Talk:Carroll Building (Norwich, Connecticut)

development
This version has useful history to start with. It was removed by another editor but is useful as a starting point. --Polaron | Talk 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, i think that was me, reminded by Polaron's adding the text back into the article just now. Here is the text in question:

"Originally used as offices and retail stores, the building is now currently used primarily as an apartment building. The Carroll Building is located on a triangular tract created by the intersection of Main and Water Streets. The building is highly visible from Washington Square (west side of downtown) and is one of the most noticeable aspects of the downtown streetscape.

History The building was commissioned by a local merchant, Lucius W. Carroll, who had investments in textile mills and banks. Various business leased spaces in the building, including the Southern New England Telephone between 1894 and 1902. The Carroll Building was a real estate investment of income derived from manufacturing and retailing, an important factor in the development of Downtown Norwich. The building was designed by Stephen C. Earle of Worcester. The difficult siting of the building combined with the visual impact made the Carroll Building an excellent example of downtown Norwich architecture."


 * What i don't understand is where is this information from. It sounds intelligently written.  Is it just copied from somewhere, and then possibly being a copyright violation?  Surely there must be a source.  In the absence of giving credit to the source, I think it should not appear in the article, and I will remove it again.  Please feel free to discuss here, but please don't restore the unattributed text to the article.  Why add stuff without sourcing?  It's against all basic wikipedia policies.  And, why not add the NRHP nomination document as a source, which should be available.  If in fact this material is based on that document, and proper sourcing is omitted deliberately to make some kind of weird point, then this would amount to quite irksome behavior.  --doncram (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Polaron, thanks for adding a reference, "Historic and Architectural Resource Survey of Norwich, Connecticut (Central Business District), (Norwich Heritage Trust, 1981)", to support the second paragraph. I removed the first paragraph again.  If that is your source for the first paragraph, you could re-add it with the reference, but it would require some modification.  You can't use a 1981 source to make a statement about how the building is currently, now, used. --doncram (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)