Talk:Poquetanuck, Connecticut

a specific proposal

The general issue is what to do when one editor insists upon a redirect/merger of a NRHP HD into a hamlet or other place, and another opposes, and when there is not sufficient information available to describe in mainspace what is the actual relationship between the hamlet or other place and the NRHP HD. But, which way to go now? Implement mergers and redirects (even when it sometimes turns out the facts are that merger is inappropriate)? Or create two linked articles in all cases, even when both are stubs and in many cases facts will turn out later that the merger is appropriate? Or leave redlinks in place, but allow for separate articles to be created?

This is one version of a specific proposal, based on discussion above and elsewhere, for Connecticut NRHP HD - place pairings where no one has found sufficient information to resolve the case otherwise. Here it is:

For Connecticut NRHP HDs, where the main NRHP listing name, as given in NRIS, is "Name Historic District" and where "Name" is a Connecticut placename but not a town, and where no sources have been obtained which specifically describe the relationship between "Name" and "Name Historic District", and

1)where "Name" is a Connecticut "principal community" listed here (which are all also believed to be GNIS locations)

2)where the historic district must have an area of significance that includes NPS Criterion A (historical event) (as can be seen in NRIS database itself or at NRHP.COM)

3)where the centroid coordinates of the NRHP HD and the GNIS-listed coordinates of the populated place are within <0.2 mile separation (centroid coords apparently available within NRIS database, GNIS populated places coords available here)

Then there should be just one merged article at the Connecticut place name, showing the NRHP HD name in bold in the article, and with redirect from the NRHP HD name.

In the merged article there will be an unsourced assertion that the village and the NRHP HD are "substantially similar", and a citation-needed tag may be attached to that assertion. This can be revised to become a sourced assertion if a source becomes available, or the assertion can be revised with sources to clarify whatever is the nature and extent of actual overlap, like whether or not various historic and modern properties are included or not. (Merely rewording to avoid the assertion of substantial similarity is not acceptable by this proposal, as it would remove the validity of the merger and make redirect surprising).

At the Talk page of the merged article and at the Talk page of the redirect, there shall be a statement of request which suggests how future editors may obtain the relevant NRHP document, and requests that future editors not split out a NRHP HD article unless

a) they have created or are actively developing a DYK-equivalent length starter article using substantial information, and

b) the person creating it judges in good faith that it is beneficial to have the NRHP HD be a separate article.

For other CT NRHP HD and place pairings, we agree there shall be no redirect/merger, unless and until clear sources are found which explicitly describe the relationship between the two topics. At the Talk pages of such articles, a similar request to future editors not to implement a redirect/merger can be made.

The proposal is one possible compromise agreement to provide stability for article development on places in Connecticut. It is a summary of discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck, and it reflects discussion at Talk:List of RHPs in CT and other pages which involved contributions by a number of people. Please seriously consider supporting this proposal even if in your opinion it's not the ideal solution, but is better than what we have now. Thank you. doncram (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Please respond with either "* Support" or "* Oppose"

• Support, as proposer (though it is a compromise and not what i would ideally prefer) doncram (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• This is a somewhat stricter version of the guiding principle I have been using to decide whether a merge is preferable or not. I am supportive of implementing this proposal as a quick way of deciding whether a merge is likely good or not. --Polaron | Talk 01:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I support the overall thrust of this proposal, but I think it is too detailed/convoluted and formulaic/bureaucratic, and it has some specific elements that I specifically disagree with (see below; unfortunately, it probably appears from this that I disagree with most specific elements of the proposal). Earlier, when I commented that "I ... fail to comprehend either (1) the requests for formal agreements on the future editing the article (it looks to me like the agreement could end up longer than the article) or (2) the statement that a template needs to be drafted," I was thinking mostly about the excessive detail and bureaucracy in the proposal, and this is still my main concern. --Orlady (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I started writing up this proposal in order to clarify for others who have not followed the discussion, about what a possible compromise could have resulted from the discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck, towards answering a request at wp:3RR for a summary of the discussion here. Despite misgivings, I make this proposal as a proposed solution. doncram (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the brave step of documenting your proposal in order to get discussion restarted, Doncram. Somebody had to do that. I hope you will accept any disagreements as differences of opinion regarding inanimate objects, not as personal criticisms. As promised above, here are the specific elements of this that I disagree with:

