential neighborhood, so they seem to be different topics. To merge would be going against the obviouse, and would require sourced information about why they should be merged. It seems unreasonable to impose, with no support, a requirement on other editors who would actually do the writing, that they must work within a non-obvious framework. It seems best to show a redlink or do a stub article (even just an NRIS-only one) showing the most reasonable way forward, that an NRHP HD article would be welcome. --doncram (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the situation. Newhallville was developed mainly as a result of the Winchester factory. There weren't "official" neighborhoods in the old days and this was all Newhallville then. --Polaron | Talk 19:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pause for reply, but, one last time, is there no one else willing to develop DYK+ length material on the NRHP? Otherwise i will proceed with separate article about the NRHP HD topic. --doncram (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No takers on that offer. Proceeding, I consulted the NRHP nom doc for the HD and find that it includes hundreds, literally, of buildings in the Dixwell neighborhood out of 867 major structures in the HD. From the doc: the "255-acre district includes most of the southern and northern portions of the city's Newhallville and Dixwell neighborhoods, respectively." The district surrounds the old Winchester plant; clearly the plant was important to both of its adjoining residential neighborhoods. I'm not surprised. Clearly enough to me, it is appropriate to have a separate article, and to link to it from both neighborhoods articles, from any articles about the Winchester or U.S. Repeating Arms factories, from any article about the Science Park at Yale (currently a redlink from some other article(s)), and so on, rather than being shoehorned into any one of those. After 7 months of this, I am still surprised at vehemence of arguments against allowing NRHP-interested editors to create articles on valid topics. And I note that far more has been written here and below about the 2 neighborhoods, than is available in the two neighborhood articles themselves. --doncram (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Separate article started. I put in enough, with quote from NRHP doc, to give idea why it should be kept separate. Should be stable for locals or visitors to add pics and develop the article. --doncram (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your creation of a separate article. Yes, I realize that more than an hour had passed without either Polaron or I repeating all of the reasons why this article should not be split off, but that did not justify your unilateral action to create a vague stub article. As I wrote less than a week ago in another subsection on this page: "A couple of weeks back I spent a little bit of time working on the Newhallville article, which is where the Winchester Arms HD should be documented. The nom form that was prepared in 1987 should not be used as the sole source of an article about either the neighborhood or the HD, as there have been major changes in the area during the 22+ years since 1987. Portions of the gun factory complex (which is the central feature of the HD) were still operating then, but are now completely closed down. Also, some buildings in the HD have been gutted and converted to new uses, I believe that others have been torn down and replaced, some buildings are empty and derelict, and there have been big changes in some of the nearby residential streets, some of which are also in the HD. There's even a complicated story to be told of companies that moved in and later moved out, redevelopment plans that were started and abandoned, new redevelopment plans, and Yale University's shifting role in the whole scene. An article about the HD that is based solely on the 1987 nom form would not tell a valid story." Moreover, as I would have written on this page within the past 24 hours if it were not for the fact that I try to maintain a life, the New Haven city planning department's "neighborhood planning maps" should not be treated as authoritative definitions of the city's neighborhoods. --Orlady (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, you realize that this was the last CT NRHP HD item outstanding on this entire page. Anyhow, there are two sources used that are highly relevant: the official New Haven map system, and the 1987 NRHP HD nomination document which describes the historic district as comprised of the northern part of Dixwell and the southern part of Newhallville, and making no assertion either neighborhood is more important in the HD. In other arguments referenced on this page you've cited much earlier dated documents and wanted to rely upon them, where they suited your views. The former Winchester plant, although a largish block is a relatively small portion of the HD, which is mostly comprised of residential properties. Speculation-wise, don't you think that having a largish industrial block in place would tend to separate two residential neighborhoods? Wouldn't you think that the neighborhood south would have separate social/shopping/etc. centers? The city defines the boundary by streets running through the industrial block area, placing the industrial block in Newhallville. What sources do you have for defining Dixwell and Newhallville's boundaries differently than their being divided by the Winchester plant tract? Even if you wanted to disagree with the city's definition of neighborhoods whenever they came out with them, don't you think that as time went by, as the city issued budgets organized by neighborhood and responded officially to crime reports and otherwise discussed city services in the neighborhoods, that the official definitions would take on more and more currency? I am pretty sure that has happened, and that the New Haven Register's reporting about events around the city largely will follow the city definitions too. I don't think your "personal knowledge" is valid for going with some different treatment of factual information in the Wikipedia, other than what is available in reliable sources. I will restore the HD article now and edit it, however, to be even clearer, wherever appropriate, about any reliance upon neighborhood definitions as defined by the city. I hope that will suffice. --doncram (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I developed the article in this version now to be well over DYK length. It is incomplete and sorely lacks photos, but even in this form I think it provides good information to readers. Also it serves to call for locals or visitors to take pics and develop the article. With addition of photos and with additional sources providing updates on the district area (which I am all for), it will be a good article. I may develop it further and nominate for an explicit DYK. I think for our purposes in deciding article structure (where should NRHP HD material be encouraged), this should suffice. --doncram (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neighborhood article already characterizes relationship of NRHP HD to rest of neighborhood, had no NRHP infobox. I revised only to link to NRHP HD name. Request deletion of redirect so redlink will show. --doncram (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HD covers about 3/4 of area of neighborhood refering to the mixed use area around Wooster Square Park. No benefit from splitting as one can always discuss within the framework of a single article. --Polaron | Talk 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit of deleting the redirect is showing the redlink, that a detailed article can be created and showing in the NRHP list that it has not been created. So readers of the NRHP list are not tricked into thinking there will be material on the NRHP HD if they click on it. There was/is no content in the Wooster Square article besides one sentence, now changed only to include helpful wikilink (which should show as a redirect). All the same old reasons apply. --doncram (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wooster Square is a very well-defined urban neighborhood that is well-known for its historic elements and its pizza. This is one of those instances where separating the HD article from the neighborhood article significantly diminishes the value of both articles. There should be one article at Wooster Square. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay now with P and O's edits, the Wooster Square article has an NRHP infobox and an additional unsourced single sentence about the historic district. That is less than a two or three sentence typical NRIS-only-based stub article would provide (which can easily give the number of contributing properties and some other now-nearly-boilerplate stuff). If O and P did not want to develop the NRHP info further to explain the significance of the NRHP and give substantial detail, I would strongly prefer as (1) to delete the NRHP infobox and include a redlink to the NRHP HD name, allowing and calling for an NRHP-interested editor to develop an NRHP HD article. Second choice would be (2) to create a stub article with NRIS info and NRHP nom doc reference. Either would be consistent with the Poq agreement and would, IMO, best show the way forward (and not deceive readers of the NRHP list-article that there was an article about the NRHP).
I do note the Wooster Square HD NRHP document is one of the Constance Luyster ones, shorter and with architecture but relatively more history-oriented and earlier dated, relative to the Jan Cunningham- or David Ransom-written NRHP noms that provide much more detail. So, of the several New Haven NRHP HD ones I've looked at, the Wooster Square case is relatively more suited to a merged article (as its material is somewhat more easily merged, and as it is not so much a loss of topic for editors actually interested in the architectural and other detail of the Cunningham-, Ransom- and other-authored ones). There is nonetheless plenty of material in Luyster's document. If you two want to develop the NRHP material on this one in a merged article, could you humor me and clearly develop DYK+ worth on the NRHP? You could do that at the location of the NRHP HD article (where it could be easily measured), or set it aside in a section of the merge target article as you develop it, or somehow otherwise show u r doing that much. If you do, and report back here as I have been doing where I wanted to go differently than the Poq agreement default, I would support a merger on this one. --doncram (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pause for reply, but, one last time, is there no one else willing to develop DYK+ length material on the NRHP? Otherwise i will proceed with separate article about the NRHP HD topic. --doncram (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No takers, but I just chose to add the NRHP doc and little else to the Wooster Square article, will leave this for future editors to develop. Adding Poquetanuck style Talk page statements now. --doncram (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created NRHP HD article. The neighborhood article had no sources; was like others above where there was no article to merge to. A redirect and a placeholder neighborhood article with just NRIS infobox had been created in June 2009 by Polaron, at the beginning of all this, and when no information was available about any overlap. Please, no one have a cow, let's just develop the neighborhood material at the Neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut article and allow development of NRHP HD material at the NRHP HD article. What i created is better than was there: I added current Elkman output, NHPT external link, and developed NRHP document reference links. --doncram (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. After all this time, I am disgusted to see the history of those two articles, because that history represents a classic example of the kind of small-minded turf-battling that originally engendered this seemingly interminable discussion. A very minimal stub article about the neighborhood and historic district got split into an even more minimal stub article about the neighborhood and a minimalist "placeholder"-type NRIS-based stub about the historic district (containing the unforgettable sentence "In 1986, it included contributing buildings"), that was expanded a few minutes later to be slightly less minimalist. A little while later, the two stubs got merged, but the combined article whose text fails even to mention the name of the city or state where the historic district is located, and that still contains the garbagey statement that the HD "is significant for its architecture and otherwise." (If you are going to put that in an article, why not just say "architecture and something else that I haven't bothered to identify"?) These little games of eviscerating/splitting/re-merging of articles that contained almost no content in the first place do nothing to improve the value of Wikipedia for users; indeed, they tend to diminish its quality and useability. --Orlady (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh yourself, another fine speech. The HD article is a perfectly good starter article, with every statement sourced. Hey, it's better than 40,000 BLP articles in wikipedia! :) And it establishes for locals or potential visitors, that this is a valid topic to which photos and other development can be added. Etc. We've heard it all before! --doncram (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created NRHP HD article. The neighborhood article had no sources; was like others above where there was no article to merge to. A redirect and a placeholder neighborhood article with just NRIS infobox had been created in June 2009 by Polaron, at the beginning of all this, and when no information was available about any overlap. Please, no one have a cow. What i created is better than was there: I added current Elkman output, NHPT external link, and developed NRHP document reference links. --doncram (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created NRHP HD article. The neighborhood article had some development but no sources regarding relationship of HD to neighborhood. Unclear which should be split/merged, out of Park, neighborhood, and HD. Please, no one have a cow. What i created is better than was there: I added current Elkman output, NHPT external link, and developed NRHP document reference links. --doncram (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The three immediately above were again unnecessarily split by Doncram. It's really very hard to assume good faith by Doncram. Please let there be only a single article each. If it has to be under the historic district name, then so be it. But please merge them. --Polaron | Talk 05:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do assume good faith. I am just trying to get this done now. I don't believe you, Polaron, had any idea of whether or not they were similar when you set up redirects in June 2009, when standards of information for such actions were pretty low. I presume they are not the same, although i grant i could eventually be proven wrong if/when sourced information is developed. It will be hard to establish similarity, if Orlady insists that the city neighborhood definitions are invalid as sources about what are considered neighborhoods in the city! One or more of the three pairs were merged by Polaron by redirecting from the neighborhood article, then Orlady reversed those, then merger proposal tags were added by Polaron. I think it's okay to leave them this way, with suggestion that some think a merger might be appropriate, but little development yet of neighborhood or HD information. The way forward is to allow development of info at each topic, and especially about neighborhoods at Neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut and its Talk page. --doncram (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did and that is why I initially set them up that way. I know very well the historic district boundaries in New Haven even before you came on the scene. Your presumptions are wrong. And Orlady is actually correct in that census tract-based boundaries are a bit off as typically a single street is usually part of one neighborhood. You should not be tied down to the city plan boundaries. They're a good approximation but that's all. Just because one tiny bit is off from these maps doesn't mean that two separate articles are needed. --Polaron | Talk 21:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i didn't mean to imply that i was disbelieving any specific, explicit statement you made, so please don't take offense. (And, I do know you now have a source for the HD boundary info from New Haven, but, by the way, what is that?) What I meant was that I did not expect that back then you both had access and consulted any source which described the historic districts; I thought it was like your assuming similarities based on having seen a historic district sign or two, as happened in some other CT jurisdiction, or just based on the name alone. Your saying otherwise is good enough for me, about what happened back then. But, a redirect to an article where the target does not explain why the term is redirected there, and where no sources are provided, is not helpful IMO. Add active edit warring to defend the unsupported implicit assertions, and you have a recipe for a lot of drama. That's what all this has proven. We could argue about how many of the argued assertions have turned out to be true vs. how many turned out to be false, but IMO the moral should be that unsupported assertions in the form of redirects, as well as in text, should not be allowed in wikipedia. Like unsupported assertions in text, you have to be willing for those to be challenged and removed. My 2 cents. :) --doncram (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) New Haven city seems well enough done for our purposes here. --doncram (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, after some further discussion above, I think New Haven city seems done well enough for our purposes here. --doncram (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, i think we are well enough done, though leaving some merger proposals outstanding. I think we should move on to other things.  :) --doncram (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General wrangling

