Talk:Glastonbury–Rocky Hill Ferry Historic District

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

about content

Content is needed regarding the historic district listing. --Orlady (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was provided. More could be developed from the NRHP document now on-line and linked from this article. doncram (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Size of district

In view of (1) the fact that the reported size of this HD is inexplicably much greater than the area immediately associated with the ferry and (2) the discovery (confirmed in several instances and suspected in others) of extra zeros on NRIS acreages for other historic districts in Connecticut (see Talk:Wauregan and Talk:Willington Common Historic District) and elsewhere (see Talk:Norris District and Talk:Norris, Tennessee), I suspect that the area of this HD is actually 230 acres, not 2300 acres. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the 230-acre size is confirmed. --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm still working on the document. It's OCR'd, but now the formatting is all messed up. - Denimadept (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary link (moved from article page)

I moved the following off the article page. Help for editors does not belong in article space. --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary link to cached version of Hartford Courant 2005 article: here (Please leave while under construction / discussion, for convenience).

Forms

(copying this here, since this seems more appropriate)

Here they are, grab 'em: scanned text of and pictures from the application. I'm working on OCRing the text right now. If I succeed, or once I succeed, it'll be there too. - Denimadept (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a Word document made from the OCR results. I reformatted and re-proofed the first few pages, but you'll likely want to continue the effort, with the original PDF open as well. Enjoy. - Denimadept (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your several efforts here: getting the docs from the National Register, posting them, OCR-scanning and posting the text one. I have recently only been able to connect on a slow internet connection, and was not able to download the full PDF when i tried yesterday, so glad u made this extra effort. Thanks! doncram (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i wonder if someone could check the Jan Cunningham preparation date in the PDF version for me. The OCR'd version reports the prep date (in Section 11) as 12/30/2005, but the date should usually be earlier than the NRHP listing date, which seems to be earlier in 2005. I used the 12/30/2005 date just now in the article, would be happy to see it corrected if it is wrong. Or is the NRHP listing date in the article wrong? Thanks. doncram (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me as though there are a number of dates. A stamp looks like it is dated 2005-08-08, the certification signature is 2005-07-05, entry into the National Register signature is dated 2005-09-21, and form preparation date is 2005-12-30 (for Harford county, on page 26!). Whatever. - Denimadept (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, "2005" would be plenty good enough as a date citation for that document, particularly in view of the confusion. It's not as if it's a citation to a published periodical (where the date is important for finding it) or an article about news event (where it may be important to indicate when the account was written). --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger vs. split discussion continues at Talk:List of RHPs in CT#Glastonbury-Rocky Hill Ferry Historic District. I'll add a comment there next, based on the new documents. doncram (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

previous discussion of split vs. merger

There was a long discussion about the merits of having one merged article or two separate articles on the Rocky Hill – Glastonbury Ferry and the NRHP-listed "Glastonbury-Rocky Hill Ferry Historic District", at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut#Glastonbury-Rocky Hill Ferry Historic District. The conclusion was, finally, to keep separate articles. The previous discussion will probably be archived there. doncram (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was archived. Towards its end, User:Orlady requested that it be made conveniently available to editors here. So, the discussion is archived, specifically and probably permanently, at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut/Archive 3#Glastonbury-Rocky Hill Ferry Historic District. --doncram (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]