1. If "there is not sufficient information available to describe in mainspace what is the actual relationship between the hamlet or other place and the NRHP HD" (for example, because the only information about the historic district is an NRIS database entry), there should be no consideration of writing separate articles about the place and the HD. Just wait until there is sufficient information to base a possible second article on.
2. I disagree with the proposed reliance on the list of so-called "principal communities" on the state Department of Economic and Community Development website. The Connecticut Secretary of State (which has more of an official role as an arbiter of place names in the state than does the DECD) also maintains lists of the state's cities, towns, boroughs, and villages, found online on several separate pages, including this page listing official local governments, this page of official and unofficial places with post offices), and this page of official and unofficial places without post offices). Some places are on one list but not the other. IMO, both lists should be consulted to determine whether a place is "real" and whether its name is recognized, and a place on either list should be considered to be real. As stated earlier, I would attach zero significance to the label "principal communities" and I would not use the term. For all I can tell the title "Principal Communities in Connecticut" was invented by the summer intern who coded the web page for the state Department of Economic and Community Development; the subtitle "Listing of Cities, Towns, Villages, and Boroughs" is a more accurate description.
3. What is the point of applying this proposal only where the historic district has an area of significance that includes NPS Criterion A (historical event)? Actually, I think I understand why you included that. However, this is an aspect of the proposal that I find excessively formulaic/bureaucratic -- and the mere fact that it has been mentioned for discussion is a strong clue that when the only info about an HD is a database entry, it's premature to think about writing a second article.
4. The criterion "where the centroid coordinates of the NRHP HD and the GNIS-listed coordinates of the populated place are within <0.2 mile separation" is another one that I find excessively formulaic/bureaucratic. I prefer the somewhat subjective test (proposed elsewhere) of whether the HD and the "place" are "essentially the same." Also, note that I can easily hypothesize cases (mostly smallish areas, as well as odd shapes) where two centroids are close together but the places are definitely NOT the same, as well as cases (mostly large areas, as well as odd shapes) where they are separated by more than 0.2 miles but are clearly the same.
5. For situations meeting this test, the proposal calls for "just one merged article at the place name, showing the NRHP HD name in bold in the article, and with redirect from the NRHP HD name." I agree that in most cases the one article should be created at the place name. However, given that this proposal is supposed to apply to situations where there is very little information, I'm not convinced that a redirect from the HD name is always appropriate. Why not keep the HD name as a redlink in the place-article, but in the NRHP list-article provide a piped link to the place-article (as I have suggested elsewhere)?
6. I disagree with the idea that the place article should contain "an unsourced assertion that the village and the NRHP HD are 'substantially similar'" (or "essentially the same"), with or without a citation-needed template. Both of these statements are logical absurdities (consider this: in the special case in which it turns out that the entire village is designated as an HD, wouldn't the statement "the village and the HD are substantially the same" be wrong?).
   I think your intent is to say that the village and the HD have substantially the same geographic extent -- or substantially similar boundaries. However, we are discussing geographic "places" that in almost every case have no defined boundaries, so it is philosophically impossible to determine whether those places have "substantially similar" boundaries. (We might just as well ask "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?") Moreover, I contend that the most noteworthy aspects of an historic district are not its metes and bounds but instead are aspects like its history and aesthetics, so short stub articles about historic districts should not focus on details of boundaries. Previously I have suggested that an article about "Podunk" can include a simple declarative sentence in the form, "Podunk Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on April 1, 1980" (cited to NRIS, of course). That type of sentence acknowledges some sort of association between Podunk and the HD, but it requires no speculative assertions about the geographic relationship between Podunk and the HD, and I don't understand your objections to it. If the only available information about the HD is the NRIS entry, I fail to see that this type of statement "would remove the validity of the merger" (there's nothing much to merge). As for being surprised by the redirect, I am suggesting above that redirects should not be provided in cases where there is essentially no information specifically about the NRHP HD (although I do suggest piped links to the place article). Furthermore, in many instances the place article includes some information about the history and/or streetscape of the place associated with the HD, so the reader seeking HD information should not be totally disappointed about being directed to the place article.
7. As for the directives and requests that you propose placing on the Talk pages, they strike me as excessively bureaucratic. --Orlady (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I did expect that this proposal would be likely to be mocked as being elaborate. It is a compromise reflecting a lot of discussion and elements proposed by all parties involved. I myself prefer a simpler alternative: no redirects, no mergers, no stubs, no pipelinks misleading readers/editors, in the absence of good information. Leave this state open, like others, to those who would like to develop articles, and do not force them into specific channels determined by less information than they will have (for example, if they acquire the free NRHP document). However, this is a compromise proposal that takes into account CT-specific circumstances, allows for asserted knowledge of an editor to be accepted, and incorporates criteria already discussed. It may seem complex or bureaucratic, but there's some reasoning behind every element of it, and i think it would provide a stable setting. Thanks for appreciating that this is the only specific proposal on the table. I don't really want to see any other proposals that would start from zero, effectively restarting a whole big discussion. The question is can you live with this, is it better than CT being a battleground and better than Acroterion having to consider each case individually. doncram (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(detailed reply, which was temporarily hidden)