[edit]

Acroterion, you've deleted redirects for 3 agreed-upon cases above, and there are 5 other agreed-upon cases which could be cleared if you would delete those too. To advance matters for the last 3-4 items, I'll follow the P agreement and start separate NRHP HD articles in a few days, to allow more development of the NRHP HD material by anyone else. I think it might be reasonable to ask anyone who wants to do merger rather than follow the default P agreement when it calls for split, they should develop a DYK+ amount of material on the NRHP in the split, first. If they put in some decent writing work, really demonstrating some command over the NRHP material and having to face the writing difficulties, and if they then really were unsatisfied with how the separate article approach was working, I would be far more inclined to listen/accept that person's judgment. --doncram (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at them later this evening. Acroterion (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, will you agree to not alter the structure of the New Haven neighborhood and historic district articles if I promise to develop all the neighborhood article over the course of 6-7 months? I can probably find enough free time to do one every 2 weeks or so. Having lived in New Haven for the last 9 years, I've actually been meaning to do this at some point and now might be a good time to start. You don't seem to appreciate how historic districts and neighborhoods are very much inseparable here so I guess I will have to do this for you. --Polaron | Talk 06:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a nice change, to see you seriously write using the NRHP info. If you want to pick and address any one or two now I would welcome that. For others than the one or two you choose, I would prefer to put in place the Poq agreement. Please note for the others even this does not at all prevent you from doing what you want, in that you could easily develop the NRHP material in the separate NRHP article, and see how it goes. If it is over DYK length and reasonably well exhausts the NRHP source, or at least develops well the content taking the available NRHP nom source into account, and if you then seriously believe that it would be better to merge, I would most probably agree (and help, like doing the redirect step which you currently cannot). I appreciate your responding in this way. --doncram (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to do only a one or two and the rest be structured differently. The neighborhoods of New Haven are a single set and all should be treated the same way. If you agree not to split already merged articles out, I will go ahead. Otherwise, I'll let Acroterion judge suitability of merging. --Polaron | Talk 18:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P, I don't understand what you mean in saying that the neighborhoods are all the same and "all should be treated the same way." They're all different. Some include portions of NRHP HDs, some do not. There are NRHP HDs which span into more than one neighborhood. It's complicated and takes time to sort out relationships, and the sorting out is best done IMO by developing the articles (and for the NRHP material to be developed in separate NRHP HD articles). I don't get what kind of neighborhood article you envision. Is there any example, say from a different city, that you have in mind? I don't think A is going to be in a position, anytime soon, to come to any great ruling on merger vs. split for all of these, and I think we should just work ahead. Two weeks has gone by since discussion of Westville Village Historic District, Winchester Repeating Arms Company Historic District, Wooster Square Historic District, and others. Would you pick one or two to develop, in some timeframe, like a further 2 weeks, or a month, or what would you need? Again I will even try to help you if you do it in mainspace or a userpage. For the others, or for all if you do not want to do that, I will proceed along the lines of the Poq. agreement which sets a useful default (which in all these New Haven neighborhood cases, is to allow separate articles to be developed). --doncram (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm "not in a position to come to any great ruling" because I'm letting you hash it all out between you, and I'd rather not spend my on-wiki time reading NRHP documents and doing the research: I might as well write the articles if I'm going to do that. In general, I do make a quick check of the NRHP nom before I call something resolved in CT. NPS Focus was down for an extended time, so patience is indicated. As I've stated elsewhere, the Poquetanuck points were an expedient to be used in the absence of better information. We have better information, but as is pointed out below, some of it's past its sell-by date, and must be used with care. Acroterion (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly, and thanks. Could you delete the 4 or 5 redirects for New Haven HDs, identified above, where there has been consensus for some time, though? The only alternative is to open RFDs involving many other editors unnecessarily, or to create stub articles. --doncram (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A, thanks for doing those. --doncram (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, are you aware of what you are doing when you write comments (like the one above) that say (in essence): "Do what I say, or else"? You have on several occasions accused me of being a bully. Do you recognize "Do what I say, or else" statements as bullying behavior?
You note that 2 weeks had gone by since discussion of several of the New Haven historic districts, but during most of that time the National Register nom forms were not available electronically. Even if Polaron were your employee working at your personal beck and call (he isn't), it wouldn't be reasonable to expect him to have researched and written the articles that you want him to write, unless he already had copies of those nom forms.
As for those specific HDs, a couple of weeks back I spent a little bit of time working on the Newhallville article, which is where the Winchester Arms HD should be documented. The nom form that was prepared in 1987 should not be used as the sole source of an article about either the neighborhood or the HD, as there have been major changes in the area during the 22+ years since 1987. Portions of the gun factory complex (which is the central feature of the HD) were still operating then, but are now completely closed down. Also, some buildings in the HD have been gutted and converted to new uses, I believe that others have been torn down and replaced, some buildings are empty and derelict, and there have been big changes in some of the nearby residential streets, some of which are also in the HD. There's even a complicated story to be told of companies that moved in and later moved out, redevelopment plans that were started and abandoned, new redevelopment plans, and Yale University's shifting role in the whole scene. An article about the HD that is based solely on the 1987 nom form would not tell a valid story. --Orlady (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, I'll comment at your talk page about suggestions of bad faith. About these, the nom docs are available now, and I asked P how much time he would want to take. If you yourself don't want to go with the Poq. agreement for one or two or all three of these last ones remaining, would you like to take on the task of developing merged articles that give at least a DYK-worth of coverage of the NRHP HD? If neither P nor you want to take that on, then I think the productive thing to do is to start separate stub articles and allow development of substantial material by NRHP-interested editors. That's my judgment of what is best for developing wikipedia here. --doncram (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Doncram, but I'm not aware of the conversation in which you asked Polaron about his plans. I only saw this conversation.
As for the "Poquetanuck agreement," I was under the impression that it applied only to situations in which there was little or no information about the HD. That is not the situation for the New Haven historic districts. As Acroterion wrote on this page back on 2 February:
While the Poquetanuck criteria may be applicable in areas where information is minimal, they should defer to the sources. ...A one-size-fits-all application to places like CT is inappropriate for anything but a quick scan. "Literal and legalistic" is not what Wikipedia's about.
--Orlady (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to some of this at your Talk page, Orlady. Here, about the last 3 New Haven HDs which require some decision, let me ask you again: If you yourself don't want to go with the Poq. agreement for one or two or all three of these last ones remaining, would you like to take on the task of developing merged articles that give at least a DYK-worth of coverage of the NRHP HD? Yes or no, please. Or, is it your preference to debate here, and to plan to criticise whatever i eventually do in mainspace. --doncram (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, some time ago I replied to your comment on my talk page. I reiterate my statement that the Poquentanuck agreement is not relevant to these New Haven historic districts. And, yes, if I see that you are continuing to create meaningless placeholder stubs in article space (I am thinking here of your work along the general lines of "Podunk Historic District is a historic district that may or may not be in the village of Podunk. It has some significance."), I will object because outlines and placeholders don't belong in article space. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And i replied there eventually. Can continue there or at my Talk if you wish. --doncram (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments on City of New Haven HDs

[edit]

