Talk:List of historic properties in Jerome, Arizona

Oppose
I oppose to the merger made by the same person who nominated the article for deletion without a proper discussion and agreement on the subject. I have already stated why I believe that this article should stay as is in the AfD. The person who nominated the article for deletion should not take it upon him/her self to make the merger. You do not decimate nor destroy a well written informative article just because you do not like it. Wikipedia is not about what we like or do not like. I have made many contributions to Wikipedia in regard to historical facts and have received governmental recognition's I have also documented historical structures for the Arizona Republic, therefore I believe that my opinions should be taken into consideration. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC).


 * (ec) Hi, that's me you're speaking of. Yes I have undertaken to merge from List of historic properties in Jerome, Arizona to Jerome Historic District. This is consistent with the result of the AFD, which concluded that there should be one article, and I choose to merge to the latter name as that is a recognized "thing", being the name of a National Historic Landmark since 1966.


 * I recognize your right to disagree, and would like to facilitate a proper process about whatever can be defined as issue or issues here. Do let's discuss a bit and try to sort out questions/issues on which we could seek resolution with some involvement of others, perhaps through an RFC. A badly formed RFC won't help; it is far better to isolate some areas of agreement/disagreement first, IMHO.


 * For example, in the merger that I have implemented, I created a table which puts the photos and descriptions together, replacing a separate list of historic properties and a corresponding gallery of photos. The table absorbed a couple sections which were devoted to properties having photos vs. not having photos; explanation is no longer necessary as the available photos are just put into place. I hope you could agree that the table can be kept, and I would be glad if you would help improve it.


 * Also, I removed the recapitulation of Jerome, Arizona history which was mainly copied from the Jerome, Arizona article, and referenced that article instead.  I hope we can agree that history of individual properties should be covered in note/description for each one.  Is the restoration of a general history one of the points on which you disagree?


 * What do you disagree about, or what do you think might be useful to raise as a question for others? Would it be possible to jointly agree on one or two other editors to invite to do or re-do the merger? Or what other way forward do you suggest. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * P.S. You do have right to have editorial opinion, based on your interest and investment, though specific credentials from outside don't count too much. I too have a great amount of experience, specifically in editing on historic sites in Wikipedia, though I don't claim too much from that.  I wish that the AFD had not given rise to any impression on anyone's part that my concern was merely "i don't like it".  My concern with this "List of historic properties in..." article and others like it, in general, is based in valid grounds of policy, guideline, editorial principles.


 * A first concern is notability for the topic as a standalone list, given that there is not recognition out in the world for the topic of "List of historic properties in X", where X is just anything. This is a basic notability issue which will apply more strongly to some of the similar list-articles.  Another way forward, by the way, is to go to AFD on another one or two.  For X=Jerome, Arizona, there is some notability established by the fact of National Historic Landmark designation for the Jerome Historic District, and by the Jerome Historical Society's historic plaques for many of the properties within the district.  In the AFD it was established, I think, that there is no need for separate articles;  all of the historic plaques are within the district.  You don't want to revisit "one vs. two articles", do you? --Doncram (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I do understand where your coming from and your opinion. I do agree that it would more constructive to hear the opinion of others as if the article should remain as is or if a merger should be made and if so what would be the proper way of doing it within policy and to the satisfaction of the creators of the articles to be merged. As for myself I would abide once a logical agreement is reached on the issue. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. The AFD decision was that there should be a merger.  Given that there is a consensus of others on that point, and given that I have proceeded to create a merged article which is now the leading proposed merger version, what do you have to say to that?  What different, if anything, do you want for a merged article?  I would rather not open an RFC to call for others' opinions, if there is no specific objection to the proposed merger version, and the only objection is a complete rejection of the requirement of merger. --Doncram (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Marine 69-71, again to make this specific, do you approve of the table which combined together a text-based list and a gallery or two or three of photos. If you object to that, please say so and give some reason why. --Doncram (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Doncram, it really nice to have a civil conversation in regard to the issue as we are having now. When the article was placed in AfD, there was a suggestion for a merger, however the majority agreed that this article was well written and was superior as an informative article then the article Jerome Historic District stub. I believe that in the AfD I made it clear that this article is based on the specific structures which the Jerome Historical Society considers historical and not on the whole district per se. The participants in the AfD could not themselves decide which way a merger should go. I sent a copy of this article to Candace B. Gallagher, CMC and this what she had to say:

What I suggest is to have or create a forum to hear the opinions of others as to which article should be merged or if the articles should remain as is without our interference, with the exception of a short introduction by us. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)