About your point 1, the proposal rejects the idea of having 2 articles, unless there is more substantially more information developed, which is exactly what you want. By what you say in point 1, you should be for the proposal.

About point 2, 3, and 4, you reject all of the criteria discussed to determine when to force a merger. It's arbitrary, it's sure to lead to a temporarily incorrect decision in some cases, but there are no better criteria suggested, and it makes clear what to do in every case.

About point 5, where the test is met, you agree there should be just one article, but disagree that there should be a redirect from the NRHP HD name. That's the crux of the original issue, that an editor wanted there to be a redirect, instead of a redlink in the NRHP list-article. You suggest a piped link to the place-article instead. I honestly don't understand that at all. It seems totally confusing as to what it is meant to suggest to editors. If the merged article contains bolded NRHP HD name and NRHP infobox (saying this is the place the NRHP HD is covered), you want to have a redlink in the merged article suggesting that a separate NRHP HD article is welcomed? Either a merger is being suggested/forced/requested, or it is not. Perhaps you mean to suggest something very indirectly to future editors (I don't know what). The proposal suggests having an explicit statement at the Talk page explaining directly to future editors what is requested of them.

About point 6, if it turns out the NRHP HD and the hamlet are the same, the proposal says to put that into the article. The "logically absurd" statement is there only as long as there is no information available to make a more informed description of relationship. If you or anyone else doesn't like having that statement, then you are invited to get the NRHP document or other source and fix it by writing a more informed statement with a source. That's the beauty of this for CT, where one editor has shown a lot of ownership over town/village articles and also wants these mergers; it puts the onus in the right place. Note, this is a proposal for CT alone. CT NRHP town and NRHP editors can easily fix all of the temporarily disturbing-to-you cases. I don't know what is the second statement which you consider to be a logical absurdity.

About point 7, you dislike having an explicit statement at the Talk page of what is being requested of them. Given all the history now, I think we owe future editors some clear direction! And, no one can legitimately prevent having a request be made at Talk pages.

Further you go on to say that you'd support an article about "Podunk" having a simple declarative sentence in the form, "Podunk Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on April 1, 1980" (cited to NRIS), but no redirect from "Podunk Historic District" if there is not substantial NRHP HD info developed in the Podunk article. That seems entirely different than your arguments all along through this process, so I am surprised. It effectively says don't force a merger without more information. You would allow a separate NRHP HD article at Podunk Historic District? Upon addition of how much information in the Podunk article, would you allow/require a redirect? (If you had previously argued against redirects/mergers like this then I expect you and i would have been in agreement.) But now, I can't imagine what kind of comprehensive proposal you might possibly come up with, that could provide clarity for editors and secure agreement from those involved here. The stated proposal, anyhow, is about how to deal with cases where at least one editor strongly wants there to be redirects and a merger of however much information is available, based on knowledge/anticipation that cases meeting proposal criteria 1, 2, 3 usually mean that in fact the NRHP HD is substantially the same in area and/or historical significance as the placename. The proposal involves having redirects and mergers in a lot of CT cases, somewhat arbitrarily defined by criteria 1,2, and 3, and not having redirects and mergers in the other cases. All this applies until substantially more information is developed in any given case (e.g., meeting the DYK criteria). It is formed as a compromise to get agreement and to provide a stable resolution for editors, for all of these cases. So I would like to ask you to consider supporting rather than opposing. doncram (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(end detailed reply)