Any detailed discussion of New Haven possible mergers should be preceded, IMHO, by an effort to improve the 13 or however many official New Haven neighborhoods' articles, including developing maps of them (which can also show NRHP HDs and census tracts). This could probably be done most efficiently by creating one big map of New Haven with all neighborhoods and other types of districts identified, then excerpting smaller rectangles to show in each neighborhood article. I imagine others could help with this mapping, using OpenSource maps. --doncram (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion of splits should be preceded by this improvement. Once the neighborhood articles become too long, we can talk about splitting. --Polaron | Talk 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to have more say about where NRHP coverage should go, you should put NRHP nomination document references into articles and develop them. It is hard for me, at least, to really hear your personally-informed views, and even now if you are reading the NRHP docs I will tend to disregard assertions not supported by your developing positive material contributions into mainspace first. I am humoring you by developing the City Point article using the NRHP nom, but telling me, in several comments above, to read the NRHP nominations, is not the way to really advance things. Add sourced relevant material, yourself. --doncram (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that in most cases the existing condition (now and at the beginning of this discussion) is "merged," not "split." I trust that doncram's reference to "possible mergers" was a misstatement -- "possible splits" would be a more apt description of the discussion topic.
Regarding maps of neighborhoods, maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see the need to create a new map, when the city has official detailed maps of the city's neighborhoods (e.g. Newhallville), and each of those maps has an inset map of the city showing all of the named neighborhoods.
The current neighborhood articles are very uneven in their quality, but responsibility for problems with the articles should not be laid at the feet of Polaron, me (I've done multiple edits in several of these articles over the years), or any other participant in this discussion. These articles have had a diverse variety of contributors, including users who added a lot of valid information apparently based on personal knowledge, but did not supply references.
IMHO, it would be wise to "chill" on the comments about reading NRHP nom forms. There's nothing to be gained at this time from suggesting that another editor should be reading and citing the NRHP nom. NPS Focus is not working and Washington, DC, is closed due to the snowstorm, so it's going to be a while before anybody is going to be reading any nom forms that they don't already possess. --Orlady (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P, I have noticed, by the way, that you've added unsourced material to some CT NRHP articles recently, which i am unsure whether is from your reading the noms or from your personal knowledge. I or any other editor is entitled to reverse that out, as you know. I don't get why you would still be doing this, adding unsourced material to articles under question here. --doncram (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe I will intentionally add incorrect information? There lies the fundamental problem I think. You believe I am out to ruin your precious NRHP articles. Let's go through the process already in place where Acroterion will give his input as to whether a split is needed. I will eventually add sources once you have stopped trying to split articles unnecessarily without knowledge. --Polaron | Talk 19:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have opened this tangent here, probably not appropriate here in A's checklist page. No i do not believe you have intentionally added incorrect information to articles. I do believe that your adding unsourced material, both in the text of articles and in the redirects/merger arguments, is not helpful. About Acroterion judging in this process we've set up, why should he have to do the research, look up the NRHP docs, come to an informed characterization of relationship. I think A should say NO to requests that he do that work. Why not do that work yourself, in mainspace, developing the wikipedia. --doncram (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By saying it is unhelpful, you're saying the same thing: my contributions are ruining your precious NRHP articles. As I've said, I have read these nominations and am arguing on that basis. --Polaron | Talk 20:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also detect (in Doncram's comments) a concern that content about historic districts will be contaminated by association with the material currently found in some of the neighborhood articles. To the contrary, I figure that the addition of good quality, sourced information often helps to bring up the quality of the other parts of the articles to which it is added. --Orlady (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary of what? I have seen this turn of phrase used several times before by Orlady, to start off stating opposition to whatever it was that I said, but then to come out with a statement that is pretty similar to what i was saying. The literary effect seems to be to suggest that I am opposing the platitude that adding good quality sourced information is a good thing. I do not oppose that. I was referring to the addition of unsourced statements to articles under question here, such as this diff (actually 3 short edits together) to Prospect Hill, this edit to Newhallville, and this edit to Howard Avenue Historic District. For the first two diffs, I suppose P might be using NRHP docs or might be using his downloaded version of NRIS database plus CT atlases. For the last diff, I expect/believe P is probably using the NRHP doc. It should be straightforward for P to form a reference to any NRHP document, per request/direction of many editors besides me. If the source is the NRIS database plus P's interpretation of that in conjunction with CT atlases, then I would sympathize a little, because how to reference it properly would be slightly complicated, and I wouldn't know how to do it exactly. For the latter I would seek out help from others, perhaps asking someone, perhaps posting a request for some help at wt:NRHP or a Talk page of wp:citing sources(?). But in at least the third case here, P is inserting NRHP doc info and deliberately not providing the available reliable source that he is consulting. I have myself inserted the NRHP doc references to hundreds of CT articles by now, and don't think I should have to follow P and clean up in new cases, by now. I have, enough times, moved P's statements to Talk pages and called for sources, and P has then sometimes/often done the additional work of restoring the text and adding the source. But why add new statements without the sources being used to add them? I think it prolongs this process. --doncram (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Polaron's recent edits to Newhallville and Howard Avenue Historic District are clearly based on a source that should be cited. Sources should be cited when the info is added, not weeks later. (I confess that I sometimes add the ref a few minutes after I added the content, and I figure that's a bad habit I should get out of!)
As for "to the contrary", I understand many of your comments as indicating that one reason why you think HD articles should be split from neighborhood articles is because the neighborhood article contaminates the content about the HD. My "contrary" view is that adding HD content to a drecky neighborhood article improves the neighborhood article -- not only by adding good content, but often by inspiring or assisting with improvements to the rest of the article. --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polaron, if you have sources, please provide appropriate references. That's all we ask. Doncram, I've noted the same tendency on your part that Orlady mentions, a reluctance to improve existing articles with good NRHP content because the articles on locales are of poor or boilerplate quality. The implication of the "to the contrary" comment is clear to me, and I read no slight apart from the observation, shared by me, that you don't like the existing content of articles on locales, and would prefer a clean slate. Acroterion (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) About maps that would be helpful, i meant maps that show one or more historic district's outlines as well as official neighborhood lines, and which can be included directly in articles. Polaron has figured out how to do external google maps of one district at a time, for example the one linked from Southport Historic District. But better would be maps similar to this one by Daniel Case or this one by Dudemanfellabra, or some that might be among User:Ruhrfisch's multiple Featured Articles. One big map of New Haven showing all neighborhoods and all historic districts could conceivably be created, and then smaller parts extracted to use in neighborhood articles. --doncram (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat what I said earlier. I will develop all the neighborhood articles over the course of 6 months (about 1 every 2 weeks) if I will be allowed to do so within the context of a single article covering the neighborhood as a whole and the historic district portions of it (if any). But if I have to argue with people not familiar with New Haven neighborhoods about whether to split or not, it's not worth my time. --Polaron | Talk 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for developing the open-source-based map at Whitney Avenue Historic District. I believe u could do good, relevant maps of each neighborhood, that also showed HD outlines.
I don't know what you have in mind, with no example article in New Haven or in any other city. If what you want is permission to merge all NRHP HDs in New Haven city, and East Rock and West Rock landform articles, and various park articles, all out of existence, and to revise all New Haven neighborhood articles in some way, I don't think we four participating here can make such a huge decision. It should involve other New Haven-interested people. But you are not prevented from making some progress towards whatever is your vision. Perhaps start Neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut as an article (currently it is a redirect to New Haven, Connecticut#Neighborhoods) and develop it to list the official neighborhoods of New Haven. And find a good example from some other city, and make a good example, perhaps the Wooster Square neighborhood, in an article built with sources from the beginning. Then, when you could more clearly convey what you want to others, and you could show some credible ability to bring about your vision, you could make a big proposal at the Talk page of the neighborhoods list-article, and notice could be given at various places. But you might find that you don't need a proposal and others' approval, to proceed in developing a good system of neighborhood articles, in parallel to a good system of NRHP HD articles, which overlap here and there. --doncram (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, folks, let's take a time out! I'd like to ask for a moratorium on treating the New Haven city planning department's "neighborhood planning maps" as authoritative definitions of the city's neighborhoods. These are planning maps that have been given the names of neighborhoods; they do not define neighborhoods.
Yes, I confess that I earlier endorsed these maps as a useful resource. That's because the first maps I examined in detail, those for East Rock and Wooster Square, had a reasonably good relationship to what I would have identified as those neighborhoods, based my knowledge of this city. (Although the East Rock map encompasses a larger area than seems appropriate.)
Subsequent examination of other maps, however, as documented above (somewhere on this page...) gave me a very different impression. Notably, the fact that a major chunk of Prospect Hill (i.e., land on the hill, including a longish stretch of one side of Prospect Street) is mapped in "Dixwell" made no sense to me. I've poked around the planning department website, and although it uses the word "neighborhoods" in connection with some of these maps, there was no suggestion that the planning department had attempted to define organic neighborhoods. Furthermore, comparison with the census tract map of the city made it clear that the boundaries of the "neighborhood planning maps" largely correspond with census tract boundaries. Then all became clear... Census tract boundaries typically are drawn to follow major streets. While sometimes those major streets are boundaries between neighborhoods, in other many cases those streets actually function as the center of a neighborhood. In New Haven, this means that the center line of Whitney Avenue is used as the boundary between census tracts -- and that same line is used as the boundary between the "East Rock" and "Prospect Hill" planning maps, even though people familiar with the neighborhood would assign both the east and west sides of Whitney Ave to the East Rock neighborhood. Similarly, a census tract boundary follows Munson Street on the southern side of the old Winchester factory complex -- since there were no residents in the city blocks containing the factory, this was a good place to draw a census tract boundary. However, use of this line as the boundary of a planning map does not mean that the residential streets south of Munson Street are not actually in the same Newhallville neighborhood as the residential streets on other sides of the factory complex. Census tract boundaries don't fully explain the oddities in the neighborhood planning maps, but these observations help to convince me that the existence of these maps should not be assumed to indicate any particular significance to the boundaries shown on the maps. (Heck, Wikipedia policy should have told me that! Interpreting a map in that manner is a form of original research.) --Orlady (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just started Neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut as a separate article, which is clearly needed, by copying in text that recently appeared in the New Haven article and a new list that popped up there (added by a non-logged-in editor). I don't understand what sources you wish to use instead, and the official New Haven definitions are certainly valid to use, when clearly identified for what they are. But let's please discuss sources for neighborhood definitions at Talk:Neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut, okay? --doncram (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already put a {{disputed}} template on your new article, Doncram. For starters, please supply a source for your contention that New Haven has officially designated neighborhoods. The existence of "neighborhood planning maps" does not constitute the necessary source. --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And after further contention, but no AFD opened, and actually no dispute about anything in the article there, it seems that Neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut is accepted as a valid wikipedia topic. Further discussion about city maps, etc. can/should happen at its Talk page. This discussion section here seems done. --doncram (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesex County HDs

[edit]
I restarted Fenwick HD article, and there was immediately a repeated violation of edit restriction by Polaron, reverting. I had noted that the previous history here was a RFD to delete the redirect, which failed by lack of consensus, and I was developing information by adding NRHP document and developing. Maybe P misunderstood something, but WTF about abiding by agreements you make. Discuss at User talk:Polaron#repeated violation of edit restriction and discuss actual content, like whether there are 3 criteria or what, at Talk page of article. doncram (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you need to restart a redundant article just to find information? Can't you just read through the nomination form? If you read the nominations *before* you started articles, you might get a better understanding of the relationships. If there are things that are not quite clear, I'd be willing to help you oout if you asked. --Polaron | Talk 05:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fenwick has a population of 52, with 66 historic buildings. The HD article is mostly a blockquote about Shingle Style (for which I or somebody really ought to write a stand-alone article). The nom states that the borough is within the local HD, but that the NRHP district excludes some modern houses on the eastern edge (and is therefore a subset of the borough). So long as that's stated, this is an easy merge. Acroterion (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Fenwick is a borough, a municipality, so there should be a mayor or whoever and governance and stuff to cover in the borough article. Daniel Case and Polaron and perhaps others, in the original RFC, commented that borough articles should be kept separate from historic district ones. Also, I was hoping to develop the NRHP HD article to cover the Shingle architecture more, and it would be too detailed. I would hope to get someone interested to take pics there, and a detailed article with addresses and descriptions of the Shingle houses. This one could be a very nice article on the district as a museum to shingle architecture. I guess i should develop it further, and expect then keeping separate will become more obviously the better choice to others, too? But isn't the borough governance distinction enough to make it clear this should be allowed to grow separately? --doncram (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it, but A judged and has not immediately responded to my further comment, so i am just merging now, to settle this i guess. Merged. --doncram (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was early civil-enough discussion at Talk:Millington (East Haddam)#content and sources. Although NRHP doc would now be available, no sources or specific discussion regarding overlap relationship or not were ever added. I resplit the article just now as Poquetanuck criteria not met; this should provide for stable development. --doncram (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another unnecessarry split by Doncram. We can title it at the historic district name if you want, but this has to be a single article. Please redirect to whatever is the more developed article. --Polaron | Talk 05:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just leave this for development by anyone who wants to add and use the NRHP document? --doncram (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just merged to Millington (East Haddam). --doncram (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems to be a mistake. Essex is a town. I don't know if there is an Essex village that is smaller, but there is no Essex Historic District in NRIS or in List of RHPs in Middlesex. --doncram (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Highland principal community, in Middletown, but there is no separate article. Highland, Connecticut redirects to the NRHP HD article which is based on NRIS plus the NRHP nom doc. So no issue. --doncram (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact a principal community, but there is just a NRHP HD stub article with NRIS only and no separate article to merge to, so no issue. --doncram (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact a principal community, but there is just a NRHP HD stub article with NRIS only and no separate article to merge to, so no issue. (Also, by the way, Middle Haddam, CT is a redirect to East Hampton, Connecticut, perhaps should be changed. I've just added mention and link from the East Hampton article to the NRHP HD article, anyhow. ) --doncram (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Middlesex County is done. --doncram (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Litchfield County HDs

[edit]

