Talk:Preston City, Connecticut

split out Preston City Historic District

By the map in the newly-available-online NRHP doc for the HD, it seems to me that the HD is included in, but is substantially not the same as the village. Since the village is asserted to be the town center, and since the Town Hall is included in the village but not the HD by my reading, it seems there's stuff to say about the village not relevant for the HD and vice versa. I am choosing to develop a DYK-length NRHP HD article at Preston City Historic District, consistent with an agreement in a long discussion about similar NRHP HDs that some editors watching here will be familiar with. I believe i'll be able to use some HABS photos to illustrate the article. doncram (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good catch on the town hall. The source where the picture was taken said it was in Preston City and I assumed it was correct. The town hall is on Route 2, which is well outside Preston City. Preston City is the original town center village (the location of the meetinghouse) but does not serve that function currently. Since most things of significance in Preston City are in the historic district, a merge is more appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 19:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you're saying what was in the Preston City article was wrong. I don't want to bother about trying to establish notability of Preston City and getting facts straight about it; i am interested in developing articles about NRHPs and in helping to allow others to do so, too. Anyhow, I started and will complete out a dyk+ length article on the HD. I was interrupted in the middle of a medium-sized edit and lost what i was doing, after an edit conflict. Don't revert again and start up edit-warring again, please. doncram (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You can probably do everything you want with the Preston City, Connecticut article. Please be reasonable. These are identical places. I don't particularly care about what the title of the article is as long as there is only one. --Polaron | Talk 21:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are being unreasonable, butting in with redirects while I am working on the article. As I stated above, I am developing a DYK-length NRHP HD article. Per the agreement that you agreed to in long discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck, this is what you agreed to accept and not to edit war about. If you want to dispute the notability of the article, you can theoretically do so at an AFD, but your current edit warring is counter to all wikipedia policy and is against what you agreed to in a long, drawn-out discussion process. I restored the article and continued developing it somewhat. As of this version, it now surpasses DYK length, and is already a reasonable starter article. Polaron, perhaps you are not aware of what is a DYK length article, what you yourself agreed to. Anyhow, I see the article has again been reverted to be a redirect by you, and as I stated in an edit summary there already, I will ask now for an administrative intervention. doncram (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is everything in your text applies equally to the village. Everything that makes the village notable is in the historic district. There should be only one article. If you prefer, we can put the main article at the historic district name and redirect the locality there. That way you still get DYK credit and we still have only one article. --Polaron | Talk 21:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, what matters IMO is that you should abide by the agreement you agreed to. In that agreement, it is explicitly stated that if someone judges a separate article is appropriate and goes through the trouble to develop a DYK-length decent article, that should be allowed. In my judgement, the NRHP HD article that I developed is already a decent article, and it meets DYK criteria. You are welcome to get others' confirmation about meeting DYK criteria, if you are not familiar with how to do so (but, briefly, i now use length-checking method at wp:DYKcheck). Further, as I stated above, there are HABS pics available and I will add them myself if another editor doesn't do so. (As you've probably noticed, HABS pics are being added to the New London NRHP list by KudzuVine, who is very good at that, and who is doing so now in response to my invitation.)

It is obstinate and rude of you to interrupt my working at developing material by repeated reverts using Twinkle. Your edit summaries are telling me to stop developing wikipedia. Your interest seems to be something other than developing wikipedia. I don't care, at this point, about your view that whatever i could possibly develop should always be better merged into a different article. That is not my judgement, in part because I want to work on a clean article without bullshit assertions about people who might have lived there, or about what the current neighborhood is, or whether it is a "village" or whatever. Bottom-line, anyhow, I have devoted an extraordinary amount of time to dealing with you patiently, and made compromises myself in an agreement with you, which you are now abrogating. Your edit warring is against Wikipedia policy, and it is directly contrary to your personal agreement. doncram (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it was you, Polaron, that added incorrect info about the town center and added the town hall photo! In this diff of 2 edits by Polaron. I did rely upon that info somewhat in forming my judgment that a split was appropriate. I don't care, at this point, to change my decision. And it is your own fault, partially, for putting bad info into wikipedia. The major theme throughout the whole debate on CT NRHPs is that you have been putting bad info into wikipedia, making unsourced and sometimes wrong, sometimes correct assertions. I can't stand this. I don't care to accept your judgment, now, about the degree of overlap between the supposedly notable "village" and the HD. Step back and let others, like me, develop decent, sourced material, please. doncram (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes that was an error since I relied on the statement on the source of the photo that it was in Preston City when it actually isn't. In the end, what matters is that we have one good article about the entity known as "Preston City". The reason it was made a historic district is because of its historical significance. To avoid content forks, we should just direct the locality to the historic district, which I will leave to you. --Polaron | Talk 23:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, redirecting Preston City, Connecticut, to this HD article seems wrong too. The notability of Preston City, which has different historical info and area and different modern events from the HD, probably was already established well enough. The article was started and/or developed by Orlady. I think it should be restored to this version, and perhaps modified somewhat further from that. Isn't there anything to say about the modern Preston City, for example? doncram (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. The only exclusions appear to be the modern state highway junction north of the district, which are just modern houses. Also, what makes you say that they have different historical info? If you take out everything related to the historic district, the locality wouldn't merit an article. There might be historic preservation efforts that could be added but then that is probably more appropriate to the district. --Polaron | Talk 23:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is history of the community that is not represented in the district. Most localities are wikipedia-notable, too, and articles on them serve various purposes. Orlady is one other editor who judged the community is notable. Your redirecting the article lost a source that i suppose she added. There was, perhaps is, a school there (which I just added to the article). What about the New London communities template for example, and about categories the current article holds, which do not apply to the HD article. What about celebrities, anybody who ever lived here that is marginally notable? It is not acceptable by me for you to now start arguing for merger into the now-separate NRHP HD article. If you want to discuss deleting this article (and/or redirecting it), i think the appropriate thing to do is to discuss it here, and/or to open an AFD about it. It is not appropriate to proceed by abruptly redirecting it. doncram (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Further I don't currently believe you about the Town Hall not being in Preston City. You might be right now, while you were wrong before, but at least one other Wikipedian or commons contributor took the time to upload a photo with label identifying it as being in Preston City. I don't know what to believe. What is commonly now known as Preston City could include a lot you don't happen to know about. Having an article for the community allows locals and others who do know stuff to have a place to add it to. doncram (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