Orlady, I would rather you would just agree to this one, but you are welcome to make a different comprehensive proposal. doncram (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen comments hidden immediately after they were created, and I'm confused by the etiquette of the situation. Am I allowed to respond to the hidden comments, or are they private? I did label them to clarify who "self" is. However, they are difficult to read in this format (much less reply to them), and if I try to respond to them, it will look like I'm talking to myself. --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I did write the detailed comments for you, specifically, responding to your detailed points, then collapsed it to suggest to others it was not necessary for anyone else to read. Hoped to keep this from looking like another wall of text. Your comments, and perhaps also my response, are both larger than the proposal already. But go ahead and reply here, please. doncram (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; collapsing doesn't make any difference, and I'd rather you set it all forth. I'd like to get some things settled starting tomorrow. Acroterion _(talk) 03:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for unhiding your comments, Doncram. Unfortunately, it's past my bedtime, so I am not in a position right now to finish digesting the changes you made to your comments as you unhid them, much less respond to all of them. I guess we're in agreement on item 1, anyway. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the diff makes it look like almost all was changed, but in fact i didn't change a single word within. I just indented and set off between (detailed reply, which was temporarily hidden) and (end detailed reply). doncram (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for 'splaining that. As indicated, it was past my bedtime when I looked at those diffs, and I was thoroughly befuddled by all those indications of changes. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to my comments.

As noted, I am glad that we seem to agree on item 1.

Regarding item 2, my issues are that (1) Wikipedia should not ignore the list of one state agency while giving great deference to the list of another state agency (particularly when the agency being ignored is the agency with jurisdiction over local communities) and (2) the term "principal communities" lacks any recognized meaning and should not be enshrined in here.

Regarding point 3, if the only explanation for choosing the criterion is that it's arbitrary, I respectively submit that we don't need it. Joking aside, no participant in this discussion has been able to convincingly demonstrate that this particular checkbox on the NRHP nom form is a meaningful indicator of whether the two articles should be combined. I see no purpose in establishing an arbitrary criterion that no one can explain the purpose of.

Regarding point 4, because I believe that reasonable determinations can be made without asking people to measure the distances between two centroids, I submit that this arbitrary criterion is unnecessary.

To replace points 2, 3, and 4, I suggest the following:

"The community is a named place, smaller than a town, identified on one or more of the lists of Connecticut cities, towns, boroughs, and villages maintained by state agencies ([1] [2] [3] [4]). Comparisons of available geographic coordinates, land areas, maps, and descriptions indicate that the historic district comprises essentially all of the named place or a substantial portion of the place."

I commented more about this further below in response to Polaron's comments. This essentially guts the proposal, opens everything for continued discussion, and resolves the issue for no cases whatsoever (I think). It is not a solution, it is a non-solution, for all the cases where no one has any good sources to establish any of that. The proposal is focused on the hundreds of cases where there is not information that "indicates" that, that makes the comparison. What do you want to do in those cases? doncram (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that a reasonable person can make an acceptable determination of whether an HD "comprises essentially all of the named place or a substantial portion of the place" without needing to apply a bunch of arbitrary pseudo-objective criteria. To wit, consider the following:

• Geographic coordinates for HDs are available from NRIS. Geographic coordinates for places can be found in national geographic databases, can be interpreted from maps and satellite images, and sometimes can be found in other sources that describe the place or community. Although there sometimes are "interesting" data errors in coordinates, a person ought to be able to satisfy themselves (and convince other reasonable people) that the coordinates for a particular HD and the coordinates for a particular place do (or do not) indicate the same place.
• The NRIS database gives land areas -- these can be compared with any available information on the area of the physical place in question. Sources of information about the area of physical place might include (but is not necessarily limited to) visual estimates of the size of the settled area as shown on topo maps and satellite images, reported area of a CDP, and neighborhood maps shown on neighborhood organization websites or town planning websites.
• Descriptions of things like the number of buildings in an HD can help to indicate the relationship between the HD and the place with which the HD is associated. For example, if NRIS indicates that there are four buildings in the village HD and satellite images show 200 buildings in the village, it's reasonable to conclude that the HD does not comprise essentially all of the named place or a substantial portion of the place. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding point 5, we agree on "one article", which is (as you wisely point out) the crux of the matter. You are saying the HD article name should be a redirect and I'm saying "no redirect." This is a matter that can be discussed later.