A number of Litchfield HDs were resolved by redirect deletions, by consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 10#various Litchfield County, CT, redirects, which i revisit as New Preston Hill Historic District, one of those, pops up on my watchlist. What follows covers other cases, i guess. --doncram (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1.12 Litchfield County HDs
1.12.1 Canaan Village Historic District and Canaan (CDP), Connecticut checkY Done - While the CDP in the title makes me fidget, I don't see a good alternative
Polaron below reports that meets 3 criteria. Currently merged at Canaan (CDP) article. I just added Poquetanuck-type "substantially similar" and Talk page statements. Should be okay. Orlady, you are welcome to add NRHP document or other source and provide a more specific, sourced characterization of relationship. --doncram (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.12.2 Falls Village District and Falls Village, Connecticut checkY Done
P reports 3 criteria met. Currently merged. I re-added "substantially similar" type statement that had been removed, and added Talk page statements. Should be okay now. --doncram (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.12.3 Lakeville Historic District and Lakeville, Connecticut checkY Done
P reports 3 criteria met. Currently merged. I added "substantially similar" type statement, and added Talk page statements. Should be okay now. --doncram (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.12.4 Lime Rock Historic District and Lime Rock, Connecticut checkY Done
P reports 3 criteria met. Currently merged. I added "substantially similar" type statement and added Talk page statements. Should be okay now. --doncram (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "citation needed" at "substantially similar" seems to beg the NRHP nom, which goes into some detail concerning the boundary justification.Acroterion (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly, as intended. NPS doc site down at the moment though. --doncram
I can't figure how/why this got listed here. It's not in archived past discussion of issues at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut/Archive 3. There's no Riverton, Connecticut article. Starter NRHP HD article in place seems fine. --doncram (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is asserted below by P that meets 3 criteria for merger, while I believe that is incorrect, "Downtown Torrington" is not a Principal Community. NRHP HD article exists, is fine AFAIK. doncram (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P asserts meets 3 criteria, and i verified East Plymouth is a Principal Community. --doncram (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is a minimal NRIS-based HD article, and East Plymouth, CT currently redirects to it. There is no separate village/hamlet article to merge to. Unless/until a separate East Plymouth article, with some source and some development of material besides NRIS/NRHP doc material about the district, the HD article should stay put, IMO. --doncram (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P reports "Yes (borough) Yes Yes (0.0 mi) Special:substantially the same". --doncram (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one involves a National Historic Landmark district, which seems to be different, smaller core area of the borough, as outlined on map on page 72 of one of 2 documents i added to the article, while NRHP district appears nearly coterminous with some small exceptions. I found 7 HABS pic sets that seem to apply, have partially added. Seems like clear difference, borough vs. NHLD anyhow, and need/importance to develop a decent NHL article to serve in List of NHLs in CT and otherwise, and which can cover NRHP district as well. Borough article best left separate to cover modern governance, other stuff, per Polaron (i think) and Daniel Case's original comments about boroughs in June/July RFC discussion. Have tagged "Under Construction" and done some of the reference building work but am experiencing slow connection and have to stop anyhow, for now. I hope others might join in building a good separate article here. --doncram (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady added some to the Litchfield Historic District article, thanks. It's not completely clear where the most detailed coverage of the NRHP district should go, whether in the borough article or the separate article at "Litchfield Historic District", but it's clear the separate article is needed to cover at least the NHL district, and there is plenty of info available, so article structure seems set. --doncram (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P reported 3 criteria met but I believe there is no Milton Center as a Principal Community. doncram (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a starter NRHP HD article, seems fine. --doncram (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P asserts criteria met "Yes Yes Yes based on NRHP nom (NRIS coordinates are way off)" although that begs how are they off, how would you know, etc. Currently at the NRHP HD name there is a starter, NRIS-only-based article, I think seems fine as such. --doncram (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's off since the coordinates are in the Town of Bloomfield (Hartford County), over 12 miles away. We can't use the NRIS coordinates here as it is obviously wrong. --Polaron | Talk 01:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever about the coordinates, there is just a starter, NRIS-only-based article at the NRHP HD name, which is fine as is, nothing to propose a merge to. --doncram (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P asserts "Yes Yes Yes (0.0 mi)". Currently at the NRHP HD name there is a starter, NRIS-only-based article, I think seems fine as such. --doncram (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


P asserts "Yes Yes Yes (0.14 mi)". West Goshen, Connecticut currently redirects to NRHP HD article, which is NRIS-only-based except for displaying a postcard image. I think fine as is. --doncram (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all the possible cases in Litchfield County. --doncram (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think all Litchfield County could be marked done. --doncram (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous uncategorized items

[edit]

additional redirects in CT created 26 October 2009 by Polaron

[edit]
  1. Preston City ‎ (←Redirected page to Preston City, Connecticut)
  2. Hallville, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Hallville Mill Historic District)
  3. Hallville ‎ (←Redirected page to Hallville Mill Historic District)
  4. Greeneville Historic District (Connecticut) ‎ (←Redirected page to Greeneville, Connecticut)
  5. Greenville (Norwich) ‎ (←Redirected page to Greeneville, Connecticut)
  6. Downtown Norwich, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Downtown Norwich Historic District)
  7. Downtown Norwich ‎ (←Redirected page to Downtown Norwich Historic District)
  8. Bean Hill (Norwich) ‎ (←Redirected page to Bean Hill Historic District)
  9. Bean Hill, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Bean Hill Historic District)
  10. Bean Hill ‎ (←Redirected page to Bean Hill Historic District)

Note at least the Bean Hill and Hallville ones go towards inappropriately forcing merger of village/hamlets with NRHP HD articles. The NRHP HD articles are not supposed to have to bear the burden of covering those, which do not comply with proposal terms discussed at Talk:Poquetanuck. doncram (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unlikely that someone will create separate articles for this. People looking for information on "Bean Hill" would likely find the Bean Hill historic district article more than sufficient when it is fully developed. --Polaron | Talk 16:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add also:

  1. Hallville Mill ‎ (←Redirected page to Hallville Mill Historic District)
  2. Woodbridge Center, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Woodbridge Green Historic District)
  3. Baltic Mills ‎ (←Redirected page to Baltic Historic District)

Where should redirect policy be discussed. These redirects are easy for Polaron to add but hard to remove. Where should redirect policy be discussed, if not here. doncram (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the new redirects and redirected them to town articles. The net effect of Polaron creating the redirects plus my redirecting them actually seems to be to make it harder for readers to find the articles (which would have been easy to find if no redirects were in place). I will put these all up for deletion in a new RFD batch, where this can be discussed. Let's not discuss out in detail here, save that for the RFD. doncram (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that. I thought that the redirects to the HD articles looked sensible. Redirecting to the town article seems like a step in the wrong direction, because the town is much too large a scale. Didn't your edit war with Polaron start because of redirects that pointed to the town, then the town is too broad of a topic? --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 26#various new redirects relating to CT hamlets and NRHP historic districts. Note also, the wp:RFD process may or may not work here to obtain consensus to delete these redirects, as others not involved here may see as a legitimate content dispute, without evaluating the redirect creation in the context of the larger battleground for unsupported assertions being extended. So, these items will likely remain open items to be cleaned up within the mediation/arbitration process. Basically any more bursts of hedgehog-style redirects creation extend the contented issues area (and go against Acroterion's stated wishes on this page). But, comment at the RFD. doncram (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last I knew, Acroterion's principal stated wish was that this matter be resolved without degenerating into personal attacks... --Orlady (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you view this subject as a battleground, you are in the wrong place. "Polite debate" maybe, which, as I've stated a half-dozen times now, does not extend to reflections on other editors. Stick to content. Progress seems to have stalled at the moment; we've succeeded in centralizing the issues, perhaps we can move the policy off the dime too, which will have a greater chance of success without implying that this disagreement is some sort of illegitimate dispute. I'll go have a look at the redirects, but please avoid the temptation to revert. Acroterion (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One further comment: the notion that Downtown Norwich Historic District might not directly relate to downtown Norwich strains credulity. I'm fully aware of the pitfalls of these matters, but Wikipedia's policies on references and sources do not require ironclad sourcing of the patently obvious. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that there is likely to be overlap between "Downtown Norwich, Connecticut" and the Downtown Norwich Historic District. However, the proposal that Polaron agreed to was to put in place redirects and mergers for a large set of CT places-NRHP HDs, defined somewhat arbitrarily, and NOT to redirect and merger in others. This is in the set where there is not to be redirect and merger. Where there is not merger, by the proposal, the hamlet article should not be created unless there is at least DYK length material separate from the NRHP HD article. A redirect is forcing a merger argumentatively where it was agreed not to, and it is far less than a DYK-length contribution. doncram (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also further extending the redirect issue, Polaron is continuing with:

This is backwards; there is not currrently mention of one of those and there is not adequate coverage of either to justify these redirects either. Polaron needs to develop sourced material in articles, not try to add value by creating redirects (implicit assertions) of where things "ought" to be covered in his view. Many of the redirects created today go against the spirit and letter of proposal to clear CT as a battleground, a proposal that has had some agreement. doncram (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These were probably better left as redlinks. Creating redirects for elements of historic districts doesn't seem to me to be helpful to the current discussion, nor does it add content. I am skeptical of the usefulness of such fine-grained redirects - while Wikipedia's search functions frankly stink, they're capable of providing useful links to elements such as these where they're embedded in articles. Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance with the Poquetanuck agreement

[edit]

The mergers I tried to implement on 2010-01-05 18:00 (UTC) as a precondition to my agreeing to the voluntary edit restriction was supposed to end the ongoing dispute. If everything is restored to that state, then there is nothing more to complain about. My agreement was predicated on that being implemented first. I have already given way to Doncram a lot since then by allowing those edits to be reversed and having Doncram create additional splits of already merged articles. Those final mergers were meant to comply with the Poquetanuck agreement (exception being Marion). --Polaron | Talk 18:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to give these priority for review. Acroterion (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polaron, thank you for preparing this analysis. To be clear, where you state "Yes, but same name as town" do you mean to say that the Poquetanuck re-merger criteria do not apply, because we all agreed that forcing mergers of HDs with towns (that in CT are all much larger than any HD) is inappropriate? I am slightly confused because you seem to be saying that places like "Brookfield Center HD" has the same name as town "Brookfield". It seems clear to me that the word "Center" makes the HD name clearly different than the town name Brookfield (and I note that Brookfield is a principal community but Brookfield Center is not), but either way you acknowledge that the Poquetanuck criteria for merger do not apply to that one and i think all others like it.
Also, the "South End Historic District" jumps out at me as not seeming like a Principal community, and looking it up at Principal community list i do not find it, so i think that one should be struck out / de-bolded.
Also, the "Milton Center Historic District" and "Downtown Torrington Historic District" jump out the same way. These are not Principal communities. Hmm, could you perhaps check your work throughout this.
In New London County, "Downtown New London Historic District" and "Downtown Norwich Historic District" do not correspond to Principal communities. I am really not getting what the first "Yes" in "Yes Yes Yes" means. It is supposed to be about whether a place is a Principal community. I am not talking about merely an alternate spelling: Name Center is clearly different from Name, as is Downtown Name is clearly different than Name, as I think was covered quite clearly enough in Poquetanuck proposal generation and discussion (I specifically recall pointing out Mystic Something was not the same as Mystic, as an example). doncram (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then, of these where Principal community is verified and 3 criteria apply, for which ones are you asking for the temporary re-merger? Perhaps you could insert a note in the already going-on discussion list of places in each county, for any one where the current state is not correct in your view, and where you want a re-merger implemented. I think we have already addressed a bunch of these, and will assist in addressing the rest.
I will also use this list to check for the possibility that an HD has 3 criteria met, before creating / re-creating a NRHP HD article. That would have avoided the Fenwick Historic District blowup of yesterday. Thanks. doncram (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a list of historic districts and whether they meet the three criteria (three "yes" entries)

