Talk:Norwichtown

Move discussion

This article represents a page move of the Norwichtown Historic District, now a redirect to this article. Please comment in the discussion section below, concerning the desirability of the move and whether the matter should be closed. Comments should address issues relating to the move/merge or split of the articles and are not meant to be a debate at this phase. If direct discussion is required, it will follow in a separate section. Acroterion _(talk) 14:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

May i now create an article at the NRHP HD name, Norwichtown Historic District, in order to develop what is knowable about the NRHP HD. Further, I would probably like to create an alternate version of the Norwichtown article, meant to be complementary to the Norwichtown Historic District article, at Talk:Norwichtown/alternative, so that the pair of articles could be compared to the existing Norwichtown article. I assume there may now be some development of the existing Norwichtown article, as well. It is fine by me if others might want to copy new material from the separate new NRHP HD article into the Norwichtown article, or otherwise develop the Norwichtown article, but I request some space in order to create the NRHP HD alternative. doncram (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Separate NRHP HD article Okay, specifically I wish to create Norwichtown Historic District as a separate article at that name. There is no sourced information in the Norwichtown neighborhood article whatsoever, besides the NRHP infobox and NRIS source from Elkman's generator. There is no information defining the neighborhood or comparing it to the NRHP HD, so any assertions of relationship can be challenged. Certainly there is no basis to block a NRHP HD article. So I would strip out the NRHP infobox from the neighborhood article. The neighborhood may not be notable on its own. I don't care if it is put up for AFD or not, so much, but maybe that would be the proper thing to do. The HD, however, is wikipedia notable and a fully sourced article for it, starting as a stub, should be allowed. doncram (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

More info: Regarding terms of a possible proposal under discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck#about a possible proposal, Norwichtown may meet some, but does not meet all of the so-far suggested criteria for requiring a merger under the proposal. Norwichtown is identified by the CT state economic development agency as one of (see CT's "principal communities", although it is not one of CT's named places that have local governments. And it is not among CT's named places having post offices; rather it is one of CT's towns, villages, and districts without post offices. It is in fact a GNIS "populated place", meaning a "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A Populated Place is not incorporated and has no legal boundaries." In the NRHP.COM page of New London County HDs, Norwichtown Historic District is listed with "Historic Significance: Architecture/Engineering". That notably does not include NRHP's Criterion A ("Event") as a reason for the HD's significance, which would be required to meet a proposed criterion for the proposal to apply. doncram (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Norwichtown does not have its own separate government because it is a neighborhood in the city of Norwich. The city website says: "The colonial section of the city is known as Norwichtown. It encompasses a large Green which is surrounded by exquisite examples from this period including a church, schoolhouse, and several taverns." I found (and cited) a nice brochure about Norwichtown's historic buildings in Google's cache -- see this Google cache link to see the whole brochure. There's a brochure about the Norwichtown Burying Ground (cemetery) at this URL. The Leffingwell House Museum is in Norwichtown; it has its own website. I also found this descriptive real estate ad for a house for sale in the HD. It looks to me like this is an historic neighborhood that is listed on the National Register as an HD, and I think it would be (at best) splitting hairs to distinguish between the neighborhood and the historic district by writing separate articles. (It would not be useful as a source, but it's interesting to see how the city focused on Norwichtown in celebrating its 350th anniversary earlier this year: [1])

Obviously, the neighborhood will include some structures that are not historic, but the only non-historical element of "Norwichtown" that I've found documented on the Internet is a dead shopping mall called Norwichtown Mall. It's across Town Street from the historic district. One article suggests to me that the mall site was formerly thought of as the floodplain of the Yantic River, and simply borrowed the name of the neighborhood.[2]