No, i said "That's the crux of the original issue, that an editor wanted there to be a redirect, instead of a redlink in the NRHP list-article." The editor wants to force a merger and disallow a NRHP HD article, which is accomplished by making a redirect and watchlisting that and editing to prevent any NRHP stub opened there. Technically not having a redirect there but having the same editor watchlist the red-link name and prevent an NRHP HD article is the same. But, if there is a merger accepted, it makes sense to do the redirect. If there is a red-link / no article, that is obviously to communicate to editors that it is okay to open an article at that name. This is so basic that I do not understand how you could want something different. I don't see how there could be a real agreement with this really basic point left to be discussed later. If there's to be a merger, then merge and redirect. If not, show red-links and allow articles. doncram (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding point 6, it's apparent that we're not getting anywhere, but I'll try again. I believe that there are no cases where a reliable source will ever be found saying that Podunk and the Podunk Historical District are "essentially the same place." Sources might say that that "Podunk is listed on the National Register as the Podunk Historical District", or perhaps that the Podunk Historical District is "in Podunk" or maybe even that it's "near Podunk," but they will never say they are "essentially the same." Accordingly, the statement "they are essentially the same" is always wrong. The "essentially the same" terminology is a shorthand locution developed and used in Wikipedia to describe a concept that I think we all understand, but is not a fact to be reported in an article (without sources or with) because it is never going to be verifiably true. Meanwhile, when (as is the case for Poquetanuck) the local historical society says that the village "is" a National Register historic district,[5] the article should be able to contain a sourced statement to that effect.

You don't have to find a reference that says exactly that. You can get the NRHP document which in most cases will describe what the actual relationship is, and describe that instead. That is explicitly allowed in the proposal. If there is an alternative source besides the NRHP document (why not get the NRHP document????) which accurately describes the relationship, you can use that. About the specific Poquetanuck reference serving or not, that is not clear to me. It doesn't actually discuss boundaries and describe overlap or state they are the same, as has been discussed previously. I think it's fine, per this proposal, to assert they are substantially the same (which is what you believe!!! you have said basically that many times!!!) and to call by citation needed tag and by Talk page request for someone to lift their little typing fingers and get a source, for free, which would probably allow for clear description of the relationship. But if Acroterion would judge that in this case that your reference suffices, I would accept that for revising the statement and clearing the citation-needed tag. doncram (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Doncram states that "You can get the NRHP document which in most cases will describe what the actual relationship is, and describe that instead." I think that's beside the point here, as I understand that this discussion is limited to situations where no one has obtained the NRHP document, and the available information about the NRHP listing is limited to what's in the NRIS database.

