Talk:New Preston, Connecticut

Merge

The following is an archived discussion concerning a merger proposal.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Not merged. If anyone really objects, open a new merge proposal and post proper notices. --doncram (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the article New Preston Hill Historic District should be merged into this article. There is already much more content about the historic district here than in the other one (with the proper historical context too). --Polaron | Talk 17:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Let the article on the New Preston Hill Historic District be developed; this is a premature merger proposal. The historic district article can naturally include more detail on the individual buildings, their addresses and photos and architecture, which is notable in the contect of explaining it as a historic district, a museum of artifacts of the past, than is appropriate for an article about a town/village/hamlet. --doncram (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. For a good example of complementary articles this way, see Cannondale Historic District and Cannondale, Connecticut. --doncram (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Further, comparing locations using Google satellite view map link from the New Preston Hill Historic District article, it is clear that the New Preston Hill area is about 3/4 mile west of the New Preston Village area. The New Preston Hill Road passes through 3 wooded areas and 2 field areas inbetween. The New Preston, Connecticut article should and currently does focus on the village. It is not clear to me whether the New Preston CDP should be described in the village article or not, and whether or not it even includes the New Preston Hill area, by the way. Given the gap between the two areas, anyhow, it seems really clear to me that the New Preston Hill HD article should not be merged into the New Preston, Connecticut article. This seems like many other merge proposals in Connecticut where the merger was based on similarity in naming without any specific knowledge of the overlap of areas. Here it seems to be the case that there is no overlap whatsover. --doncram (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No overlap whatsoever? The merger exists because when User:Kcboling greatly expanded this article, he/she discussed the New Preston Hill area as well. Note also that the historic district article did not exist until after Kcboling's expansion here and was only created by Doncram as a response to my creating a redirect from the historic district title (which was a red link) to this one where the historic district is discussed. --Polaron | Talk 23:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, there appears to be no overlap whatsoever in geographic area between the village of New Preston vs. the New Preston Hill Historic District. I am basing that on what I see in Google maps, about where the village area is located, vs. the location of the New Preston Hill HD about 3/4 miles away. Unless you take a very broad view of what a village is, there is no overlap. I don't particularly see any definition of the village in the article by the way, nor do I see the CDP defined. Note also there is a "Village" congregational church and there is a "Hill" congregational church, names which suggest the Village of New Preston is not the same place as the the New Preston Hill. There are certainly no sources in the article showing any relationship between the New Preston Hill area's relationship to either the village or the CDP. It looks like they are different, yes? --doncram (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I see from below a link to a map of the CDP. Thanks for providing that. It does verify that the large CDP area does include the New Preston Hill area. I rather think that the CDP should be covered in a separate article from the village article, but no matter what, the New Preston Hill area is substantially different from the CDP (it is a tiny fraction of it) and it is entirely separate from the New Preston village area. I see that the Town of Washington describes the village center of New Preston in its planning documents, and provides maps on page 9 of Chapter 4 of its 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development. An existing Business District and a proposed New Preston Business District are in the village area, and do not extend out at all. --doncram (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheezess frickin kryzit, Doncram. In the real world, people deal every day with the fact that "New Preston" can refer to slightly different entities, depending on whether they are talking about the dot on the state road map, the village (which is essentially a very small neighborhood), the CDP, the zip code, the elementary school attendance zone (if there's an elementary school -- I have no clue if there is one), the voting precinct (again, I have no clue if there is one), the service area of the New Preston volunteer fire department, the park district that runs the local skateboard park (again, I have no clue -- I made that up), and/or any historic districts which had "New Preston" in the name that was submitted to the National Park Service some 25 years ago. All of those places are legitimately called "New Preston", which in turn happens to be part of the town of Washington. Furthermore, they all can be discussed in one Wikipedia article (it's not as if this is a humongous city). No one is suggesting (AFAIK, anyway) that the New Preston zip code needs an article separate from the village of New Preston or the New Preston CDP. Your precious historic district will not be tainted by being discussed in the same article as the village, the zip code, the population of the CDP, the elementary school (if there is one), etc. --Orlady (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I don't know what that comment is about. I am working to develop material on the NRHP HD and on the town/village articles. By the way I think it is a help that i identified that Marbledale, Connecticut, another village center, is in the CDP. That changes one's interpretation of the CDP population information.