Fairfield

[edit]
  • Aspetuck Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.20 mi)
  • Barnum/Palliser Historic District No
  • Bassickville Historic District No
  • Bishop, William D., Cottage Development Historic District No
  • Black Rock Gardens Historic District No
  • Black Rock Historic District Yes Yes No (0.21 mi)
  • Block Historic District No
  • Boston Post Road Historic District No
  • Bradley Edge Tool Company Historic District No
  • Bridgeport Downtown North Historic District Yes (Downtown Bridgeport) No
  • Bridgeport Downtown South Historic District Yes (Downtown Bridgeport) No
  • Brookfield Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Cannondale Historic District Yes Yes No (0.25 mi)
  • Church Hill Historic District No
  • Compo--Owenoke Historic District Yes (Compo and Owenoke) Yes No (0.22 mi) Special:village encompassed by district
  • Deacon's Point Historic District No
  • Division Street Historic District No
  • Dolsen Place Historic District No
  • Downtown Stamford Historic District Yes (Downtown Stamford) Yes No (0.21 mi)
    Actually NO, not a Principal community. --doncram
  • East Bank Historic District No
  • East Bridgeport Historic District Yes Yes No (0.74 mi)
  • East Main Street Historic District No
  • Forest Street Historic District No
  • Fourth Ward Historic District No
  • Gateway Village Historic District No
  • Georgetown Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.13 mi)
  • Golden Hill Historic District No
  • Greenfield Hill Historic District Yes No
  • Greenwich Avenue Historic District No
  • Greenwich Municipal Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Greenwood Avenue Historic District No
  • Hattertown Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.0 mi)
  • Haviland and Elizabeth Streets--Hanford Place Historic District No
  • Huntington Center Historic District Yes Yes No (0.29 mi; district centroid to green)
  • Kettle Creek Historic District No
  • Kings Highway North Historic District No
  • Lakeview Village Historic District No
  • Long Ridge Village Historic District Yes Yes
  • Main Street Historic District No
  • Marina Park Historic District No
  • Mill Cove Historic District No
  • Monroe Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Myrtle Avenue Historic District No
  • National Hall Historic District No
  • Newtown Borough Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.0 mi) (district covers only central portion of borough)
  • Nichols Farms Historic District Yes (Nichols) No
  • Norfield Historic District No
  • Norwalk Green Historic District No
  • Putnam Hill Historic District No
  • Railroad Avenue Industrial District No
  • Redding Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Remington City Historic District No
  • Remington Village Historic District No
  • Revonah Manor Historic District No
  • Ridgefield Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Round Hill Historic District Yes Yes No (0.30 mi)
  • Seaside Village Historic District No
  • Sherman Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • South End Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.12 mi)
  • South Main and Washington Streets Historic District No
  • Southport Historic District Yes Yes No (0.32 mi)
  • Sterling Hill Historic District No
  • Stratfield Historic District Yes No
  • Stratford Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Strickland Road Historic District No
  • Titicus Historic District Yes Yes Yes
  • Weir, J. Alden, Farm Historic District No
  • West Mountain Historic District No
  • Wilmot Apartments Historic District No
  • Wilton Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Glenville Historic District Yes Yes No (0.30 mi)

Hartford

[edit]
  • Collinsville Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.10 mi)
  • Curtisville Historic District No (locale)
  • East Weatogue Historic District No
  • East Windsor Hill Historic District Yes Yes No (0.50 mi)
  • Hart's Corner Historic District No
  • Hazardville Historic District Yes Yes No (0.28 mi)
  • Marion Historic District Yes No
  • Newington Junction (3 HDs) Yes No Comment: It is still probably better to discuss the three as part of a single article (common history)
  • Old Wethersfield Historic District No
  • Plantsville Historic District Yes No
  • Simsbury Center Historic District Yes No
  • South Glastonbury Historic District Yes Yes No (0.22 mi)
  • Tariffville Historic District Yes No
  • West End Historic District (Bristol) No
  • West Granby Historic District Yes Yes No (0.50 mi)

Litchfield

[edit]
  • Barkhamsted Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Beaver Meadow Complex Prehistoric Archeological District No
  • Bethlehem Green Historic Distric No
  • Bridgewater Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Burlington--Harmony Hill Roads Historic District No
  • Calhoun--Ives Historic District No
  • Canaan Village Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.10 mi)
Actually unclear. There is no "Canaan Village" in principal communities list. Here i would be inclined to say it is close enough, but why is this listed as Yes Yes Yes when it is not clear. --doncram
  • Colebrook Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Downtown Torrington Historic District Yes (Downtown Torrington neighborhood) Yes Yes (0.19 mi)
  • East Plymouth Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.0 mi)
  • Falls Village District Yes Yes Yes (0.08 mi)
  • Goshen Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Hotchkissville Historic District Yes Yes No (0.24 mi)
  • Lakeville Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.05 mi)
  • Lime Rock Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.05 mi)
  • Litchfield Historic District Yes (borough) Yes Yes (0.0 mi) Special:substantially the same
  • Litchfield--South Roads Historic District No
  • Migeon Avenue Historic District No
  • Milton Center Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.10 mi)
    NO, not true, not a Principal community. --doncram
  • New Milford Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • New Preston Hill Historic District No
  • Norfolk Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Phelps Farms Historic District No
  • Pine Meadow Historic District Yes Yes Yes based on NRHP nom (NRIS coordinates are way off)
  • Plymouth Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Roxbury Center Yes, but same name as town
  • Salisbury Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Sharon Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Sharon Valley Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.0 mi)
  • Sunny Ridge Historic District No
  • Torringford Street Historic District No
  • Washington Green Historic District No
  • Water Street Historic District No
  • Watertown Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • West Goshen Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.14 mi)
  • Winsted Green Historic District No
  • Woodbury Historic District No. 1 Yes, but same name as town
  • Woodbury Historic District No. 2 Yes, but same name as town

Middlesex

[edit]
  • Belltown Historic District No
  • Broad Street Historic District No
  • Clinton Village Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • East Haddam Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Essex Historic District Yes no data no data
  • Fenwick Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.12 mi) Special: substantially the same
  • Haddam Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Hadlyme North Historic District Yes (Hadlyme) No
  • Highland Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.0 mi)
  • Indian Hill Avenue Historic District No
  • Little Haddam Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.11 mi)
    Not sure, is there in fact a Principal Community of name "Little Haddam"? Has this been looked up? --doncram
  • Main Street Historic District (Middletown) No
  • Main Street Historic District (Cromwell) No
  • Main Street Historic District (Durham) No
  • Metro South Historic District No
  • Middle Haddam Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.0 mi)
    Not sure, is there in fact a Principal Community of name "Middle Haddam"? Has this been looked up? --doncram
  • Middletown South Green Historic District No
  • Middletown Upper Houses Historic District No
  • Millington Green Historic District No
  • North Cove Historic District No
  • Old Saybrook South Green No
  • Wadsworth Estate Historic District No
  • Washington Street Historic District No
  • Wickham Road Historic District No
  • Working Girls' Vacation Society Historic District No

New London

[edit]
  • Baltic Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.0 mi)
  • Bean Hill Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.11 mi)
  • Burnett's Corner Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.05 mi)
    Here, the Principal community entry is spelt differently but it is close enough, i have previously agreed. --doncram
  • Chelsea Parade Historic District No (locale)
  • Civic Institutions Historic District No
  • Coit Street Historic District No
  • Colchester Village Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Downtown New London Historic District Yes (Downtown New London neighborhood) Yes Yes (0.19 mi)
  • Downtown Norwich Historic District Yes (Downtown Norwich neighborhood) Yes Yes (0.07 mi)
    NO, not true, not a Principal community. --doncram
  • Gales Ferry Historic District No. 1 Yes Yes No (0.55 mi)
    NO, not exactly true, not a Principal community and/or not in form "Name Historic District".--doncram
  • Gales Ferry Historic District No. 2 Yes Yes No (0.30 mi)
    NO, not exactly true, not a Principal community and/or not in form "Name Historic District".--doncram
  • Greeneville Historic District Yes (Greenville) Yes Yes (0.11 mi)
  • Groton Bank Historic District No (locale, historical)
  • Hadlyme Ferry Historic District No (locale)
  • Hadlyme North Historic District Yes (Hadlyme) No
  • Hallville Mill Historic District Yes (Hallville, alt name) Yes Yes (0.0 mi)
  • Hamburg Bridge Historic District No
  • Hempstead Historic District No
  • Jail Hill Historic District No (locale)
  • Jordan Village Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.07 mi)
    Not sure, is there in fact a Principal Community of name "Jordan Village"? Has this been looked up?--doncram
  • Laurel Hill Historic District No
  • Lebanon Green Historic District No
  • Little Plain Historic District No
  • Mashantucket Pequot Reservation No (Indian reservation)
  • Mechanic Street Historic District No
  • Montauk Avenue Historic District No
  • Mystic Bridge Historic District No
  • Mystic River Historic District No
  • Noank Historic District Yes Yes No (0.25 mi)
  • North Stonington Village Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Norwich Hospital District No
  • Norwichtown Historic District Yes No
  • Old Lyme Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Oswegatchie Historic District Yes No
  • Pequot Colony Historic District No
  • Poquetanuck Village Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.0 mi)
  • Post Hill Historic District No
  • Preston City Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.0 mi)
  • Prospect Street Historic District No
  • Quaker Hill Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.17 mi)
  • Salem Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Taftville Yes Yes Yes (0.15 mi)
  • United States Housing Corporation Historic District No
  • Williams Memorial Park Historic District No
  • Yantic Falls Historic District No

Tolland

[edit]
  • Stafford Hollow Historic District Yes, but same name as town (Stafford)
  • Andover Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Bolton Green Historic District No
  • Columbia Green Historic District No
  • Coventry Glass Factory Historic District No
  • Eldredge Mills Archeological District No
  • Ellington Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Gurleyville Historic District Yes No
  • Hebron Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Mansfield Center Historic District Yes No
  • Mansfield Hollow Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.0 mi)
  • Rockville Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.19 mi) Special:substantially similar
  • Somers Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Somersville Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.10 mi)
  • South Coventry Historic District Yes No
  • Talcottville Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.10 mi)
  • Tolland Green Historic District No
  • Union Green Historic District No
  • Willington Common Historic District No

Windham

[edit]
  • Broad Street--Davis Park Historic District No
  • Brooklyn Green Historic District No
  • Bush Hill Historic District No
  • Canterbury Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Central Village Historic District Yes Yes ? (0.26 mi but NRHP coordinates are incorrect)
    Not sure, is there in fact a Principal Community of name "Central Village"? Has this been looked up?--doncram
  • Chaplin Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Danielson Main Street Historic District No
  • Dayville Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.07 mi)
  • Hampton Hill Historic District No
  • Lawton Mills Historic District No
  • Main Street Historic District (Willimantic) No
  • North Grosvenordale Mill Historic Disrict No (North Grosvenor Dale)
  • Plainfield Street Historic District No
  • Pomfret Street Historic District No (Pomfret Center)
  • Quinebaug Mill-Quebec Square Historic District No (Quebec)
  • Scotland Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Sterling Hill Historic District No
  • Thompson Hill Historic District No
  • Wauregan Historic District Yes Yes Yes (0.18 mi)
  • Windham Center Historic District Yes, but same name as town
  • Woodstock Hill Historic District Yes, but same name as town (Woodstock)