It sounds perhaps like you want to suggest different complex criteria for determining whether a hamlet and an NRHP HD are similar / overlapping enough to force a merger, without getting the NRHP document. Maybe this is all too much kowtowing. And the rule should be NO merger, NO redirect, unless someone gets the damn NRHP document which will, in almost all cases, describe relationship/overlap. doncram (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As for saying "they are essentially the same," I perceive that the issue upon which you are placing great weight is whether the geographic extent of the village (or other place of interest) is essentially the same as the geographic extent of the NRHP-listed historic district. I contend that in many cases it is possible to say that the geographic extent of an HD is "essentially the same" as a the geographic extent of a village (although in most of these cases there is no firm definition of the geographic extent of the place). However, that statement is not logically equivalent to saying that a village is "essentially the same" as an HD. In reality, either the village and the HD are the same place, or the HD is part of the village, or the village is part of the HD, but they are never "essentially the same." We have been using the words "essentially the same" among Wikipedia contributors as shorthand to describe a concept related to determining whether a topic should be covered by one article or two; the fact that we use those words in discussion does not make the concept something that should be discussed in an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am insisting that if there is to be a merger (and accordingly a redirect, and both names showing in bold in the lede) then it must be asserted that the two are similar / overlapping enough to justify the merger. Otherwise, why merge? Otherwise why puzzle new editors and everyone else, who will naturally ask "why are these 2 disparate topics covered in one article, and why is some editor deleting my work when I try to start a separate article?" I am happy to reject this proposal myself and go back to NO merger, NO redirect, unless reliable source is found which describes the relationship and allows for enough to be said in the article so that it seems reasonable there is a merger. (Reliable source = lifting typing fingers to get the NRHP documents, and putting in a properly formed in-line reference.) However, Orlady, I want your support in stopping edit warring of another editor who has previously consistently battled for unsourced statements and forcing merger, in the absence of reliable source information that can be shown in an article. doncram (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The operative word there is "insisting." You are insisting on doing things your way. If you don't get your way, you revert others (daring others to revert you back), or you post a couple-thousand word essay, or you whine about being under-appreciated (or something like that). (To think that you accused me of being a bully.)
I have discussed this article at far greater length than it deserves, and I'm not interested in repeating my comments yet again, because it is becoming clear that regardless of what I say, you will continue to "insist". --Orlady (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As for my suggestion that a simple declarative sentence in the form, "Podunk Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on April 1, 1980" (cited to NRIS) is never wrong, I think I now understand your objection. Your view is that if a person looking for for "Podunk Historic District" is redirected to the Podunk article, the Podunk article must include an explicit statement regarding the geographic relationship between Podunk and the Podunk HD. I am not aware of any policy or principle that says that the article that is the target of a redirect (or a piped link) must necessarily cover a topic that is substantially the same as the topic indicated by the redirected title. Indeed, one of the recommended uses of redirects identified in WP:Redirect is redirects from sub-topics and small topics to broader articles. Redirecting a village HD title to the article about the village where the HD is located is similar to redirecting a team member's name to the article about his team. Also see the redirection of Nicholas Mikel (perpetrator of an act of violence) to Fort Campbell (place where he perpetrated that violence). When an HD article title redirects to the village article and the village article contains some content related to the HD, why shouldn't the user be satisfied that the redirect is valid? (As I've said before in different words, the metes and bounds of an HD are seldom the main topic of interest regarding that HD, so they should not be the main focus of articles about HDs, nor the main determinant of whether an HD needs a stand-alone article. Similarly, it is unlikely that users will be horrified if the Podunk article that includes one sentence about the Podunk HD does not include an explicit statement about the HD's geographic relationship to "Podunk" -- and this is all the more true when there is no firm definition of the geographic scope of Podunk.)

Additionally, regarding your comments on point 6, if this proposal is specific to Connecticut, it should not use the word "hamlet," as that is a geographic term that is not used in Connecticut.

