Talk:Beaver Hills Historic District

merge proposal
There have been merge proposal tags on this article and another, which i removed. I just restored as an editor has objected, elsewhere, to their removal. I don't happen to support the merger, esp. as there is no argument for merger presented. If there's no support for merger within some period, i think it'd reasonable to drop the tags again. Probably the argument for merger would be that there's little info in either article. I'd personally prefer to see the articles developed. It would help, either way, if a map showing the neighborhood and historic district, both, were to be prepared. --doncram (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the merger proposal never was discussed, I don't know who objected to the removal of the templates. However, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm the one who is interpreted as having objected, since I removed the merge template from Beaver Hills (New Haven) with an edit summary that said "since the other merge template has been removed, this one also needed to be removed". For the record, I wasn't objecting to anything (other than the fact that only one of the paired set of templates had been removed).


 * However, as long as I'm here, I would like to say that I don't think it makes any sense to merge the two articles to Beaver Hills Historic District (which is the proposal given here), but I would be in favor of merging them to Beaver Hills (New Haven). Reasoning is as follows:
 * There isn't a lot of information about either the neighborhood as a whole or the portion of the neighborhood that is on the National Register, and a single merged article would be a lot more useful to readers than the two separate articles are.
 * Because the neighborhood encompasses the HD, the neighborhood is the broader topic. Information about the HD can be included in one article about the neighborhood, but the HD article cannot so easily cover the whole neighborhood. --Orlady (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, what the neighborhood is defined to be, is up for discussion perhaps. It was stated in this article that the HD is the eastern half of the neighborhood.  If the neighborhood is defined as the New Haven official neighborhood, that is false because it is far less than half, and it is not the easternmost portion of the neighborhood.  So perhaps others believe the neighborhood name refers to some other area.  Anyhow, I just revised the claim in the article to say only that the HD is included in the neighborhood, which is true if the New Haven official definition is accepted.  Again, a map presenting all definitions of the neighborhood and the HD would be helpful.  (Also, Orlady, it was not you whom i interpreted as having objected; see the next edits after yours that you mention.) --doncram (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Revisiting this after some time has gone by, it seems to me that keeping the two articles separate or possibly eliminating the separate Beaver Hills neighborhood article would be most appropriate. What is the area of the neighborhood, by the way?  It is not defined in the Beaver Hills (New Haven) article.  There, Beaver Hills is asserted to be the sum of two historic district areas.  Actually there seems to be little/no content about the neighborhood other than the HD information, which IMO is better presented in the HD articles.  Currently i think the best thing to do would be to retain the two HD articles, and redirect the neighborhood article to the Neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut article.  If/when there is substantial content about the neighborhood added there, it could possibly be split out again. --doncram (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, the HD article has since been further developed. Ready to close with decision not to merge. --doncram (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)