Talk:Glenville Historic District

pics

Pics needed. There should be twenty-two photos from 2004-2005 included in the NRHP application, which are described in the text, but the photo set seems not to be available online. Noted at wp:NRIS info issues CT. No HABS pics seem available. New pics, please! doncram (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

development of this HD article

I am proceeding with developing this HD article, which is a legitimate wikipedia topic, despite some opposition including a somewhat incredible-seeming-to-me deletion/move of the article by User:Orlady. I restored the article and am developing it somewhat. It is under construction, which is allowed in Wikipedia, and I have edited it within recent days. It is marked stub status. There has been no AFD, no consensus, not even anyone else's agreement, that the topic is not wikipedia notable.

However I am not sure of the 3 criteria here, whether they apply, and if so then would agree to a different treatment. But right now I see no justification for what seems right now like arbitrary, high-handed treatment, extending or creating unnecessary contention. doncram (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, I userfied the article because 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 -- when that is all you can say, the content is not yet ready for article space. 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" (how is that supposed to be interpreted? -- is it supposed to be a bible verse?) or the bulleted list that includes:

• more.

A user with your extensive experience should recognize that rough draft articles should be developed in user space, not article space. --Orlady (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny, i was just removing that "more" for you. Also, I think a big part of the problem is that Glenville is not defined. The Glenville article states that it is a "neighborhood or section" (and i am not checking, but i think there are no sources at all in that article). It seems random that you are criticizing this HD article, when the place article seems more suspect offhand. You are welcome to use the reference PDF which I put into the article to develop more material in this article.

I don't understand what you are talking about "footnote callouts". I have started using the {{tl:rp}} template for its purpose of indicating page numbers, which I had noticed Nyttend using. I don't get what you mean "I am not amused by"; I didn't intend for anything to be amusing. Please explain.

Thanks for pointing me to that template. I had not seen it at Wikipedia before, and I had never encountered that format before over several decades of reading academic literature in diverse fields. Live and learn! I assume, however, that I am far from the only reader who will have no clue what that reference format signifies, and at Template:Rp I read the following caveat: "This template should not be used unless necessary. In the vast majority of cases, citing page numbers in the <ref ...>...</ref> code is just fine. This template is only intended for sources that are used many, many times in the same article, to such an extent that normal citation would produce a useless line in <references /> or too many individual ones. Overuse of this template will make prose harder to read, and is likely to be reverted by other editors. Used judiciously, however, it is much less interruptive to the visual flow than full Harvard referencing and some other reference citation styles." All that tells me that this reference style should not be used in articles like this one. --Orlady (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Connecting to a "finding" by Acroterion, note this article is already focussing on a level of detail that is probably not appropriate for a neighborhood/hamlet/village article, by the way.

I can't imagine what aspect of this article would be inappropriately detailed to add to the 3-sentence stub article about the neighborhood, but I'm not interested in arguing about that. --Orlady (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The stub article already accomplishes several things. It establishes for interested local editors or others that a detailed article is in progress, and they can add similar detail and can be encouraged to take pics to add. It complies with the Poquetanuck agreement that is mostly working to end contention. I am actively working to develop this article, having placed an Under Construction tag on it and editing it frequently, developing it. (It happens i am making more progress today on another article with which you might take issue, Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut) due to the availability of HABS pics and another editor willing to help with that one, but so what, this one is still in progress and has been advanced.) It allows for Polaron perhaps and others to contribute positively (which has been happening in other recently created stubs with NRHP docs linked, like this). You could contribute positively too, or simply let the process work. doncram (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

When we work on draft articles that are obviously rought drafts becuause they are temporarily full of placeholder statements and blanks needing to be filled in, those drafts should not be published to the world as pages in article space. The article Glenville, Greenwich, Connecticut is a bare-bones stub about the neighborhood that says (in essence) "this place exists." It does not say much, but it does not contain placeholder statements or blanks needing to be filled in. It does include the statement about Glenville being a "neighborhood or section", but that wording is wikilinked to the article that discusses the meaning of these terms in the Connecticut context. In contrast, the HD article says the HD is in the "neighborhood/village/hamlet" of Glenville and does not link to any of these terms -- I don't know how a reader who does not contribute to Wikipedia would receive that, but to me it says that the person who created the article thinks of Glenville as a "something or other" and has not yet bothered to figure out what terminology is appropriate. --Orlady (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I do indeed think of Glenville as a "something or other", and I linked to the article about that topic. It would be nice if you or someone else would figure out what it is, and fix the Glenville, Greenwich, Connecticut article to describe it accurately, which is not my primary interest. That article has a link for "neighborhoood or hamlet", which goes to a contested section of a not-very-well-developed article about administrative divisions in CT. I added the contested tag over there a long time ago and raised issues at its Talk page. It would be nice if you were interested in developing/fixing that. You can't really criticize me or anyone for not choosing to develop something. Or, should everyone in the whole world should be criticised for not having developed every article already?

Otherwise here I don't get what you are saying, besides that it would be nice if this article were further developed. Sure, that would be nice. It's better than no article and it is better than many stubs already, as it already includes a couple good reference links for readers and for editors who may develop the article in more detail. doncram (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)