But, I don't think that a village article should subsume the topic of an NRHP historic district that is not in that village. Nor do i think that a CDP article should subsume the topics of all items within it, i.e. of at least two separate villages within the CDP area (New Preston and Marbledale, Connecticut now covered in a new article) plus an NRHP-listed HD that is in a separate community of New Preston Hill or New Preston Hills (separately documented as a different community by the state of Connecticut), plus another NRHP that is individually listed. We can and do have articles on smaller topics; not everything needs to be merged into one Universe article! :) --doncram (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's sorta like reading tea leaves, but by the comment above and these edits i think Orlady indicates she's now in favor of keeping the HD article separate from the village. She deleted even mention of the village from the HD article. I don't see any opposition to keeping them separate, and i guess the merger proposal is dead. --doncram (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The comment above does not imply that. Doesn't it say Furthermore, they all can be discussed in one Wikipedia article (it's not as if this is a humongous city)? Only Doncram would view that statement as an argument for keeping separate. Also, the village is mentioned in the historic district article. --Polaron | Talk 04:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right, Orlady's edits deleted the early mention of New Preston but added later "The historic district is on a hill west of the village of New Preston and is included in the census designated place centered on New Preston." It's a different place than the village of New Preston, anyhow. I assume it was a guess on P's part, originally, that the two were in the same place, but it has turned out P was wrong. Okay, I guess P is still for merger and for preventing local or visiting editors to take pics and develop a good HD article about the separate place. I don't think that position is reasonable though. --doncram (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I never guess. If you think that, then that's one of the major roots of your personal problem with me. The historic district is in the CDP. Another editor expanded the CDP article, which also now discussed the historic district. Also, no one is against adding pictures and information. There are some in the CDP article already, is there not? --Polaron | Talk 12:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It was established that the New Preston Hill area is separate from the New Preston Village area, and the articles were edited to a stable, good point. This is ready to close, with decision not to merge. --doncram (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of a merger proposal. Please do not modify it.

identification of photos

Photo identified as New Preston Congregational Church

a different church?

HABS drawing

The photo in this article identified as New Preston Congregational Church seems not to be the same church named that as drawn in the HABS program drawings. Are they different places? Is name for one incoreect. The New Preston article and the New Preston Hill Historic District articles would be improved if someone could visit again and provide well-labelled photos. when the NRHP nom was written, I suspect there were no house address numbers available; perhaps those are available now and could be used in identifying places more specifically. --doncram (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this church has two different church buildings. The main page of the church's website] has photos of two buildings. The one with the stone front ("Hill Church") looks similar to the one in HABS. The white-fronted church ("Village Church") is the one shown in the article. The building that you labeled "a different church" looks to be a third building -- probably one that is no longer used as a church, if it ever was a church. --Orlady (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I found more info in this article:[1]. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Then it seems that the Village church is in the village of New Preston, then, and its photo should stay in that article. And the Hill church is in New Preston Hill, a hamlet which is about 3/4 miles away, and it seems that should be covered in the New Preston Hill Historic District article. --doncram (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But please note that New Preston Hill is included in the large area that is covered in the New Preston article. --Orlady (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't know what area is covered in the New Preston article. What is the area covered? Is it the CDP? Since there is no map of the CDP here at least, i don't actually know whether New Preston Hill is included in it. What is the area of the CDP, by the way? From statements in the CDP section, ("1,110 people...in the CDP. The population density was 150.1 people per square mile"), i infer that the CDP is an area of more than seven square miles. So that would have more than 4200 acres, while the New Preston Hill HD is just 10 properties. So I have the impression that the New Preston Hill HD is entirely separate from the New Preston Village, and that the CDP is a vast area including many comparable hamlets. Again i am not sure the CDP should be covered in an article about the village, but either way the HD seems like a distinct topic. --doncram (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you are asking these questions, considering your long record of insisting that articles about historic districts must be kept separate from articles, such as this one, that deal with places that correspond in some way to census designated places (CDPs). You have typically insisted that because they CDPs typically are larger than the associated historic districts, the historic districts cannot be discussed in the same article. Therefore, I would expect you to assume that the scope of the article is the CDP, a map of which is at this factfinder.census.gov page. The CDP has a large geographic area, and if you compare the maps, you will see that the HD is well within its boundaries. --Orlady (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The locale known as New Preston Hill is most certainly within the CDP which covers the entire northwestern quadrant of the town of Washington. The way User:Kcboling has written the article makes it quite clear that there is a good way to merge a historic district article within a larger place article. --Polaron | Talk 23:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

