Talk:Bank of Nolensville

development
This article was just now started in a semi-automated way, and could use more attention, perhaps including use of sources that might be found online. Please help! :) Try

Or vary that search. Try, for National Park Service material:

Or develop from the sources already included in the article! Thanks. :) -- do ncr  am  18:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * An editor removed sourced statements from article with edit summary mentioning "No article", which I don't understand. I restored the statements.  Please do explain if you have a point. -- do  ncr  am  13:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant there was that Jenkins had no article of his own, and since it merely stated that he was a "promoter" and president of the bank, I didn't think it was noteworthy enough to mention.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's relevant, and the link in particular provides context for more development of the topic. Thanks for fixing the google book display link.


 * I also restored 2 other sourced statements, now twice deleted by SarekOfVulcan: 1) The listing was for an area of less than one acre with just the one building.(with NRIS ref)  and 2) The property is denoted as WM-1117 by the state historical association.(also with NRIS ref that supports the usage of WM-1117 as a code for the site).  I believe those are factual and add.  SarekOfVulcan, do you believe there is some general agreement such statements should not be included in articles?  I don't agree there is a consensus anywhere for that, and in fact there are editors who've argued that informational type info like that which appears in infoboxes (some but not all of this actually is infobox) must be repeated in text.  Removing from text, if not in infobox, is worse.  In the interim, such statements should be kept in.  If there is some RFC reaching some consensus, this and other articles can be revisited, but tearing out the info seems bad. -- do  ncr  am  14:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there was any single location where I gathered this consensus, so I've started a discussion at WT:NRHP to see if we can establish the answer one way or the other. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)