Connecticut history buffs might be interested in this NY Times article from 1993 about visiting the state's historic places, including brief mentions or longer discussions of Norwichtown, the Hillside District in Waterbury, Southport, and Old Wethersfield (then called the "Olde Towne Tourism District"), among others. --Orlady (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Call this "Proposal A": I created Talk:Norwichtown/alternative as a version of the Norwichtown article which links to separate Norwichtown Historic District article with infobox. Currently the relationship between the NRHP HD and the neighborhood cannot be described, AFAIK, so I am using the "is associated with" language suggested elsewhere. I propose accepting and building upon these two articles, with no merger unless and until (a) the NRHP documents are obtained (and shared) and (b) some future editor, informed about the actual boundaries of both, judges that it is beneficial to merge. The sources that Orlady has found could be added to the Norwichtown article. Note that in the process of starting the Norwichtown HD article i found a bit more information about the HD than has yet appeared in the Norwichtown article, such as a list of 5 NHRP-listed buildings in the district. The buildings are all described as being in Norwichtown, but I suggest leaving that list in the HD article as they are all redlinks still. I think development of 2 articles can be complementary this way. Editors who might contribute need stability however. Hopefully this is acceptable already, but can others comment/vote on Proposal A or make an alternative proposal? doncram (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My preference is one article about the neighborhood, including the NRHP HD. It looks like "Proposal A" is an effort to separate the historic district from the disorganized and unsourced parts of the neighborhood article. At this time, I think that all topics related to Norwichtown should stay in one article, but that one article (Norwichtown) should be improved. Based on my online research about Norwichtown, I believe that the neighborhood is thought of primarily for its historic aspects (including the fact that the historic area causes traffic problems due to constraints on roadway width[3]). It's not only an NRHP HD, but also a local HD. I see no good purpose in removing information about historic properties from the main article (which is mostly about historical topics and is likely to stay that way) in order to maintain a stub-level description of the physical characteristics of the NRHP HD. I do think that the old Norwichtown cemetery (a very old and picturesque cemetery that is the burial site of several notables, including Samuel Huntington and Benedict Arnold's mother) might possibly get a separate article when sufficient information is obtained to support an article. --Orlady (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. My wish for Proposal A is to provide a clear guideline for future editors, and to play out what is hoped to be a larger agreement covering many similar CT NRHP HD issues. I didn't say, but meant to, that Proposal A would include a reciprocal request to future editors, not to combine the two separate articles unless a) they obtained (and shared) the NRHP document which most likely will clarify the relationship between the HD and the neighorbood, and b) they in good faith judge that combining the two articles is beneficial. This is similar to, but opposite, the request meant to be conveyed at the Poquetanuck article. By the way, I note the "red book" source that you added to the article seems to me to imply that the HD is different than the neighborhood, by its wording describing the streets in the HD, and its avoidance of saying the HD is Norwichtown. I don't believe that you have found secondary sources which could support a mainspace statement that the two are substantially the same. I tend to think, based on information so far, that they are not substantially the same, and that eventually having separated articles will prove to be the permanent best resolution. Of course we are all guessing, because no one has obtained the NRHP document. Proposal A for this case is part of a wider approach to dealing with hundreds of CT NRHP situations where the facts are not completely clear, but one or two editors believe there is substantial similarity, yet they have not obtained and shared the NRHP document that would probably provide clarity. doncram (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As with many other Connecticut neighborhoods, there is no official definition of "Norwichtown," which is a neighborhood of the city of Norwich. Thus, it is entirely appropriate (and necessary) for the National Register designation to list streets, even if all of the area commonly regarded as Norwichtown is in the HD. --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that one of my edits has been changed to state that "an area within Norwichtown" (not Norwicntown) is an HD, both locally designated and on the NRHP. I hasten to point out that the cited source does not indicate that either HD is "within Norwichtown." There are other online sources that identify some streets associated with the NRHP HD, though. Also, please note that it is the Norwichtown Green, not the "Norwichtown town green." --Orlady (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That was me. I would be perfectly happy to change the wording to Norwichtown Green. But what do you mean, are you saying you think that the HD is not within Norwichtown? I will try some other wording. doncram (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant that there was no source that indicates it is smaller than all of Norwichtown. However, this article indicates that the local HD (which is a zoning district and may or may not be the same as the NRHP HD; this this court case may be of interest) is "in Norwichtown." That supports your contention; however, I'd prefer "in" to "within". --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Polaron's recent edits have resolved these issues. His edits indicate that Norwichtown is bigger than the the HD. However, I continue to think that the HD belongs in the village article -- because the HD is the core of Norwichtown, its history and its modern characteristics are the central topics of the article, it is not just an NRHP district but also a local district, and there currently is still almost no information about the NRHP listing. As noted, though, the cemetery may need its own article at some point, and I suppose there might be a justification for a separate HD article when there is content for that article.