additions and deletions

I added a bunch of stuff; Orlady sees fit to delete it all, there have been now a couple edits that were complete or partial reversions. Do let's discuss.

For example, I added link to new Marble Dale, Connecticut village article and mentioned it being in the CDP. It's important for interpreting the CDP population info, that otherwise appears to inflate the importance of New Preston village. I don't get at all what would not be appropriate about that. Orlady did not read my material or the sources, it appears. Also in another edit just now at a different article Orlady pretty clearly did not read the discussion. Orlady, are you editing fast and furiously? Take it a bit more slowly, please. If you look at what I added and consider it, there is more value that you are judging. --doncram (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate that you acknowledged your too-fast editing in restoring one item you deleted. But for another item, why on earth would you want to delete the external link to a map of the CDP? I restored it all. Please discuss each of these and anything else likely to be contentious, rather than expressing anger/disdain by edits simply deleting all. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I won't mind re-implementing the formatting or other edits that were part of your deletion edits, for you, if/when this is settled down. I did not mean to delete your formatting improvements. --doncram (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you again, Doncram, and made some additional changes along the way.

Most of my changes have been formatting improvements. Many of them shortened the article. I have carefully reviewed my changes, and find that the only "substantive" changes I've made to Doncram's preferred text are removal of nonencyclopedic verbiage like "Marbledale is in fact included in the New Preston CDP area" and the associated note "Marblehead being included in the New Preston CDP can be verified by comparing its location in Google maps to the borders of the New Preston CDP map." and removal of the link to the Census factfinder map. (The article still states that Marblehead is in the New Preston CDP; it's just that it no longer dwells on that fact, nor argues about it.)

I did insert a link to the factfinder page for New Preston (to supplement the generic link to factfinder that appears in every article about a U.S. populated place with Census data), but I don't believe that the link is a stable one. Every article about a U.S. populated place uses factfinder data, and every factfinder data set has a reference map, but the thousands of other articles about U.S. populated places don't have links to those reference maps, and I'm not nearly convinced that New Preston is an ideal place to institute a new practice. --Orlady (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems just dismissive out of hand, not a real response. The Marbledale sentence and footnote (sorry if i misstated it as Marblehead in the footnote) is highly relevant in a section on name "confusion". Perhaps that whole section should be deleted as speculative, but if the other speculation is left in, then the FACT that Marbledale is included in the New Preston CDP is highly relevant.

That section on "confusion" is actually "about" the fact that the ZIP code area is different from the village and different from the CDP. I rewrote that one-paragraph section. --Orlady (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And, about whether CDP articles include map links generally, it would seem obviously beneficial to do so. Here, you or P provided the link on the Talk page, and I added it to the article, and that is a clear benefit. It is informing the discussion about what is included in the CDP, including that the population is split between at least 2 village centers, changing one's interpretation of the New Preston village which was/is somewhat misleading in the article.

I think you are overinterpreting the map of the CDP. The location and size of the CDP are clearly described in "Geography" (for example: "includes the entire northwestern quadrant of the town of Washington including the village of Marbledale, Mount Bushnell and Meeker Swamp") and repetitious factoids about the CDP definition need not be sprinkled throughout the rest of the article. --Orlady (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Another effect of your reverting my edits is that you removed the citation needed tag i put on the unsourced assertion about "New Preston proper". What is New Preston proper? --doncram (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That was a case of awkward wording, not a place where an additional citation to a source was needed. I rewrote the paragraph. --Orlady (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Preston, 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/20100125233253/http://www.washingtonct.org/about.html to http://www.washingtonct.org/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228045207/http://www.washingtonct.org/pocd.html to http://washingtonct.org/pocd.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)