Talk:Greenwich Avenue Historic District

Merge

According to the NRHP nomination, the entirety of the Greenwich Municipal Center Historic District is wholly included in this district. Their time periods also show significant overlap. Everything in the older, smaller district is also in the newer, larger district. I tried merging but was reverted. I think in cases where an older district is included in a newer one, usual practice is to merge into the newer one. --Polaron | Talk 22:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for opening an appropriate discussion section to consider the facts, and hopefully reach a good conclusion civilly. I want to acknowledge that when i started the Municipal Center article i was not aware of extent of overlap. But, I don't think the Avenue article is obviously merely a boundary increase, after looking at the nom2 which you added to the Greenwich Avenue article. The Municipal Center part is of different character from the rest. Just because Greenwich is included in Connecticut, we don't have to merge the Greenwich article into the Connecticut article. We don't have to merge the Greenwich Post Office article into either of the hds. It is just not obvious. I am happy to consider what is best as an editorial matter, while noting that you are developing the Avenue article. Please do proceed. By the way, I note that Nom2 is written differently by a different author and does not include everything that is in nom1; you should not copy what i sourced from nom1 and slap a nom2 on it. There should be no immediate urgency to resolving this. You are not blocked from developing this Avenue article. I have to go now, will revisit here later. --doncram (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it includes everything. --Polaron | Talk 22:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of the Avenue article now, and your adding a bit to the Municipal Center one. Are you planning to develop the Avenue one to cover the Avenue part of it besides the Municipal Center part? Right now one could argue an earlier non-merged version of this article was better. I'll watch. --doncram (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure now you want less information to make it even stubbier than it is now. Stop trying to weasel your way out of this mess and admit that you didn't realize the older district is included in the newer one and that you reflexively think everything I do is wrong. Redirect the other one here and feel free to expand this one, that is if you're truly interested. --Polaron | Talk 05:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not weaseling out of anything. I stated above that I was not aware that the Avenue one included the area of the Municipal one, because u made such an accusation of weaseling elsewhere. I am asking if you are thinking this Avenue article is good work. You have recently been claiming you wished to be able to develop an h.d. article; do you want to try with this one? Or, are u only editing where your effect can be to throw a wrench in content development by me or others. Show ur own stuff, dude. --doncram (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if we redirect the municipal center one. Do I have you highness' permission? --Polaron | Talk 12:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I would have preferred to develop the Municipal Center article some without being interrupted, and then there would be more material now to work with. And I do think you were unnecessarily rude in interrupting me and in your comments here. But, go ahead, show your stuff. --doncram (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Greenwich Municipal Center district which has bearing. Polaron opened that discussion and called for NRHP editor comments. I wanted discussion here. But since P asked for discussion there, and since 2 NRHP editors have chosen to comment there rather than here, it seems the decision on merge vs. split should take place there. Please let's continue there. --doncram (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That discussion was archived here. A 3rd party there judged that split articles would better, while i agreed to see what Polaron could develop for a merged article. I watched, and noted some good development but recall thinking also that it was missing some stuff from the nom docs that i thot was important. However a lot of time has gone by and I don't care to go back to reconsider it all. Sorry i can't be more positive in my reasoning, because maybe what P did eventually was good. Anyhow, I accept now that one merged article is okay. --doncram (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Development

I've been out of town and won't be back until next week. I'll try to write something up in a couple of days. --Polaron | Talk 14:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Polaron developed the article quite substantially, to this current version. Thank you for doing that! Regarding the split/merge question, i will comment at the central discussion.

About this article's development, I wonder if peer-review type questions and comments would be welcomed or not.

In a formal wp:PR peer review, or if given some encouragement, I would have more comments to offer. But to illustrate, I'll just state three quick comments: 1) i wonder if it would be easy now, but much harder later for others, to distinguish which material is sourced from on-line references 2 and 3, vs. off-line reference 5, and to provide page numbers. It is customary in articles being developed towards featured article status, to provide an inline reference for each paragraph at least. 2) I also notice that Italianate and Commercial style architecture are mentioned in the lede, but then never again later, and 3) the possible split vs. merge question si not entirely settled by the current development, while some further development to cover the Municipal Center HD more thoroughly would perhaps settle it. There would be more to say on each of these points and on others. But, overall, the article is certainly nicely developed from where it was. :) --doncram (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The split/merge discussion is still open, by the way, at wt:NRHP. A main suggestion there is to develop this article as a joint article with 2 infoboxes. I have started trying to reorganize this article along those lines, towards having one section on the Municipal center district, and two sections on the commercial sections north and south of that. The article is currently kinda messy but i will work to finish this reorganization. --doncram (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)