However, I have one question for Polaron. The article refers to "the old Colonial and Slave cemeteries where four Connecticut governors are buried," but I presume that these are two different cemeteries, and that all of the governors are in the Colonial cemetery. Further, the sources I've seen appear to describe just one cemetery (presumably the Colonial one). Can the content be revised to distinguish between the two cemeteries? --Orlady (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be only one cemetery within the original village core -- the "Old Norwichtown Cemetery", which was also known as the Colonial Cemetery. It is possible that slaves may have been buried at this cemetery but I am unable to find anything about this being actually called "Slave Cemetery" --Polaron | Talk 05:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Indeed, it seems that slaves were buried in that cemetery. This brochure says that there was an area at the rear of the cemetery for blacks. Marker 7 on the walking tour is the headstone of an African who died in 1772. However, most black graves were unmarked. --Orlady (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Remerger of the articles

It has emerged that, in the midst of the above discussion about splitting the article, Doncram quietly created Norwichtown Historic District as a separate article -- one that neither linked to nor was linked from Norwichtown. I see that Polaron has (once again) converted Norwichtown Historic District to a redirect.

In this very discussion, above, Doncram said "Call this "Proposal A": I created Talk:Norwichtown/alternative as a version of the Norwichtown article which links to separate Norwichtown Historic District article with infobox." (Bold emphasis added) How is this "quietly created"? It looks to me like he announced he was doing it. Lvklock (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I support Polaron's change, considering that (1) the above discussion did not lead to a consensus to split the article, (2) the separate HD article was a very minimal stub, and (3) the history indicates that the split was not done in good faith. --Orlady (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith are bullshit, and/or entirely appropriate for application to your re-starting this! You are talking about a series of edits with plenty of clear explanation, above and elsewhere, about what was going on, in plain view, during plenty of open discussion. Also, it may be the case that the discussion turned to the big compromise worked out at Talk:Poquetanuck, where I was working hard to secure some agreement, and this was left however it was left. To accuse me, months later of bad faith is quite bogus, and newly inflamatory, in the context.

Regarding my accusation of absence of good faith: You split the HD article off at 18:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC). That was just about the same time you posted "Proposal A" above (actually you split the article 11 minutes before you posted "proposal A") -- but you never so much as hinted that you had already split the articles, and you did not add crosslinks to either of the split articles. I imagine that you sat back and laughed to yourself while I diligently responded to your arguments -- as you knew full well that the discussion was rendered irrelevant by your undisclosed unilateral action to implement the split. --Orlady (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You have recently accused me on my Talk page of not assuming good faith by you, and here you are restarting this discussion with accusations of bad faith. I refuse to attempt to reconstruct the sequence of edits in various pages back then, but the choice of editing this pair of articles and 3 other New London county NRHP HDs was extremely explicit, by joint agreement to work upon them. You are grasping at straws to come up with an accusation about this now, and it is obviously bad faith by you. Go look up wp:AGF. doncram (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

About whether the Norwichtown Historic District article should be merged with the Norwichtown article, I am for the moment unclear a) whether merger or separate article complies with the agreement that some reached in big compromise at Talk:Poquetanuck, and b) whether Orlady agrees to abide by the agreement there or not. Polaron, can you tell if this situation complies with the stated 3 criteria for when to merge or not? doncram (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, the status on this case was that I and Polaron had asked for Acroterion's judgment on this case and 3 other New London county NRHP HD - "village"/neighborhood situations. At User talk:Acroterion#3RR thread is copied here from Elkman's talk, the last update was that 2 situations seemed resolved, and Acroterion's attention was requested on this one. This case is listed in the issues list at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list. There is discretion for how Acroterion wanted to proceed.

