Talk:Lakeville, Connecticut

Separate NRHP HD article or not
A bunch of editors have been debating (elsewhere) when and where it is helpful to have separate articles on NRHP HDs, like about "Lakeville Historic District", vs. when it is best to include the NRHP info in an article about a village/hamlet/neighborhood like this "Lakeville, Connecticut" article.

Some of the editors (me included) agree that for Lakeville and Lakeville HD we currently want a merged article. But if there is someone who wants to make a decent separate article, that would be okay too. We just ask, please don't split out a separate NRHP HD article unless a) you have created or are actively developing a DYK-equivalent length starter article using substantial information, and b) you judge in good faith that it is beneficial to have the NRHP HD be a separate article.

Note, for all CT NRHPs, a good source is available, the NRHP nomination document, provided free of charge upon email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. And, in December 2010, the National Register has just made available online copies of almost all of the NRHP documents for CT: see search screen here.

Currently, "Lakeville Historic District" is set to redirect to "Lakeville, Connecticut". (Equivalent notice being placed at Talk:Lakeville Historic District.) --doncram (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Further note: Here the NRHP nom form seems clear that the historic district is quite different from the village/hamlet area.  Specifically it conveys that the district represents about 10 acres of the village center of Lakeville, and that the district is defined to include properties and sites that contributed to the historical development of the village.  But it is noted that the district area "is surrounded by a much larger area containing many additional historic industrial, commercial, residential, religious, and recreational sites and structures." (per page 2 of National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Lakeville Historic District ).  So, it seems clear to me that splitting out the NRHP HD as a separate article will make sense, and should be done if/when someone visits the place to take pics, and/or otherwise becomes interested to develop a decent, DYK+ length separate article. --doncram (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Doing that split now. --Doncram (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)