Finally, regarding point 7, I guess this difference of opinion may simply indicate that you and I have different views of bureaucracy. Having spent several decades working in and around bureaucratic organizations, I have no taste for inventing new bureaucracy when it's not needed. Also, I have observed that when people are confronted with lengthy rules and directives for simple tasks and processes, they typically don't bother to read those rules and directives, much less follow them. I predict that this will be the fate of any set of detailed 'thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" that you choose to post on Talk pages for Connecticut villages, sections, and neighborhoods. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'l spend some time tomorrow absorbing all this - it's past my bedtime too. Acroterion _(talk) 04:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I added "but not a town" to qualify the proposal. Parties have already agreed to reverse redirects/merges for cases like Goshen Historic District (Goshen, Connecticut) which is in the much larger town of Goshen, Connecticut. doncram (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I incorporated this (with slightly different wording) into my suggested replacement for points 2, 3, and 4. (See above). --Orlady (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from Polaron regading the four criteria: (1) Regarding the DECD list of principal communities -- I believe I mentioned this elsewhere but the places listed on the DECD list are the ones that are marked on the official state highway map. Named places not on the list are not on the official map. This is also the list used by the Health Department. I have in fact used this list as a basis for deciding when a separate village article should be made or not and have redirected articles for non-principal community villages to the parent town article. The only times I've let non-principal community village articles stand is when they are also historic districts. Limiting to principal communities was a concession to Doncram further limit the number of mergers but in general I do prefer that if a non-principal community village is listed as a historic district, a single merged article be made. (2) Regarding the NRHP criterion A requirement -- I added this as a concession to Doncram that maybe the historic district is listed not necessarily for the historical significance of a village but for the architecture of buildings in the place. If architecture is the sole criterion for being listed on the National Register, then it is more than likely that a separate article will be ultimately needed. Of course, each case should be looked at individually but this was a quick and dirty way of evaluating whether a historic district is significant because of events that happened in the village or not. (3) I've always maintained that one can determine the extent of historic districts and villages if one is willing to do some synthesis of available references and if one is somewhat familiar with Connecticut history. Also, many historic districts do in fact have maps available if one digs deep enough. I also have access to nomination forms from 1984 and earlier on microfiche. Villages in rural areas are easy to delineate as well. I think Doncram, however, wants to be able to do this independently without too much effort on his part. This is why I came up with the centroid coincidence criterion. That criterion is actually biased towards more splits since in many cases, the core village did not develop in a symmetric manner and the centroid of the present day village is not the same as the centroid of the original settlement. I do prefer studying the actual extents and determining whether the village core and historic district are substantially the same or not but Doncram would say this is original research and never agree to such an analysis. So the centroid coincidence criterion is what I came up with as a concession to Doncram. (3a) One can determine the exact geographical relationship if one looks at a variety of sources. At a minimum one should be able to say if the whole or part of a village is the historic district and I think we should be allowed to put that in the article uncontroversially even if it requires some kind of synthesis of different sources. (4) I added the concession that if someone has the NRHP document and has stated that he/she will be working on developing a fully-fleshed out separate historic district article, that person should be allowed to do so even if I think working in the context of a wider village article makes more logical sense. (5) I do agree that is is unnecessary to add all the bureaucratic stuff to the Talk pages. This was meant mainly for our purpose to address the currently contested issues. If people come along in the future and wish for a completely different way of doing things, then we open up the discussion again. This is how Wikipedia works - not everything is set in stone. (6) I am hoping these principles be generally applied to the rest of New England as there is really no logical difference for the most part. However, as a concessiion to Doncram, I am agreeing to limit it initially to Connecticut and see how it goes. As I mentioned, this proposal is a stricter codified version of what I have always used to decide whether to merge or not. You'll note that in the overall list of historic districts in New England, over 75% has been untouched because. As long as this proposal is primarily for the benefit of the active participants in this dispute, this bureaucratic compromise proposal (on both Doncram's and my part) has a good chance of ending this issue. If there are specific cases that would not work with this compromise proposal, then let's identify them and exempt them. But until then, I think we should at least try it out. --Polaron | Talk 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just adding that I fully agree with Orlady's proposed wording change in her comment above regarding points 2, 3, and 4. I also agree with her comments regarding point 6. You will likely never find an explicit statement of equivalence for a village and historic district. It will always be implied. These implied statements as well as studies of available geographic data should allow us to determine whether part or essentially all of a village is the historic district. If Doncram agrees to these, then I think we are basically all agreed. --Polaron | Talk 15:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Brief response: Changing per Orlady's suggestion to replace criteria 1,2,3 (points 2,3,4) by the statement suggested, seems to gut the proposal and to beg the question in every so-far disputed case. And to open more cases where Polaron will believe that the presumption is he can prevent NRHP HD articles from being created, and create stub hamlet articles using just the NRIS info. What evidence will suffice to establish that "that the historic district comprises essentially all of the named place or a substantial portion of the place" ? I do not accept Polaron's personal knowledge-based judgments alone, or his judgment plus a Talk page "dump" or anything other than an inline citation to a reliable source such as an NRHP document. This has gone too far, too long, with too much battling on too many cases where it has turned out that Polaron's judgment was entirely wrong. Except I am willing to defer to Polaron, under the discussed process, where Polaron is effectively asking for us to defer to his unproven judgments in a defined set of cases, in order to close all the disputes in CT. Orlady's suggested changes extend the scope and provide no solution, no stability, at all. Polaron is/was willing to accept the original proposal here, and he would have to do the work of establishing criteria 1,2,3 in every case (this major part of the bureaucracy Orlady objects to would not have to be seen by any future editor), and we would be done. doncram (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Where has my judgement been entirely wrong? --Polaron | Talk 17:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to rub you the wrong way by my choice of words, but I will answer: In terms of your behaviour throughout this, it is my opinion that your judgment about Wikipedia policy was "entirely wrong" in your choosing to edit war in hundreds of articles here to preserve unsourced statements that I removed, and to preserve redirects and mergers where there was an implicit, unsupported assertion of similarity. Others have disagreed with your behaviors this way, some in CT and some in articles nation-wide, including on your Talk page right now. In terms of facts and content, it is my opinion that you were entirely wrong in the hundred or so CT NRHP HD cases which were reversed already in the 7 batches of RFDs, in other cases where you have acceded to my and others opinions gradually, and even in several recent cases nationwide. It is a matter of semantics to quibble whether you were "entirely" wrong for judgments you made that turned out to be substantially wrong for facts or wrong for the orderly development of Wikipedia. If you wish, please interpret my phrasing as mildly overstating for effect. doncram (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In those "hundreds" (that's an overcount) of cases, those were to redirects to town articles. In the absence of historic district articles, I redirected them to the town articles as most of them at least mention the historic districts. I have never disagreed with you that eventually a separate article will be needed when it is written for these cases. Our disagreement is whether a red link or a redirect is better when there is very little information at present. That is a user preference not a judgement of content. So again, which mergers that I have argued based on topic content were entirely wrong? --Polaron | Talk 17:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I answered already. Since you seem to wish this, let me say you were not ever "entirely wrong". Rather you were just substantially wrong for the development of wikipedia, in your edit warring to impose redirects and unsourced statements, including in many cases already and many in the future where the forced mergers you imposed have been or will be reversed, and further let us call this a "user preference", though i think it is more basic to the concept of Wikipedia than that. This is already off-topic, off the topic of discussing a proposal that could settle all the CT stuff if everyone does not devolve into new arguments.