Doncram, you're being a bit picky with some of your comments. The town center village is usually called "X center" (if a town that is not a city) or "Downtown X" (if a town that's also a city) to differentiate it from the town and will be usually listed as just "X". Those named "X village" do in fact have those names. However, they may not be listed exactly as such in that one list you're looking at, but they are definitely valid alternative names as you can verify in GNIS database. Variant spellings are also listed in the GNIS database. And you're just nitpicking about the No.1 and No.2 thing. In any case, you can always read through the nomination forms to verify that historic districts labeled Yes in the first column are indeed about a village (at least the core of it) of that name. As always, the actual content of the nomination form should be the ultimate arbiter. --Polaron | Talk 03:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is supposed to serve me and others as a reference list as to whether the precise terms of the Poquetanuck agreement are met or not. I am somewhat dismayed that the Yes/No assessment here seems slapdash, and often in error. I don't know what to believe. Could you recheck all of this and make corrections? "Downtown X" and "X Center" are, in common language usage, very different than "X". It is exactly the Poquetanuck agreement to restrict the merger default to places where X Historic District and X coexist, only. About my other "picky" notes, the honest fact is that the Gales Ferry No. 1 and No. 2 ones do not literally meet the Poquetanuck merger terms, so that should be noted here. But, in the discussion sections further above, note i do not assert they should be split. Other considerations do matter; i have not asserted otherwise. But in this section on the legalistic Poquetanuck agreement, governing between u and me what should be the default, you/we need to be precise. --doncram (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slap me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Poquetanuck agreement supposed to apply only in cases where there was minimal information about the historic district? When the NRHP documentation is available and clarifies that (for example) the HD was established to recognize the whole village of the same name, it should not be relevant that the village is not on the Department of Economic Development's list of communities or that the purported centroids are more than 0.17 mi apart. --Orlady (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the original intent of the criteria. As I've always said, we should be looking more at the actual significance of the historic districts since the nomination forms are now available. --Polaron | Talk 05:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that 6-7 months of contention have been about looking at actual facts. IMO, it has been about P and sometimes others making assumptions--largely proven later on to be invalid-- about what NRHP HDs "must" be the same as hamlet/neighborhood/ill-defined "village" based on name alone, or little more than that. If you would have collected the darn NRHP forms before battling to force uninformed mergers, a lot of development could have been done instead of, well, battling. I am involved, in general, to protect my right and current/future CT- and NRHP-interested editors' rights to develop well-sourced articles, with freedom from random and uninformed battling to force probably inappropriate mergers. And, if only u would back off, CT- and NRHP-interested editors would develop material that would allow future better development of town/village/hamlet articles. I totally do not get the battling to force mergers when you literally know nothing. And, in order to know something / anything, why not develop the material by developing the NRHP articles? IMO, almost all the recent advances of information have been by my adding NRHP nom references and material sourced from those references. I give little credit to anyone doing a supposedly "better" read of the sources that i add, which usually amounts to criticising that not enough detailed development has been done to permanently justify a split. Well, do the further detailed development that establishes the natural split that is permanently justified in fact, and stop whining, pls.
But anyhow, as far as i am concerned, this section is about addressing where Poquetanuck agreement applies, very literally and legalisticly, per P's explicit request at top of this section that "The mergers I tried to implement on 2010-01-05 18:00 (UTC) as a precondition to my agreeing to the voluntary edit restriction was supposed to end the ongoing dispute. If everything is restored to that state, then there is nothing more to complain about. My agreement was predicated on that being implemented first." I want to support P and to remove basis for P complaining. Are there or are there not any cases where P has valid complaint that remergers per Poquetanuck agreement have not been implemented? If we are done with legalistic stuff to establish stability, and thereby to allow development of articles, then great, let's stop with this section. --doncram (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, when you read the nomination forms, you will see that a single article about the place and historic district is more natural than a split. I totally do not get your forcing of splits when in many cases you haven't even done a throrough read of the nomination form. One does not have to write a separate article in order to know something. One can simply read through the nomination form. If you stop whining, maybe we can start developing the combined articles. You are relying too much on a single list (Dept of Economic Deveopment list) of sub-town places. Why not use the State Register and Manual list? Why not the Dept of Motor Vehicle list? Why not the Health dept list? Why not the GNIS list (which appears to be what U.S. locality notability in Wikipedia is primarily based on)? Why not read the NRHP nomination and see if they are talking about the village or not? In the end, actual facts are what should splits/mergers be based on. --Polaron | Talk 13:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the Poquetanuck criteria may be applicable in areas where information is minimal, they should defer to the sources. In RI, VT, etc. we may have to use the Poquetanuck crutch, but a one-size-fits-all application to places like CT is inappropriate for anything but a quick scan. "Literal and legalistic" is not what Wikipedia's about. Acroterion (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VT issues

[edit]

Most of these issues are spelled out at Talk:List of RHPs in VT or Talk pages linked from there.

  • Hartford Village Historic District
  • Weathersfield Center Historic District
  • Ludlow Village Historic District
  • Wilder Village Historic District
  • Woodstock Village Historic District
  • Taftsville Historic District
  • Newfane Village Historic District
  • White River Junction Historic District
  • Saxtons River Village Historic District

RI issues

[edit]

Most of these issues are spelled out at Talk:List of RHPs in RI or Talk pages linked from there.

  1. 2.2 Hope Valley Historic District
  2. 2.3 Carolina Village Historic District
  3. 2.4 Wyoming Village Historic District
  4. 2.5 Kingston Village Historic District
  5. 2.6 Wakefield Historic District
  6. 2.7 Peace Dale Historic District

There is a total list of 25 cases in a "complete issues" list at Talk:List of RHPs in RI. Not necessarily individually contested.

Watch Hill, Rhode Island and Watch Hill Historic District have not been in contention, but probably raise the same types of issues.

Scattered nationwide issues

[edit]

To be expanded. These relate to series of edits by Polaron in October 2009.

It is unquestionably in Hungry Mother State Park. And the nom backs it up. Should stay a redirect until a substantive article can be written on the subject (not a stub!) (which I might do myself, since CCC architecture is something I've worked with, and there's some personal family history with the place). Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created the National Harbor of Refuge and Delaware Breakwater Harbor Historic District article. I was on the fence about merging it with the Delaware Breakwater article at the time, partly because I was having a hard time understanding the geographical scope as I wrote. There are some naming issues, but there really ought to be a single article. I haven't got a good idea of which name it should be, though. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirects from hamlets to NRHP HDs

[edit]
  • more to add...

new redirects created by Polaron in December 2009

[edit]
  1. 14:19, 3 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Westmoreland State Park Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Westmoreland State Park) (top)
  2. 14:18, 3 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Idlewild Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Idlewild, Michigan) (top)
  3. 14:17, 3 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Covesville Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Covesville, Virginia) (top)
  4. 14:16, 3 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Rush, Arkansas ‎ (←Redirected page to Rush Historic District) (top)
  5. 14:15, 3 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Mountain Lakes Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Mountain Lakes, New Jersey) (top)
  6. 14:14, 3 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Farnams, Massachusetts ‎ (←Redirected page to Farnams Village Historic District) (top)
  7. 14:14, 3 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Mineral Point Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Mineral Point, Wisconsin) (top)
  8. 14:12, 3 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Fontenelle Forest Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Fontenelle Forest) (top)
  9. 14:11, 3 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Kanawha State Forest Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Kanawha State Forest) (top)
  10. 14:10, 3 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Mill Creek Park Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Mill Creek Park) (top)
  11. 14:08, 3 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Crawfordville Historic District ‎ (←Redirected page to Crawfordville, Georgia) (top)
  12. 14:08, 3 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Yontocket Historic District

Above cut and pasted from Polaron's contributions today. I scanned a few of these and see no mention in the target articles of the topics being redirected. These could potentially be legitimate "merger candidates" but there is no source provided, only the imposition of redirects. I am afraid that these are now new points of contention, new mines laid, for any wikipedian who wants to create an article at any redirected name. I see this as expansion of the area of contention. Based on not much, just on timing alone, I wonder if creating these is an indirect response by P to ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Norwich, which relates to a previously deleted redirect. doncram (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lesser redirects created

[edit]

checkY Done - all reasonable redirects
There are a large number of redirects created by P which redirect from alternative possible disambiguations of NRHP HDs or hamlet names to existing articles. I don't know if they portend battling about the article names, in which case this is more harmful. But they do clutter up the area and make future article renaming or other actions more difficult. I think, offhand, that these are unhelpful, that creation of these should be discouraged, and perhaps these should all be deleted. But I don't mean to argue that here, i am just explaining this much to say why these should be listed and considered as a group.

  • Ignoring for the moment the propriety of the redirects themselves, a single specific redirect is to be preferred over a set of gradually-more-specific terms. With the improvement of Wikipedia's originally abysmal internal search functions to merely poor, any reasonable search term will find the appropriate article, especially if helped along by a concise, specific redirect. Therefore, Madison Historic District (Madison, Indiana) is all that's needed. Acroterion (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing out of bounds. Acroterion (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a second list

[edit]

These are items listed by Orlady with commentary at User talk:Acroterion#Subdivision 1 and User talk:Acroterion#Subdivision 2. There is duplication with above CT, VT, RI lists. One or more of these have been resolved. Items are:

  • Wilder, Vermont and Wilder Village Historic District
  • Wauregan and Wauregan Historic District
  • Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut) and Southport Historic District (Connecticut) are both redirects to Southport (Fairfield).
  • Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut)
  • Baltic, Connecticut and Baltic (Sprague) both redirect to Baltic Historic District.
  • Stony Creek-Thimble Islands Historic District, Thimble Islands, and Stony Creek (Branford)
I believe I've already made my opinion known - these should remain separate Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peace Dale, Rhode Island and Peace Dale Historic District
  • Wyoming, Rhode Island vs. Wyoming Village Historic District
  • Hope Valley Historic District and Hope Valley, Rhode Island
  • Carolina Village Historic District and Carolina, Rhode Island
  • Hartford (village), Vermont and Hartford Village Historic District
  • Ludlow Village Historic District (Ludlow, Vermont) and Ludlow (village), Vermont
  • North Bennington, Vermont and North Bennington Historic District
  • Newbury (village), Vermont and Newbury Village Historic District
  • Bradford, Rhode Island and Bradford Village Historic District (Westerly, Rhode Island) (split by Doncram 2010/02/23)
That wasn't exactly a "split," since no content was moved from the village article to the HD article, and the two articles don't have have links to each other. However, the HD article is based solely on NRIS -- I didn't think that Doncram was making stub articles solely on that basis any more. --Orlady (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, i was working through NRIS data doing dab stuff, and found my way to Bradford Village Historic District pre-existing dab page, and editing to bring towards MOSDAB compliance. I noticed "Bradford Village Historic District (Westerly, Rhode Island)" was listed there (which turned out to be a redirect to a CDP in Westerly alone, and that it seemed Bradford Village Historic District (Hopkinton and Westerly, Rhode Island)" would be the proper name, as same REFNUM applied for name in both towns. Did new stub to support dab. Sure, could be added for later discussion to Rhode Island separate list. Note there is no sourced information relating HD to CDP currently, and if CDP is in one town while HD is in two, they appear to be significantly different already.
About the last comment, i am not taking offense or anything, but I never made any general commitment not to create stub articles, and it is totally Wikipedia policy to permit stub articles. I usually do not create a stub without a reason such as supporting a disambig page from anti-disambiguation editors. I did also agree, with Polaron, not to split out new NRHP HD articles where Poq. agreement terms for merger applied, unless 2 criteria met (that i was giving notice and working on completing DYK+ worth, and that I honestly judged split was better). There needs to be a general discussion / RFC about stubs some time. --doncram (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how much the historic district actually extends into Hopkinton? The river is the town line but the dam spans the river so, sure, the area technically exceeds Westerly's limits. I'm sure that tiny bit is enough for you to claim that there is no way this should be merged. --Polaron | Talk 00:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about the geographical facts here (except I trust the NRIS info on towns included), really, though preferences of participants here are predictable, for a proper split/merger process sometime in the future. Let's try to finish out the CT discussions, nearly done, then discuss what's next, okay? Are there any cases where u feel Poq. agreement not implemented fairly? --doncram (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely that Bradford village (the real place called Bradford) has always spanned the town line for the reason Polaron indicates. On the other hand, I speculate that the CDP by that name might be in only one town because the town is the main unit of substate government in Rhode Island, and the local-government customers for census data would not want data reported for an unofficial unit that included pieces of two different towns. (That's not done in places like Tennessee where numerous municipalities cross county lines, so it's entirely reasonable for CDP definitions for unincorporated places -- like the one for Seymour, Tennessee to span county lines.) Interestingly, it looks like there are at least 3 distinct entities here: (1) the living, breathing, real place called Bradford, (2) the artificially created data unit (of interest only to the Census Bureau and Wikipedia, AFAICT) called a CDP, and (3) the historic district defined for purposes of the National Register listing. It's because of this kind of situation that I have argued so long for the concept of what I will now call ONE PLACE, ONE ARTICLE, instead of writing three separate articles (that's one article about the real village that lacks a legal definition and two articles about the two largely artificial -- but legally defined -- entities to which the village lends its name). --Orlady (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More on Bradford: The Rhode Island Historical Commission report on Westerly (issued in 1978) describes the then-recommended-to-be-nominated HD as including the mill (on the river, which is the town line), a church, a school, the Bradford Club, and a row of houses. It does not say anything about an extension into Hopkinton. The similar report on Hopkinton (issued in 1976) mentions nothing about Bradford. In contrast, other Rhode Island industrial villages that span town lines (such as Wyoming) are discussed in both of the relevant town reports. --Orlady (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you care? I don't understand the interest in preventing NRHP-interested editors from choosing where they would wish to develop NRHP material (E.g. about the NRHPness of any site: why it is NRHP-listed, in what sense is it a museum to the past, what are the details of the artifacts/buildings/structures/objects present and evoking the past). I would term this THREE TOPICS with SPECULATION about degree of overlap, and argument by those with NO INTEREST IN DEVELOPING ABOUT THE NRHP PART. I know of not a single example of a good merged Town + CDP + NRHP-HD article; do you? Isn't it especially silly to argue in the absence of the most relevant sources, available for free upon request? Why dig up reports from 1978 and 1976 to argue about a NRHP district that was not listed until 1996? There is not information to support forcing a temporary merger, and it is most likely that sufficient information is available to support a detailed article on the topic of the NRHP HD, and most likely that such an article will be created eventually, so why fight to force a temporary merger now. The effect is just to turn off potential editors/photographers who might otherwise show up and add pics, develop an article. We could go on... --doncram (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that Wikipedia exists for the benefit of its readers, not its editors. We are obligated to make the editing environment as congenial as possible for editors, but decisions on article structure should defer to readers rather than putative or actual editors. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Acroterion. I couldn't have said it better. Sometimes it seems like it's hard for folks to remember that social networking is not Wikipedia's primary purpose. --Orlady (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't technically a "split", since nothing was moved from the village article to create the HD article. It looks like Doncram created this one just so he could create Manchester Village Historic District as a disambiguation page. At least this HD article has a link back to the village article, but it has even less content than the Bradford HD article. --Orlady (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, right, i was creating dab. I think there was/is not even NRIS-based content in village article. I have no idea if similar or not; add to VT list. --doncram (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]

