Talk:Bethel, Missouri

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Missouri Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Bethel, Missouri be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Merger proposal

I propose merging Bethel Historic District (Bethel, Missouri) into this article.

The historic district article currently is a stub that consists only of the National Register equivalent of "name, rank, and serial number." The history information in the village article provides excellent historical context for information about the historic district, which is consistent with one of the reasons for merging given at WP:Merging. Additionally, either the HD and the village are identical or they have large overlap. The 6-block historic district covers only about half of what appears to be the settled area of Bethel, but considering that that official area of the village is only 0.1 square miles and the population is only 121, it could be the whole village.

IMO, Wikipedia will do a better job providing information about this tiny village if the two articles are consolidated. --Orlady (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This merger proposal represents an unhelpful (in my view) extension by Orlady of ongoing discussions at Talk:List of RHPs in CT, Talk:List of RHPs in VT, and elsewhere. Why repeat it here, instead of working to achieve consensus elsewhere? Anyhow, the same arguments against merger apply here. There are no sources establishing degree of overlap: either the NRHP HD or the village could be larger and include the other. They could easily have quite different emphases in articles. The NRHP HD article could easily be developed to cover the specific contributing properties included within it, in manner not appropriate for the town article. It hurts rather than helps wikipedia to make a merger here, and to make this proposal here. doncram (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, Doncram. I discovered this article when I was reviewing historic district articles and adding them to state-level categories so as to be able to stop listing every HD in the humongous Category:Historic districts in the United States. If it weren't for the opposition expressed elsewhere to merging these articles, I probably would have simply boldly merged this pair. However, being aware of the concern that exists, I put the merge template on the articles and invited Lvklock to discuss them.

As for your specific arguments, you state "There are no sources establishing degree of overlap: either the NRHP HD or the village could be larger and include the other." You are essentially correct that there are "no sources" -- the dearth of sources is one reason why I object to the idea of having two separate articles about this one tiny community. As it happens, though, the NRIS info identifies the street names that bound the HD, and it's clear from Google Maps that these streets bound a 6-block area of Bethel village. You also say "The NRHP HD article could easily be developed to cover the specific contributing properties included within it," but saying this could be easily done does not seem to be the same as actually doing it. I see no basis for expecting that this hypothetical well-sourced article will be created any time soon, or that there will be so much encyclopedic information about these 6 blocks that the information cannot be incorporated into the short article about this tiny village. --Orlady (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, chances are excellent that the historic district was listed on the National Register because of the village's interesting past (documented in the village article), not because of the hypohetical distinctive architectural features that you expect to be covered by the hypothetical HD article that you describe. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In this case , I did spend some time tonight actually developing the article, including a level of detail not appropriate for the town article, in my opinion. In addition to the concerns outlined by Doncram, there is the additional concern of disruption of the disambiguation page for Bethel Historic District. In order to meet the DAB requirements, a stub would have to be created for either Bethel Historic District (Bethel,Delaware) or Bethel Village Historic District, Bethel, Vermont. At any rate, IMO, the article as it now stands should not be merged. Lvklock (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bethel, Missouri. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]