I think it is not right to re-start the contention by forcing a unilateral change, along with making new accusations of bad faith. I am going to revert the new changes now and ask Orlady to please not re-make those changes. I will assume Orlady forgot, like I did also, what was the exact status on this article pair. But the way forward is to return to the moderated discussion with Acroterion, in general. And, Orlady, if you actually want to improve the Norwichtown articles, put in a request for the stupid NHRP document and get actual facts to share about the nature of relationship between HD and neighborhood. If this one unilateral change is made, the way things have worked previously is that unrelated articles should be changed in a wide-ranging edit war that I do not wish to see re-started. doncram (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have noted above, you (Doncram) are the one who made a unilateral change back on 26 September -- and you failed either to (1) disclose your action in this ongoing discussion or (2) link the split articles to each other. If I were following you around (as you so frequently allege), I would have been aware of "what was the exact status on this article pair," but in fact I naively assumed that you were engaging in discussion in good faith. --Orlady (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, I've let this be too long. Although I've been away from this issue, it would be best to ask me first if any substantial changes are envisioned, assuming the process that we've started is to be followed. Acroterion _(talk) 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason at all to suppose that the obvious case is not true: that Norwichtown HD is substantially within or overlapping Norwichtown? I see no reason to doubt this, based on the references. Acroterion _(talk)

All indications are that the Norwichtown HD is in Norwichtown. Doncram's split-off article for the HD has been nothing more than a fancied-up version of the NRIS database entry. --Orlady (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on the (apparently uncontroversial) general principles on User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list, it should be merged unless there is significant development of the contributing properties. See 1.9.2 on my user subpage. Acroterion _(talk) 02:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to have it clarified, hopefully by Polaron, whether this situation is one where the agreement between some parties was that separate articles should be allowed vs. whether this was a case where the agreement would be for a merger, based on the "principles" or somewhat arbitrary rules discussed at Talk:Poquetanuck. As all participating are aware, that was a long discussion hammering out a compromise for what to do with situations where NO ONE HAS BOTHERED to obtain actual information on the relationship between a NRHP HD and a neighborhood/hamlet/village. In this case, ORLADY ARGUED ABOVE that it is not clear that the NRHP HD is within the neighborhood. It is in fact argumentative and unsupported by knowledge to force the merger, in my view, but I would abide by it if this is in the half of cases where the agreement is to have a merger. I think the higher principle to follow here is to go by the arbitrary but objective approach to stabilizing NRHP HDs that some agreed on, Orlady's objections notwithstanding.

Acroterion, I don't see what are the principles by which you would choose to judge in favor of merger here. From your comment here, it seems that there is no proof that the HD and the neighborhood are the same or that they are different. It is "original research" to force a merger, having the merger reflect an unsupported assertion of substantial overlap. There are dozens or hundreds of cases where it is known that area and history overlaps are minimal. In my view, the default should then be to avoid any assertion by allowing separate articles and avoiding any assertion of degree of overlap, but I agree by the Talk:Poquetanuck to accept something different if the case meets the objective standards there. I believe that Polaron's general preference would once have been to have one merged article, but Polaron also agrees to abide by the Talk:Poquetanuck discussion. Polaron and I both agree to abide by such, and to leave open the possibility for either of us or anyone else wanting actually to develop something much better, and going the other way, to do so by obtaining sources and making a DYK-length effort. That approach puts the onus in the right place, upon someone actually making an effort. I don't think arguing out the specifics of this case and many others, in the absence of anyone really knowing anything or having obtained sources, is worthwhile. Acroterion, I will abide by your ruling here, either way, as I think Polaron will, if you want to say you are "final" on this. (Unless u rule for merger, and i choose to get the stupid document and develop a DYK-length separate article.) But, I think the more helpful ruling you could make here is to ratify whatever the Poquetanuck agreement is for this case (again i am not sure which that is), thereby reinforcing a widely applicable standard. doncram (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