This section will set forth my thoughts on the NRHP village/stub/redirect/split/merge issue, using a format that breaks it down into small, easily summarized bites. This will take shape in short episodes, and may be substantially revised as it goes, so I ask that discussion wait until it's well along.

Personal note: I apologize for the limited attention I've been able to devote to this matter. I underestimated the contentiousness of the issue as well as the time I had available for dealing with it. My business and employees must come first, so my time has largely been spent in marketing and answering RfPs in the middle of a recession (or the slow recovery). Acroterion (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As time demands have eased somewhat, I'm going to finish up the general statements here over the next couple of days and work my way through the lists to propose solutions based on the principles noted below. Comments are welcome. I've tried to summarize based on the input of the involved editors, and my thinking on some subjects has evolved as a result. Acroterion (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contiguity of defined and undefined communities with historic districts

[edit]

Arguments for and against combining historic districts with parent articles on a given locale have been framed in the context of boundaries. Defined boundaries, both for communities and districts, are seen as unambiguous proof of contiguity (or non-contiguity) between the two entities. While appealing at first, boundary discussions have inevitably led to further discussion of the acceptable degree of overlap or inclusion, with the proposal of arbitrary metrics.

A focus on physical geography ignores issues of culture and history that, while less amenable to arbitrary distinction, may have much more to do with the nature of a historic district than a legal boundary. There are times where an unambiguous physical congruency exists between a defined community boundary or statistical region and a historic district boundary, but these are in the minority. As with listings for individual structures, portions of a historic district may contribute less to the HD than others, but are included for the sake of convenience or politics. Likewise, otherwise eligible sections of a locale may have been excluded from the HD for reasons having little to do with history, or for arbitrary reasons such as not meeting the 50-year rule. The NRHP nomination sometimes will discuss these issues, but most of the time there is little context to be gleaned.

Much of the current discussion arose because the articles dealt with "villages" with undefined or poorly-defined boundaries. This absence of hard boundaries was seen as a problem, as heretofore some rough determinations of equivalency were made on the basis of congruency with municipal or statistical area boundaries.

Naming

[edit]

Naming, as with all Wikipedia articles, should default to the most concise unique case. The words "historic district" do not in most cases add useful content to an article title unless the historic district is either distinct from another place of the same name, or is a daughter article created to create room for immediate growth that could not take place in the parent article. Many individual NRHP properties are historic districts only because they encompass more than one structure, such as XYZ Ranch Historic District, which can just as well exist in most cases as XYZ Ranch, as if it were a single-property listing. The current discussion deals primarily with historic districts in an urban sense with separate properties in a contiguous area.

Appropriateness of redirects

[edit]

Redirects are a technical tool used as a shortcut by the encyclopedia to avoid duplicate articles and to help with commonly-misspelled, misstated or partially understood titles. They are also appropriate for directing editors to a subsection of a parent article, where the topic is covered entirely in the subsection. Redirects should not be used to cover every possible permutation of a title; Wikipedia's search capabilities aren't what they could be, but they and Google can usually uncover the correct topic with a minimal search string. Editors who create redirects must take care not to use the redirect as an implied statement on a given subject or to use the redirect to make a synthesis that would be out of place in a written, sourced article.

Encyclopedia building

[edit]

Much of Wikipedia's content was initially created as a stub and expanded incrementally. Geographical articles have, in particular, developed in this manner. Doncram has made the argument that a stub on an HD can serve as a foundation for a detailed, developed, sourced article expanded by editors who follow behind the stub creation. At the same time, he has argued against the expansion of existing stubs on locales with historic districts, feeling that their level of quality doesn't lend itself to short discussions of associated or incorporated historic districts that cannot, at present, sustain more than a couple of lines in a separate article (ignoring, for the moment, issues of congruency). This seems to argue both sides of the issue at once; that a geographical stub with raw statistical data can't be satisfactorily expanded, while an HD stub can.

The culture and emphasis of WIkipedia is changing as the encyclopedia matures. Not so long ago, it was possible to write a stub on blue, or at least on, say, indigo. Sourcing was often honored in the breach, and referencing styles were in their infancy. Times are changing, and far greater value is placed by the community on the creation or expansion of articles so that they are detailed, sourced, relatively complete treatments of their subjects, as the number of easily-available or obvious new subjects declines. However, within the NRHP wikiproject, there were in excess of 80,000 potential articles available to be written, with only a little more than 20,000 created so far. The NRHP wikiproject retains some of the former emphasis on article creation that prevailed three or four years ago in the wider encyclopedia.

The argument that a separate article on an historic district will encourage editors with an interest in that place to expand the article presupposes that uninvolved editors or new editors see the content and its organization in the same manner as the participants in the NRHP wikiproject, with the creation of a comprehensive set of articles on NRHP properties and districts as an end in itself. It is entirely possible that, once introduced to the project, some may do this (and we've seen editors who go from an interest in a single article to broader participation). New editors, unaware of the NRHP wikiproject, are unlikely to care whether it's a separate article or not, so long as a seed exists somewhere. They'll just work with what they find, particularly where there's a correlation between a district and a locale.

Hierarchy of subjects and article evolution

[edit]

If Wikipedia was hierarchically organized, there would be a tree of articles emanating from a summary article. A series of articles on a place's history, politics, culture, cuisine, attractions and so on would evolve as daughter articles. Wikipedia isn't really organized that way - it's more of a database, as evidenced by the underlying MySQL foundation. Nevertheless, this is a logical way to organize a series of related articles, and it can be seen in practice in articles on larger places: New York City would be an example, as a collection of summary essays on a given topic with links to expanded daughter articles.

Articles frequently split daughter articles when one aspect of the parent is disproportionately large or detailed. An example would be an article with an embedded three-line discussion of a historic district, which an editor has expanded with a paragraph on the half-dozen most significant contributing properties and a general discussion of the context of the district. Conversely, there is in principle little point in a separate article that repeats the same three-line text as that found in the parent article. The chief immediate advantage of a short separate article lies in the provision of an infobox, categories, and links to other articles in a clean and organized manner. Such an article must still be backlinked appropriately from the parent, at least as a "see also."

Minimum levels of sourcing for separate articles, and the role of lists

[edit]

Elkman's NRHP infobox generator has always carried the disclaimer that it should not be used to generate one-line articles. The information source for Elkman's tool is the NRIS NRHP database, which contains basic information on the subject, of varying quality according to the author of the NRHP nom and the person entering the data. It is devoid of context or explanation and isn't enough information for the creation of an encyclopedic article. While a number of editors have created a lot of stubs with this information, the lack of context within the NRIS database leaves much open to interpretation and disagreement. Much of the recent disagreement revolves around reading the NRIS tea leaves (or sheep entrails) in an effort to divine more information than is actually present.

In practical terms, there shouldn't be an article on a historic place without another source to give context and detail for an encyclopedic article, even if it's only four lines. In some cases, Doncram has created articles using NRIS data purely for disambiguation purposes, after having dealings with patrollers who object to all-redlinked disambiguation pages. This comes under the heading of structuring the encyclopedia, and should be kept to a minimum to deal with the issue at hand, rather than as a general practice.

NRIS is, however, an excellent source of list material. Since there is little to assert in a list other than the basic existence of a historic place in a given county, and given the availability of output from Elkman's county generator tool, the NRIS data is a good fit.

Project isolation

[edit]

It is easy for a project to develop as an isolated mini-wiki within the Wikipedia framework. To some extent, this is encouraged, as a venue where active editors with a great deal of background and experience on a given topic can structure a consistently-presented series of articles, complete with notability guidelines and shared information sources. As this happens, the participants need to take a step backwards from the development of the specific project and review how the project benefits Wikipedia as a whole, and how it can reinforce other projects and other content. The great attraction of WIkipedia is the synergy of content, and the massive internal linking that brings readers to an understanding of context.

Other projects

[edit]

I've been looking at how other projects deal with similar problems WP:SHIPS has to confront many of these issues. Barnegat class seaplane tender contains a short summary on each member of the class, with a bluelink to a developed article on the individual sips' service history, which can become a substantial article in some cases. Canceled members of the class, such as USS Matanzas (AVP-46) have their own articles as well, but manage to avoid being three-line summaries, and have existed in substantial form from the beginning (but after the development of the parent article with redlinks).

Findings

[edit]

Temporary note: in progress

I propose several principles based on the summary above:

  • For applications other than lists, NRIS by itself is not a sufficient basis to establish an encyclopedic article on an NRHP property.
  • NRIS cannot, itself, establish or disprove a congruency between an historic district and a particular locale, other than certain very obvious and specific circumstances (i.e., Downtown Whoville Historic District may reasonably be inferred to mean Downtown Whoville).
  • A separate article is always desirable when the historic district content goes into a level of detail that would be ungainly or represent undue emphasis in a parent article.

Comments

[edit]

about "substantially similar" statements

[edit]

(subsection title inserted later by doncram to label this comment) One issue that continues to arise in relation to the "contiguity" issue (and secondarily to the "redirect" issue) has to do with the inclusion of "substantially similar" statements in articles. One of the discussion participants believes strongly that if an historic district title is redirected to a village article, that village article needs to include a statement in the form: "The district and the village are substantially similar.[citation needed]" I contend that these statements are unnecessary, detract from the readability and credibility of the articles to which they are added, and (most importantly) make no sense outside of the context of a talk page discussion. (The statement alludes to Wikipedians having concluded that the HD and the village are similar in their geographic extent, but the reader has no clue what is meant by saying they are "similar.")

