Talk:Hattertown, Connecticut

Separate NRHP HD article or not

A bunch of editors have been debating when and where it is helpful to have separate articles on NRHP HDs, like about "Hattertown Historic District", vs. when it is best to include the NRHP info in an article about a village/hamlet/neighborhood like this "Hattertown" article (which should perhaps be renamed/moved to "Hattertown, Connecticut" but that is a different issue).

Some of the editors (me included) agree that for Hattertown we currently want a merged article. But if there is someone who wants to make a decent separate article, that would be okay too. We just ask, please don't split out a separate NRHP HD article unless a) you have created or are actively developing a DYK-equivalent length starter article using substantial information, and b) you judge in good faith that it is beneficial to have the NRHP HD be a separate article.

Note, for all CT NRHPs, a good source is available, the NRHP nomination document, provided free of charge upon email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. And, in December 2010, the National Register has just made available online copies of almost all of the NRHP documents for CT: see search screen here.

Currently, "Hattertown Historic District" is set to redirect to "Hattertown". (Equivalent notice being placed at Talk:Hattertown Historic District.) --doncram (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The above notice was placed at "Hattertown" in January. It applies to this article now named "Hattertown, Connecticut". --Doncram (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

HD vs. village; other edits to lead section

I have removed the lead-section statement that said that the NRHP HD is "much of the village." At best this was original research (i.e., a guess), but the NRHP nom and other documents lead me to conclude it is not true. Note the following:

• The village has no legal existence, so its boundaries are not defined.
• Various documents lead me to the conclude that Hattertown is not a functioning name for a modern settlement, but is essentially an historical artifact. Google searches on "hattertown" find the name used primarily in relation to the road (Hattertown Road), the historic district, and Hattertown Pond[1]. According to http://www.newtownhistory.org/newtownhistory.htm:

Although the old school districts were abolished in the early 1920’s, their names have survived and are still used in designating different areas of the town. The little communities with engaging names such as Dodgingtown, Hattertown, Lake George, and Head O’Meadow are all fossils of the settlement patterns of Newtown’s proprietors as well as quaint reminders of our agricultural past.

• The National Register nomination does not distinguish between the HD and village. Statements like "The Hattertown Historic District is an exceptionally well-preserved early nineteenth-century crossroads village" and "Located in the southwest corner of the Town of Newtown, the Hattertown Historic District encompasses the nineteenth-century crossroads village of Hattertown" indicate to me that the village and the HD are one and the same.
• Comparison of the map in the NRHP nom with the Google map indicates that the NRHP HD encompasses everything that could possibly be considered a village.
• The local historic district is (according to the NRHP) actually smaller than the NHRP HD.

In editing the lead, I also removed the statement that the HD is centered around the green and the details about the names of the streets that form the boundaries of the village green. Unlike many New England greens, this particular "green" is not the centerpiece of the village, but rather is a very small triangle of land at the intersection of three roads. Thus, its only significance in this article is for a detailed description of the HD location. --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good i guess. Hope u may develop the article with your knowledge from having actually read the NRHP nom. I see the lower section still states that the HD is centered around the green. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You will note that the Hattertown Green is actually a point of reference for most of the locational description of the houses in Hattertown. Also, the Green itself is a contributing site. It may not be the centerpiece property, but it is the geographic center of the district. It is true though that this is not a traditional New England town green as it was only developed as an open park in the 20th century. --Polaron | Talk 16:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of the Hattertown Green definitely belongs in the article. I removed it from the lead section because it did not seem to be the kind of salient information that belongs in the lead for a short article like this one. --Orlady (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hattertown, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209010554/http://www.newtown-ct.gov/Public_Documents/NewtownCT_BComm/historic to http://www.newtown-ct.gov/Public_Documents/NewtownCT_BComm/historic
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209010554/http://www.newtown-ct.gov/Public_Documents/NewtownCT_BComm/historic to http://www.newtown-ct.gov/Public_Documents/NewtownCT_BComm/historic

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)