Talk:Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut)/Archive 1

reference to be obtained
This article would be improved by obtaining and using the NRHP application document for the district. To get a free copy, any editor can send a request to the National Register (email to nr_reference (at) nps.gov ). doncram (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The newly available online version of the NRHP application was added to the article, and the article is being developed. doncram (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

separate article vs. merge with Georgetown, Connecticut CDP article
With many NRHP historic districts, it is debatable whether the historic district should get a separate article or whether it should be merged into a town article. Personally i think it is a matter of judgement, and the decision is usually not obvious. Either way often works.

User:Polaron has merged/redirected several CT HD articles into CT town or CDP articles, and i believe will wish to consider merging this article too, into the existing article on Georgetown, Connecticut, a CDP. I prefer to keep this article separate as "Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut)" for several reasons including: 1. This article can be developed into being a more extensive article listing out and describing all of the contributing properties within the district, in which case it would be unsuitable for including all in the CDP article. I think all historic district articles should be developed that way, as User:Daniel Case has done with some RI HD articles and many Hudson Valley area HD articles in New York State. I think it helps build the wikipedia to plan on that, and to keep the HD article separate.

2. In this case the possible merger target would be a CDP rather than a town article. If Georgetown was a town i would be more supportive of merging it in, but I am not entirely clear on the value of CDP articles in general. I have the impression that CDP's are artificial constructs that come and go, according to periodic redistricting by the U.S. Census. I prefer not to have anything much to do with them, myself. Admittedly i am a bit uninformed on this point, but i think it's better not to merge NRHP stuff into them in general.

3. In this case the historic district spans two towns: Redding and Wilton. It would seem the historic district should be referenced from the two towns and from the CDP article. I think it is cleaner for the district to be on its own in an article, that can be linked from those, rather than point to the CDP article or a section within it. If a historic district overlaps substantially into more than one town, I think it is usually better to have a separate article on it.

4. There are two redirects set up from usual (Town, State) format NRHP disambiguation: Georgetown Historic District (Redding, Connecticut) and Georgetown Historic District (Wilton, Connecticut). If this article is replaced by a redirect to Georgetown, then those would be double redirects, and I believe they would get individually or automatically changed to point to Georgetown, and would have to be reconstructed later once this article is eventually separated finally from that article, as will eventually happen even if it is merged in now.

5. Lacking the NRHP document which would show the boundaries of the district, even if the boundaries of the CDP are clearly known on some local map (not in my possession), it is not yet determinable that the historic district lies entirely within the CDP. It may well lie entirely within it, but that would need to be claimed and should be sourced if the district was merged into the CDP article. There is no sourcing issue on this, and there is notability issue, if the HD is kept separate.

So, for these reasons and perhaps more, I think it is better for developing wikipedia to keep this one separate. doncram (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding point #2, whether or not the Census Bureau defined Georgetown as a CDP or not, the locality known as Georgetown still exists. The fact that it so happened that the locality was used as a basis for a CDP should not be an issue. If this were a mere non-CDP unincorporated community, would you have objections?


 * Regarding point #5, none of the historic district boundaries even come close to the CDP boundaries so there is no question in my mind that it is wholly within the CDP. In any case, even if this were not defined as a CDP, the reason for the existence of the district is the locality at the core of the CDP.


 * Regarding point #4, that is a very minor issue and can be done in 30 seconds with minial effort. Also, a bot automatically fixes those periodically.


 * Regarding point #3, there is a village article (Georgetown, Connecticut) that already exists. The fact that the village spans multiple towns is not a problem. The village article can simply be linked from the towns it is located in.


 * Regarding point #1, the list of historic buildings would be an excellent addition to the village article. Again, the district is the village. It just so happens a CDP was defined that included additional outlying areas that are densely settled. --Polaron | Talk 20:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, i'll give one response for now, and then not come back for a day or two. To some extent i enjoy/don't mind having detailed discussions about fine points of CT HDs, but also I don't want to spend too much time on it, and debating does not seem to be very directly building the wikipedia.