Contention over this sentence has re-erupted in recent weeks, most recently at Falls Village, Connecticut and earlier at Baltic, Connecticut (and their talk pages). --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Orlady: You're referring to the phrasing that Polaron and I agreed to, as part of a proposal/agreement towards ending edit warring over CT NRHPs. You already stated in discussion of the proposal that you don't like that phrasing. But per the proposal/agreement, for any particular instance where the phrase is used, you are welcome to obtain the relevant NRHP document or other sources and write a better description of the relationship, and then to replace that phrase. The phrasing is a key part of the agreement, which is sort of working. doncram (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An agreement between two editors to use this (or any other) particular language does not obligate the rest of Wikipedia to quietly accept it as valid. Please see WP:OWN. --Orlady (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

about NRIS sufficiency

[edit]

Acroterion's finding #1 stated above is "For applications other than lists, NRIS by itself is not a sufficient basis to establish an encyclopedic article on an NRHP property."

I am not sure how the finding is intended to be used. There is a preference by some, including Elkman and Acroterion and myself, for stub NRHP articles not to be manufactured wholesale, if the stubs created don't meet a certain quality or don't serve a different purpose. We disagree about the threshold of quality and/or purpose served which suffices for what we consider good practice. Note that I once opposed mass creation of Massachusetts stubs for reasons including a) that they weren't being created as well as then-current technology would easily allow (causing more work overall), b) that they were taking away opportunity for new editors to get the rush of creating new articles, c) they didn't add much that was or could be in the NRHP list-tables, d) there was mild fabrication going on in the creation of some of the articles, where NRHP data was being spun out into complete sentences (e.g. stretch from an architecture type field to asserting houses in a district are all of that type). I may not have said all that at the time. But, i did say that doing it in one state was perhaps a good experiment, and I think it has worked out well, the development of good NRHP articles in MA was advanced by the wholesale stubbing.
But, as a matter of fact, NRIS does provide sufficient documentation that a place is NRHP-listed, and that establishes notability of the topic (due to the local, state, Federal decision and review processes, and the assurance of availability of wp:RS documentation at least upon request). So I don't want to minimize, but that is a comment about preference. It is allowable in wikipedia to have stubs on any legitimate topic. I get that some don't like stubs. But if someone else creates stubs, it is your prerogative to improve them, and it seems counter-productive to rail against them. Again not sure where this is going. doncram (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The key word is "encyclopedic." I agree that NRIS is a reliable source and is sufficient in and of itself to establish and document NRHP status. I wish to encourage editors to develop more context through the use of additional sources, and to give priority to the development of articles where the sources can sustain such development. Obviously, it's a preference on my part (and hardly "railing"), but I believe it's consistent with the evolving Wikipedia-wide emphasis on improvement of article quality. Much of the page above deals with arguments made on the basis of NRIS documentation and little else. I suggest this as a means of redirecting effort away from 256,000 bytes on a talk page and into at least that much article content. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about evidence for congruency

[edit]

Acroterion's finding #2 stated above is: "NRIS cannot, itself, establish or disprove a congruency between an historic district and a particular locale, other than certain very obvious and specific circumstances (i.e., Downtown Whoville Historic District may reasonably be inferred to mean Downtown Whoville)."

I agree with what A seems to have meant, but take it further: NRIS listing of Name Historic District does not establish that Name is a notable locale. "Downtown Whoville" may have no meaning on its own. We encounter cases where NRHP names are manufactured and completely unfamiliar to all locals, e.g. a recent "Swaneola" district in Syracuse, NY. And many more where "Downtown Whoville" does not have any real use as a proper noun. It seems reasonable to assume a relationship, that Downtown Whoville HD is located in the downtown area of Whoville, but not that Downtown Whoville has any currency and not that it merits a wikipedia article. The HD can be significant while Downtown Whoville does not even exist. Or, if Downtown Whoville does exist, it can easily be substantially different than a pocket of old buildings that is the only possible HD in downtown and which is given the Downtown Whoville HD name. So, technically i do not agree that "Downtown Whoville Historic District may reasonably be inferred to mean Downtown Whoville". Again not sure where this is going. doncram (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram's objection here sounds to me like filibustering -- that is, not a reasonable objection, but an argument raised in order to delay an inevitable decision. In 99.9% of cases, "Downtown Whoville" historic district will be associated with a real place known as "downtown Whoville." The rare case in which the National Register listing has a peculiar name should not prevent Wikipedians from making common-sense decisions. --Orlady (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The basic rule will hold in the vast majority of cases and avoids the need to conclusively prove a negative which might be regarded as so obvious by the sources as to merit no particular mention. In the occasional event that the rule is wrong and can be proven so, a correction will be made. We've seen this happen, and it will happen again. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about separating out too-detailed description

[edit]

Acroterion's finding #3 stated above is: "A separate article is always desirable when the historic district content goes into a level of detail that would be ungainly or represent undue emphasis in a parent article."

I agree. doncram (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see this agreement. However, it appears that there may be some fundamental differences regarding the question of what "would be ungainly or represent undue emphasis." At Talk:Glenville Historic District, Doncram asserts that his new HD article "is already focussing on a level of detail that is probably not appropriate for a neighborhood/hamlet/village article." Considering that the "parent" article is a 3-sentence stub article about the neighborhood, I can't see how the contents of the short HD article could be considered inappropriately detailed for inclusion the neighborhood article. It appears, based on that example, that the "level of detail" criterion will require further discussion. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I referred there to this discussion. What i meant was that listing of individual buildings, and discussion of the "metes and bounds" of district vs. neighborhood/hamlet/village, is the kind of detail that is suited to a HD article while often/usually not suited to a neighborhood/hamlet/village article. For another example, consider Downtown Hartford, where I sought to remove detail about multiple HDs that is really obscure in a general neighborhood article, but where Orlady has argued/battled to keep it in. The neighborhood article there would be improved by removing the NRHP HD info, IMO. The distinction is that it is not just the quantity of detail that governs where the detail belongs, but also the nature of detail. It is often inappropriate to move or copy detail from an HD article to a large or small place article. doncram (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also well-suited to an HD article is stuff about the NRHP award itself, the reasons stated why the award was sought (like to prevent the demolition of a historic building), and followup about whether the NRHP listing helped or failed for parties involved. In addition to the "metes and bounds" material that Orlady has in the past scoffed at, this has come up in a couple places now as the kind of material O would wish to delete. Perhaps it should not be part of a village/section article, but it is highly appropriate for an article about the NRHP. doncram (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is always a question of degree in such matters. It will depend on the nature of the parent article and the amount of material available to the daughter HD article. I think the best way to approach the subject would be to write a good two or three paragraph summary in the parent concerning the salient issues of the HD, and only then to approach the separate HD article. An editor can always go back and revise the parent if the daughter develops differently. Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About the Downtown Hartford example, i created separate articles for the 8 historic districts and removed the too-detailed info from the neighborhood article. I imagine this will work better in encouraging locals/visitors to take pics and to develop the separate HD articles, eventually generating material which might be useful in summary mention in the neighborhood article.
The top-down approach is just not how article development happens in these kind of areas. The closest thing to top-down style happening in NRHP article development is that there are now NRHP county list-articles, and any new NRHP article is sub-article relative to that. But it is extremely rare for there to be development in the available description space for an NRHP, within the list-article, before the NRHP article gets created and developed. The fact is that creating the more specific article on the NRHP creates information which can then be summarized in the list-article. The same thing is true for development of info for town/village/hamlet articles. No one that I know of works at developing substantial info on NRHPs in town/village/hamlet articles first, before starting a NRHP article. It just doesn't work that way. Developing info by the bottom-up approach works well, too, obviating disagreement about what detail about the NRHP is too detailed for the larger geographic area article(s). --doncram (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that hardly anyone writes NRHP articles that way (including me), but I suggest that in the case of areas of contention that this might be a good discipline to impose on ones self: writing an outline of an theme, as we were all taught to do in school, which can be applied to the parent article and used as a framework for a daughter article. Acroterion (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about public progress and input on redirects and stubs

[edit]

This Talk page, a sub-page of Acroterion's Talk-page, has been useful in Acroterion's coordination over CT and other NRHP HD vs. village/hamlet/section issues/contention, upon invitation by Polaron and myself, and with input and participation by Orlady. We four migrated to here at some point, upon Acroterion's preference to have some central place for him to take notes and accept small informational notes from others, without contention, in lieu of using Talk:List of RHPs in CT which was a "wall of text" and place of centralized, open debate. This talk page was not meant as, and has not served as, a place for wide public input and debate on general issues.

I feel that others had opportunity to give input, and did, early on, in the CT stuff, at Talk:List of RHPs in CT and at several RFDs and article talk pages. Perhaps their input should be reviewed somehow. I don't particularly want to invite in a lot of new participation into closing out this mediated settlement of CT and some other NRHPs, a process that is nearly finished. Yet there is some need for providing for others' constructive involvement. In recent days Elkman and perhaps others interpreted incidents handled at administrative noticeboards as evidence that the process going on here is not working. I think the process here has been working, and I wish for it to continue to work. But Elkman indicates, in the form of a proposed RFC/U (in my name, altho formulated to address also Polaron's and Orlady's conduct), that there are issues he wishes to be discussed more broadly. I don't think an RFC/U in my name is the right forum, but I agree with Elkman that one or more general issues, including the issue of creating stubs for NRHP places, are worth public discussion. Redirects are like stubs, but even scantier, and are part of the same issue, IMO. There is perhaps a lot of pent-up anger and other emotions and views that could usefully be addressed, perhaps in a broader RFC on when is acceptable or not for NRHP-related redirects and stub articles to be created. Acroterion had mentioned somewhere the possibility of creating an RFC. I wonder if such an RFC should be started. Or would timing suggest this process here has failed, and call for unnecessary new rehashing of everything? I think we are close to at least finishing out the Poquetanuck agreement items, i.e. setting up merged pages where criteria met, and setting up split pages (or having red-links) where criteria not met. I would like for this to be completed as first priority, to address Polaron's valid previous complaint that it was not completed. Then deal with new and old merger/split proposals that call for something different than Poquetanuck default, after, somehow, perhaps after some break? And again, how and when to facilitate more community discussion about redirects and stubs? --doncram (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've no doubt seen my comment on Elkman's talk page. As I stated there, you are are the central figure in these events, but not the only participant. My general concerns concerning your editorial behavior have been stated elsewhere, and I believe it needs to be discussed. I broadly agree with Elkman's statements of concerns, and ask that you reflect on them to see if there is a constructive remedy. I have at the same time noted the progress which is being made in between outbursts. I do not believe that matters will return to status quo ante without a thorough airing in an arena with broad participation from the community at large.
The RFC/U on Doncram, while it might help you personally to identify solutions to the conflicts in which you've been involved, does not address the more general matters of policy that will persist long after Connecticut is dispatched. It is also ill-suited for discussion of other editors, both as individuals and in their interactions with you. I will admit to a certain amount of skepticism concerning content-related RFCs, as they tend to be fairly cursory in my experience. I have no experience with formal mediation, but think that there is potential benefit in the involvement of editors who have no prior experience with the subject, and whose interests are primarily identified with Wikipedia as a whole.
I haven't endorsed the RFC/U yet, not so much out of disagreement with the points being made, but out of concern that the structure of RFC/U isn't suitable for the wider task at hand. Acroterion (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/NRHP_HD_issues_list&oldid=1076317175"