These things are more appropriate for the town article. I have added that info there. The community is indeed notable for the reasons that the historic district was established. Let me repeat that: the only reason the community is notable is exactly the same one listed for the significance of the historic district. Creating two articles for the same thing is not good practice for an encyclopedia. --Polaron | Talk 23:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're in luck. There happens to be a defined "Preston City Village District", which is a special area with different zoning regulations. It is essentially the same as the historic district but does include the 164/165 junction to the north. That is pretty much the extent of Preston City. --Polaron | Talk 23:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the Preston City Congregational Church in the city? I think it is. It is located north, across CT 165, from the historic district. It is a historic congregation started 309 years ago, in a notable church building, was formerly known as First Congregational Church.[1].

Isn't the Preston City library in Preston City? Not the old library, which is in the HD, but the newer one? actually i am not sure.

Are all the properties shown in the USGS quadrant map in the NRHP doc, which run along Amos Lake, considered in Preston City? Also all the properties around CT 164 - CT 165 intersection. All of these are outside the HD.

What about Preston schools address at 325 Shetucket Tpke, Preston, CT, which on Google map appears as Preston Veterans Memorial School. Is that considered in Preston City? I think it might be.

Also I would not quickly dismiss editor Orlady's judgment on the obvious significance of Preston City. And we don't know the bounds of what locals call Preston City. As you noted there is a town hall photo labelled as being in Preston City by someone, which from Google lookup is quite far south from the HD, on Rt 2. Maybe quite a large area is considered Preston City.

My point is there is plenty more of Preston City, and plenty to eventually be covered in a sensible Wikipedia article, even with just a quick glance. doncram (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Congregational Church is ust outside the village district. The new library is on Route 2. The area around Amos Lake is outside the village district. 325 Shetucket Turnpike is outside the village district. Please stop guessing. Preston City happens to have a defined special zoning area. --Polaron | Talk 15:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

merge

So far, this article and Preston City Historic District do not have any significant divergent content that makes two separate articles necessary. Anything historical that happened in the village is the same with the historic district. There is nothing important post-1950 that has occurred here. The current total content of both articles applies equally well to both concepts, which are fudamentally the same anyway. --Polaron | Talk 19:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The current status of the articles is not a valid argument for merger. The two topics are two different topics, as was developed well enough in discussion above. It is okay and good to have starter/stub articles. And, if this is like several other cases, I think that overlap between the two articles is probably due to your editing, your having copied over material from one to the other. It would be appropriate to pare back the hamlet/village article to enable there to be proper separation between the articles, one being about the town and one being about historic preservation and how a historic district is effectively a museum shedding light on the past and on architectural styles. The HD article should be at a difffereent level of detail than is appropriate in a hamlet/village article. --doncram (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

But they are virtually identical topics. And I've never really touched these two articles. They were originally one article and they were unilaterally split during the time they were being discussed. As I said, everything about this village has to do with the historic aspects. There is very little to say that's about the modern aspects that won't also overlap with the town article itself. Whether the remaining article be the village or the historic district doesn't matter as long as there is only one. --Polaron | Talk 21:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There is divergent material. And, per decisions on several other town/village vs. historic district pairings, they are different topics. I think this is ready to close as decision for no merger, at least on basis of no consensus between 2 commenters, P and I. --doncram (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge the HD article into the village article. As Polaron points out, the two articles are about the same place. The place is the primary topic here, not the entry in the National Register database nor the form that locals filled out to achieve listing. There is no purpose in a separate article about the HD: This is not the right place for a generic encyclopedia article "about historic preservation and how a historic district is effectively a museum shedding light on the past and on architectural styles." The history of the village and descriptions of the notable buildings there are entirely valid content for an article about the village. Those buildings are, by the way, part of the living community, not a museum. Listing on the National Register did not magically (nor legally) transfer jurisdiction to the National Park Service. --Orlady (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)