<undent> @Doncram: Do you seriously believe that the Norwichtown Historic District in Norwichtown, Connecticut is somehow not associated with Norwichtown, Connecticut? Is the HD stub (which you appear to have written) incorrect in stating so? Sources are only required where a statement is likely to be challenged. You are taking WP:V to an absurd degree. As I've said, if an HD article can be developed to DYK length, then that's wonderful. Daniel Case has done hundreds of those, and my hat's off to him, and to you if that's what you want to do. As the article stands right now, it could easily exist within the main article. I have not referred to the Poquetanuck treaty in this case: I judged it on the basis of the content of the two articles and the available sources. Acroterion _(talk) 03:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am the one who added the words "in the Norwichtown section" to Doncram's HD stub. For reasons unknown to me, he apparently did not see fit to link to Norwichtown anywhere in the stub article. I am currently too busy with RL to comment further right now. --Orlady (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Doncram's original version was "The Norwichtown Historic District is a historic district in the town of Norwich, Connecticut." Unless there are two Norwichtowns in Norwich, a bald statement that the HD and the neighborhood are associated isn't a leap into OR. Acroterion _(talk) 03:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

<ec> The nom for Norwichtown's on NPS Focus. The noms for the separately list properties are there too. The HD is focused on the green, The village is focused on the green. They're the same place. Acroterion _(talk) 04:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. You inserted this note before my comment below. This is like getting DNA evidence after a contended trial. What is "truth" now, when all arguments before were based on incomplete information? Offhand, the NRHP document does not show that the HD is the same place as a neighborhood or village. It perhaps shows the HD is, as was recently in the article, the eastern part of a neighborhood. (Someone, Polaron probably?, had inserted a comment that way into the Norwichtown article, which i removed as unsupported.) Note in the USGS topo map, the name "Norwichtown" is entirely outside the marked out border of the HD. The NRHP document supports, in general, having a separate article on the HD. There is much appropriate to say about Norwichtown that is not appropriate in the HD article, and vice versa. My comments below still stand applicable for many other cases. Finding NRHP docs now available is great, but is not guaranteed to resolve contention, while an agreement between honorable individuals can. Again, thanks tho. doncram (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a panacea, but each argument should be reconsidered in light of new evidence. The Norwichtown document could be more helpful, but there's much more to work with now. Let's look at what can be developed for a few days and reconvene. Acroterion _(talk) 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(after 3:51 ec, not revised) I assume that there is association in this case, and there may well be substantial overlap between HD and "neighborhood" or whatever this is. I do believe that the NRHP HD is wikipedia-notable, and that you and anyone reasonable will agree it should be split eventually. As you know, this is just one of a couple hundred CT NRHP contended cases, and I am wanting for a generalizable temporary solution to be applied to end discord. But suppose, yes, this is one case where the best current guess is that merger is currently appropriate, although no explicit source is presented. There are many other cases where the available info would tend to lead one more toward a "split" decision, where I would accept "merger" by the agreement, nonetheless. As you know there have been several, if not many, CT NRHP cases already where it has been shown unreasonable/erroneous to force merger. The point of coming to the agreement is to agree to an objective process of decision, for all these cases where there are in fact no authoritative sources so far uncovered.

Do you want to govern in each of the contended and contendable cases? Shall we restart competing in all of them, battling about what one or another believes based on personal knowledge or mere speculation, generally in the absence of sources? Or, leave the whole CT NRHP list as a battleground ready to erupt for each new wikipedian who accidentally steps in. In the absence of sources speaking explicitly to the relationship between an NRHP HD and a neighborhood, it is indeed reasonable and wholly within all wikipedia policies to allow a NRHP HD article. The compromise, which I will accept, is to disallow such, at least temporarily, contrary to general policies, for a defined half of the CT NRHPs.

Acroterion, you have the opportunity to reinforce an agreement between at least Polaron and me, hammered out in response to your suggestion that we reach such an agreement. Or you can set it aside, and reopen hundreds of cases to be decided individually, in the context of contention, acrimony, and plenty of bad faith by Orlady at least (to respond to Orlady's repeated accusations in my direction) at this point. I think that would suck for you and me and Polaron and many potential future NRHP HD editors.