I am somewhat frustrated here that a solution which Polaron and I agreed to, which would settle almost all CT cases, is opposed for sake of avoiding "bureaucracy" of 1,2,3 that would mainly fall on Polaron and perhaps me to address. Is the goal to prolong disagreement and to derail a solution that could work? Why not give the proposal a chance. I oppose broadening the range of articles which Polaron is given to force mergers in (to extend to more CT articles or to other states), unless and until the proposal is shown to work in CT, first. Let me point out again, that I believe no parties participating here besides myself have obtained and used NRHP documents to resolve CT NRHP HD issues. Someone might prove me wrong for 1 or 2 cases, but the fact is basically that. I have added inline NRHP references to more than 50 CT NRHP articles (i did all of the CT NHLs about a year ago, i think, and i have addressed some of the disputed cases in the last few months, and I have done scattered others). It does not make sense to further kowtow to one or two determined editors who wish to contribute in Wikipedia without doing the basic work of providing reliable sources in in-line citations. The basic administrative policy to deal with the behavior that has gone should be to shut it down entirely and to reverse the damage caused already. The proposal is a huge compromise. Polaron did accept the proposal, but I am afraid he is now emboldened by Orlady's opposition to the proposal to open everything up and to be allowed to do whatever he wishes everywhere. I think that would be bad for Wikipedia in general and bad for the prospects of NRHP HD and place articles in Connecticut. doncram (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm the historic district articles' worst nightmare. I've never done anything except to destroy the encyclopedia. --Polaron | Talk 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Let's keep this as a policy discussion, not an examination of the efforts and motivations of other editors, please. For the sake of other editors and new editors, we should strive for a short set of concise guidelines. We have arrived at a set of principles to discuss, and have agreement on some. Let's view any further discussion as a means of simplifying the instruction set, rather than a personalized debate. We're making progress, at least as long as we resist the temptation to personalize this. Acroterion _(talk) 14:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good. Let's be clear here that the 3 complex guidelines do not need to be mentioned at all to new editors. Polaron and I, i guess, will determine which hamlet and NRHP HD pairings meet the criteria where there will be a merger. All new editors will see is that there is a redirect and a merged article and some polite statement of request ("hey, please don't split unless u have enough info to do at least a DYK-length article") at the Talk pages. doncram (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And apparently my opinions (nor those of anyone who isn't Doncram -- or possibly Polaron) must be ignored and all of my edits may be freely reverted on sight. I don't know why this is... Because I'm female? Because I live in Tennessee? Or maybe I am "substantially similar" to a nonentity? --Orlady (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)