 * Regarding #2, i think that I would be more more supportive of having just one article if Georgetown was just an unincorporated community. However, it is a CDP which carries a lot of baggage about the population and demographics and its arbitrarily drawn borders and so on, which doesn't have much to do with the historic district.  It seems more difficult to me to have a unified article with a CDP than with an unincorporated community.
 * Regarding #5, that's new information that you judge it to be entirely within the CDP. That tends towards supporting an eventual merger.  However, you omit to acknowledge that you do not have a source which can be used in a merged article to support the judgment that the HD is entirely within the CDP.  So it is problematic to do the merger for that reason, while it is fine and there are no source issues if the merger is not done.
 * Regarding #4 you misunderstood my point. I agree it takes 2 seconds or just a bot to remove the double redirects.  They would do that.  But, no bot will come back and undo those redirects later, if and when the historic district gets separated again after the material on the historic district gets developed.  So, doing the merger ensures that a certain amount of wikipedia disambiguation structure gets destroyed.  And to remedy the damage later requires remembering what was done, and then undoing it, and so on.  Why not just build the intended-for-final-form disambiguation structure now, and not destroying it only to have to try to remember to rebuild it later.  That would be a pain.
 * Regarding #3 about the village article, what do you mean, is there a village article separate from the CDP article and the 2 or 4 town articles? All of these can/should probably mention the historic district.  The more entities that a historic district lies in, the more reason there is to put the historic district in a separate article, to avoid excessive duplication of material, to allow briefer mentioning in each of the many entity articles.  Sure, a town article can and should link to articles on villages within the town.  I think you may have some point here but i don't get how it relates to the topic of having a separate article about the HD.  Anyhow, please provide a link to whatever village article you are talking about.


 * Regarding #1, I'm glad you agree that getting and adding real material would be good. That is what we should work on.  Your side comment that the CDP includes additional outlying densely settled areas (perhaps these are suburban development tracts), gives me more reason to expect that the historic district article ultimately should stand alone.  It sounds as if the CDP is substantially different than the historic core area covered in the district article.  And, it is my judgment that ultimately the historic district would be split out, if it were merged now.


 * The way forward here is to get the NRHP application docs and to develop the historic district article. My bet is that it will be best to keep it separate.  I concede some possibility that with the additional research and development that editors could possibly, at some future date, wish to merge the articles.  But, the most likely possibility is that they should be kept separate, and I have already set it up to be separate, and put in some work already to develop it this way (minor: putting in the NRHP infobox, and somewhat more substantial because it is requiring some specialized expertise: setting up disambiguation properly).  So I do oppose you if you want to merge this, and it would be a contested move/afd whatever.


 * Also, to push back a little: why do the merger?  I have given reasons why not to do the merger.  Another reason is that there is no good reason to do the merger.  I accept that it would not be entirely unreasonable to cover the historic district in the CDP (which could be done anyhow) and even not to have a separate historic district article.  But, why not have the separate article?  Especially when it has already been started and is accomplishing something by being there.  The actual specific reason why I started the article was to implement some disambiguation structure, prompted by your editing of the Georgetown Historic District disambiguation page that I created.  You pointed out there, correctly, that two (Town, State)-formatted entries there really related to just one place.  But then the correct disambiguation structure to set up is to put in place two town-named redirects and to create the stub article, which I did.  Again, the article is serving purposes, and there is no real reason to delete / redirect it.


 * That's all for me for now. doncram (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The merger makes sense because the village is essentially the historic district. They are not distinct entities. That's the point you don't seem to have grasped. The CDP is incidental to the whole thing. Just because a CDP was defined using the village as the core should not be an issue. We can always move the geographic and demographic data down if it is distracting. In fact, we can just eliminate the CDP data if that is really a problem. Further, any content that can be developed from the NRHP documents applies equally to the village. Again the village center is the district for the most part. If you wish to retain this article title for some dab consistency thing, then that is not a problem. But two articles for the what amounts to the same thing is not good. Regarding the boundaries, you can always roughly estimate the boundaries using the NRIS database description. CDPs and towns are well-defined. It is pretty obvious when you look at a map that the the village is wholly in the CDP. Disregard that it happens to be a CDP. It is a village first and foremost and should be treated as such. The district was defined as a result of the historical development of the village. If you can show that the district is distinct from the village, then please do so. --Polaron | Talk 00:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, fine, let's say I wish to retain this article for some dab consistency thing. Then we are agreed, and I will remove the merger tag.  Indeed there is disambiguation structure in place behind this, that I don't want destroyed.  I work at building disambiguation structure behind NRHP articles, and in fact came to this page because i was working through South Carolina NRHP list-articles and encountered the Georgetown Historic District in SC.  I wouldn't expect you would have any particular knowledge beforehand about that, which is fine, but yes there are reasons (pretty much explained above) why I, as a NRHP disambiguator-person, would want this to exist.  Glad you agree.