Before you say you want to be final on this one, what about finding out whether it meets the objective 3 criteria covered in the Poquetanuck treaty. If that goes towards merger, then we have no problem. If you want to set precedent that you wish to set aside the agreement, either way, I would personally regard that as a poor choice by you as invited mediator. doncram (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the apparent posting of all Connecticut properties on NPS Focus, I suggest that there be a moratorium on the creation of stubs or redirects for HDs in Connecticut. I believe much of the wrangling of the past six months, in this state at least, can be constructively concluded. There will still be questions based on the completeness or obscurity of the NRHP noms, but it renders much of the speculative discussion moot and opens the way to the development of full NRHP articles. Note that I am unconvinced that adding "Historic District" to a title adds much to the usefulness of an article, and tends to violates WP:CFORK. Acroterion _(talk) 04:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Having NRHP docs should increase the quality of discussion, certainly. I don't follow why you think there should be a moratorium on creating NRHP articles, in favor of creating neighborhood / village articles, though, if that is what you mean. New availability of NRHP docs should support lots more NRHP production, shouldn't it? In Syracuse NY recently, by the way, there was a new NRHP HD announced with "Swaneola Heights" in its name. No one in Syracuse understood the name at all, as was covered by a Syracuse newspaper columnist. Apparently historically there was some small use of the name Swaneola, like perhaps by one developer, but it had never taken root and its new use in this context is effectively a new coining of a term. In a case like that, it would be erroneous to create an article about a non-existent neighborhood, based on the existence of an NRHP HD name, and it would be erroneous to ban creating a NRHP HD stub article. What is significant is the NRHP HD. In CT cases, there were dozens of "neighborhood" / "village" articles created based on stripping the "HD" off the end of a NRHP HD, with no documentation that there is in fact any neighborhood or village of notability. Based on going through the NRHP HD names, not any source on what are meaningful "villages" or whatever. The NRHP HDs are clearly notable, while many of the supposed neighborhoods are not. I can understand some general appeal to participants to refer to the NRHP docs now, as I have been suggesting all along, but to reach the conclusion that NRHP HD articles should not be started or developed I do not understand. Your general wish for discord to be over is noted, though. I would like to see some benefit from the NRHP docs being available, too. doncram (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, stubs and redirects in Connecticut, which are the main issues of contention. By all means, full-scale articles would be welcome, referenced from the NRHP noms and whatever else comes to hand. Some merge/split issues will remainAcroterion _(talk) 05:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, what you are saying does not make sense. We are here because one editor went through the CT NRHP lists and created redirects from a couple hundred NRHP HD names, making the sometimes okay and sometimes erroneous assumption that existence of NRHP HD implied that 1) a notable neighborhood/"village"/section of name of NRHP HD minus "HD" existed, and 2) that the NRHP HD was substantially the same as the supposed neighborhood/village/section, and 3) that the NRHP HD was less notable than the supposed neighborhood/village/section. In some few cases i have opened NRHP HD stub articles, not accepting the assumed equation. Ridiculous edit warring and bad faith, led and/or compounded considerably by Orlady, ensued. Throughout this I pointed out NRHP docs were available, i got some of them. Just because NRHP docs are now more available changes, really, nothing about the errors impounded in the previous redirecting and edit warring. To take news of NRHP docs as implying that all the previous redirects and neighborhood/village/section articles are correct and that all possible NRHP articles are wrong, does not make sense. There is a need and possibility, now made more clear by the NRHP docs, to create NRHP stub articles.

I suggest revisiting some of the cases where lots of arguments were made. In the 4 New London County cases that were chosen for discussion, there was:

• Poquetanuck, which quick browsing of the NRHP doc suggests mostly to me that merged article (as agreed in agreement) makes sense
• Quaker Hill Historic District, which quick browsing of NRHP doc suggests pretty strongly to me that having separate articles (as there are currently) makes sense. The HD is a mile long and includes, but is much more than, a "Quaker Hill" area around one intersection. The HD extends into other named areas. The current Quaker Hill, Connecticut article makes incorrect assertions about the HD, now to be modified based on the NRHP doc, by the way.
• Norwichtown, where NRHP doc supports, IMO, having separate articles. By the way, the agreement was that Norwichtown would have separate articles. Norwichtown Historic District's Historic Significance is in: Architecture/Engineering, not the "Event" type, per discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck. That agreement seems sensible in this case. The story of the Norwichtown HD is not the same as the story of the village, and, although the village area remains undefined, it is seeming that Polaron and the map in the NRHP doc are suggesting that the HD is from the village green and to the east, not including half or so of the village. Here, I think it should be Acroterion's judgment to let the separate articles be, consistent with agreement, and with NRHP doc information not suggesting that is a gross error.
• Noank HD, where the agreement at Talk:Noank was for separate articles, based on my having collected the NRHP document and having intended to develop the separate Noank HD article in some detail (which I haven't really). I noted it was odd no one else wanted to see the NRHP doc that i offered to share. I did acknowledge there that the NRHP doc indicated the HD is pretty much the whole historic Noank, tho it differs from the Noank CDP which includes another area too. For Noank, i see no big need to change from the current 2 separate articles, although I or someone should develop the Noank HD article using the NRHP doc.

Based on this review, I think the process before was working, was yielding sensible outcomes. The arbitrary 3-part rule for merger or not seems to work okay. Moving on to other counties, and in many cases creating NRHP stub articles as part of addressing the other cases, seems appropriate. Banning NRHP stub articles because NRHP info is now available, in order to leave ill-advised redirects in place, seems nonsensical. What I take from Acroterion's statements here, mostly, is A's wish for contention to be over. What I think is reasonable to hope for, is that writing/developing of stubs and articles here should now be more informed, now by NRHP docs. About whether there'll be contention in other CT counties, I don't know, but I guess i intend to work forward in an open way--as always-- to address the previously opened cases. doncram (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're not getting what I mean: I'm not banning anything, I just ask that editors who habitually write NRHP articles in CT use the now-available documentation to write something like DYK-length articles in the future (something we all agree is a good thing), rather than creating stubs or placeholder articles. There are probably a few cases where such articles should exist in the parent village article, and there will certainly not be an end to ambiguity or a dawn of new enlightenment, but we should certainly be able to deal with issues from a higher level of informed discussion. I simply suggest that the documentation be reviewed by all concerned editors and discussed on relevant talk pages for existing articles, and that new articles should not be created by involved editors purely from NRIS. Since everybody's been avoiding the subject area, this represents a liberalization of the present truce.

I will continue to participate in this process, laying waste and leaving outrage in my wake on either hand (we have more than one state to deal with), but you will note that not a single article has yet been changed as a result of my proposals. This is intentional, as I'd rather have these discussions now than have a revert war. I again implore all participants to refrain from interpreting the motivations of other editors and re-hashing old arguments. My time will be limited later this week, as there are visitors coming and day trips. I'll do what I can as time permits. Acroterion _(talk) 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that you're not banning anything. You are banning NRHP STUBS, which are well accepted in other places. While I've been willing to live with the no stubs with just the NRIS info present, I would strongly argue that a two or three sentence stub that included a second well formatted reference to the now readily available nomination document can and should exist wherever anyone chooses to create it, whether in CT or in NY where they have been systematically developed by editors other than me or Doncram. Lvklock (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

removals from article

Please don't anyone get all bent out of shape, but i removed some material regarding locations out of the article in this edit. I don't care about it particularly and won't mind if someone else restores it.

But, the assertion that "Most of the eastern half of the neighborhood centered on the Norwichtown Green is a locally designated historic district..." is not supported: there is no source given that it is the eastern half of anything. And I am being raked over the coals, sort of, for trying to do a better job of characterizing the same thing in the Norwichtown Historic District article. Two editors are there removing my work-in-progress, while i was trying to compose a sourced statement.

It's easy to say anything is incomplete or unprofessional or whatever, that is a subjective judgment. The more important question, IMO, is whether removing material where others are working helps or detracts from productive effort. It's a big wikipedia, there are plenty of other places to add positively. doncram (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)