 * If you would sometime later want to propose merging this with a CDP article, the onus would be on you to show the historic district is the same as the CDP. Likewise if you want to assert the HD is the same as some village.  I don't get if you mean a legally defined village or an informal common usage term.  Your providing maps with boundaries would help support such discussions.  Do you have the ability to create maps which can be included into wikipedia articles?  That would help in many of these CT HD district articles and/or related discussions. doncram (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no legal villages. In Connecticut, a village is simply a group of houses that are called by a name different from the town they're in. Georgetown is such a village. Because of the historical developments in the village, the main area was established as a historic district. It so happens that the village was used as the basis for a CDP. The description of the NRHP boundaries in the NRIS database, I'm sure you know where to find. Census Bureau maps are found here (the census block maps provide the most detail). Again, the locality being described is essentially the historic district. There is no need for two duplicate articles. --Polaron | Talk 01:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that there are no legal villages in Connecticut. I noticed that you had edited the Georgetown, Connecticut article towards calling it a village and a historic district, presumably to make it ready to merge in this Georgetown Historic District article.  I edited it further just now to downplay its emphasis on being a village (as it is not defined, and as there are no or few included sources saying it is a village).  Also i reworded it to avoid saying that Georgetown is a historic district, because it is not.  As far as I understand from you, Georgetown the "village" is a larger area, and the Georgetown CDP is larger, and the historic district is named "Georgetown Historic District", not "Georgetown".  I added a statement that in Connecticut "villages" are not defined.  The upfront placement and emphasis within the article is perhaps not best, but I think that point should be retained within the article, although perhaps less prominently.  Anyhow, I think that the Georgetown article is now clearer and more accurate, though i am also sure it could be improved.
 * About the description of NRHP boundaries that you refer to, do you mean this exact quote from the NRIS-based NRHP infobox (which is in this article now): "Roughly bounded by US 7, Portland Ave., CT 107, and the Norwalk River, Redding, Connecticut and Wilton, Connecticut" ? I just want to clarify, as you could seem to be suggesting that i might be neglecting to access some source that I should.  I put that into this article and it has been there all along.
 * About your reference to the Census Bureau maps, I also don't understand your point. I mean for this article to be about the historic district, and I am trusting your information that it is substantially different than the Georgetown CDP, and i don't want to write about the census bureau.  Or, is there some particular map there that has some relevance for some reason you have not made clear to me?
 * About your assertion that "the locality being described is essentially the historic district". I don't find that helpful.  What locality?  Being described where?  This is and can remain as an article about the historic district, in which case the locality being described is exactly the historic district.  I think you must be referring to what you want the Georgetown, Connecticut article to be about.  That article seems unstable to me because it is not clear whether it should describe and focus upon the Georgetown CDP, for which good definition and reliable sources exist, or whether it should be about a "village" that seems amorphous to me.\
 * About your closing assertion that "There is no need for two duplicate articles", I think you meant to say there is no need for A duplicate article. (Or are you arguing against having 3 articles about the village, the historic district, and the CDP?)  I have stated above, several reasons (needs) for having a separate HD article.  Assuming your point was meant to be there is not need to have a separate HD article, I guess we have to agree to disagree. doncram (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything that can be said about the historic district and why it's historic applies equally well to the village so there is no need for a separate article. Also, in Connecticut, localities with names different from the town they're in are villages (if the surrounding area is mainly rural) or neighborhoods (if the surrounding area is mostly urban). There is no need to explicitly state that in the village article. --Polaron | Talk 19:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest we discuss this, centrally, along with other similar cases, at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut. doncram (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)