Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in New London County, Connecticut/Archive 1

Simon vs. Ebenezer Tiffany House
I have no idea why the historic house on Darling Rd. is labeled as "Simon Tiffany House". There must be a serious misprint in a historic register somewhere because the house is called "Ebenezer Tiffany House". --&#124;&#124;bass 23:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I started article Simon Tiffany House and note that the NRIS database includes mention of Ebenezer Tiffany House as being an alternate name. Perhaps the Ebenezer name is the common name of the house now.  Further discussion should be at Talk:Simon Tiffany House. doncram (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Waldo House
The Waldo House has a Scotland address and is located on the north side of Waldo Road. The Sprague town line runs along the south side of Waldo Road. The property immediately across the site in Sparague is part of Mohegan State Park. Unless Waldo House has property on the state park (which is impossible), then it can't logically be in Sprague. Also, the state list of NRHP entries by town confirms that the Waldo House is only in Scotland. --Polaron | Talk 23:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I commented on your edit at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut. I appreciate, mildly, that you open this little argument about the facts here.  It would have been fine to open a discussion here or on some other Talk page.  I don't understand or like your arguing, otherwise, by combative edits with brief edit summaries, which leave no usable record and do not build commonly shared information.


 * It is your opinion that the house is located on the north side of Waldo Road, and so on. You speak so confidently that I tend to believe you do have relevant knowledge.  However, you don't know and cannot know what are the boundaries of the Waldo House NRHP listing.  I am aware of other NRHP listings that unexpectedly cross a street to include a private family cemetery site or otherwise, when you would at first think the listing covers property on just one side of a road.  How could you know it is impossible that the historic Waldo property could not extend into what is now a park.  How could you know that this NRHP listing does not include both private property and state park property?  And, by the way, I am reasonably sure that the CT NRHP document has errors of fact.  My study, with others, of another state's similar document turned up errors.  And it might be technically incomplete, but an acceptable editorial decision, for the state document editor to choose to characterize the Waldo House as being in one town/county only, and choosing to omit mention of some extension that is nonetheless captured in the NRHP documents and in the NRHP database.


 * I suggest proceeding by creating a stub article to collect information, including your useful opinions at its Talk page, and requesting a copy of the NRHP application document which would be definitive. I suggest you invite Nyttend to share his information there, as he apparently had some different information than you and i do.  I grant that your educated guess, effectively that there is an wp:NRIS info issues error to report, is plausible.  But you and I both just don't know enough now to have a useful argument about what the facts will ultimately turn out to be. doncram (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was at this site last month for their Farm Day so I'm sure the house is on the north side of the road. No I don't know the exact property boundaries but I'm also certain that across the street is state park land, which is part of an Indian reservation. I'll leave it listed but I'll also tag its inclusion in the list as dubious. --Polaron | Talk 01:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your tagging it as dubious as petty and unpleasant and a further example of you imposing your personal opinion. You have little basis for your suspicion, and no source explicit on the topic (the CT document just omits to mention it in the 2nd jurisdiction, it does not state teh property lies entirely in one jurisdiction), for the idea that it is doubtful that the property crosses the street.  The dubious tag should itself be tagged as dubious, or as citation needed. There is discussion opened, here, about the boundaries of the Waldo property, so the property bounds question will not be forgotten, while the dubious tag just looks to me like a signal to new editors to stay away from editing here, there is an angry editor.  I also think you don't understand what Talk space is for vs. mainspace in wikipedia.  I've never seen a dubious tag in any NRHP or other historic sites article;  it usually doesn't get contentious with one editor insisting that his personal judgment must be reflected in mainspace without support. doncram (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer we put a footnote on the list article that the inclusion of Waldo House here may not be correct? We need to point to readers who may know more definitively to this issue. --Polaron | Talk 02:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally wouldn't mind there being an explicit, neutrally stated question in parentheses in the comment column for that entry. It is more direct for readers to see, and it is intended to be temporary, and the list-article is just in rough, draft form, anyhow (there are few descriptions yet and little real info to work with in corresponding articles, most not yet created).  As i have worked on developing tables in county-list articles in mainspace in other states, i have often stated questions that way, and while actively there usually resolved most of them, but have left some questions behind.  Also I have opened sections named "Research issues and editing needed" for semi-thorny problems to be addressed while the page was under construction, and then sometimes I forgot to remove those when I eventually moved on without yet resolving every item.  I noted yesterday or so, this edit by an Oregon editor answering one parenthetical question that I had left behind and also removing such a research issues section, which the editor placed in the Talk page instead.  If you state a question in the list-table, you should recognize that any other editor is entitled to remove it, hopefully to be pleasantly done by moving it to the Talk page.  You absolutely should not revert another editor on a legitimate decision like that.  I sometimes have been displeased when another editor removed my "research issues and editing needed" sections when I was not done working, but it is totally fair, and then i just had to work from a list on the Talk page instead.  I do think an explicit question would be better for rounding up correct information from some reader, than a dubious tag which seems to me to be sarcastic and to signal contention without a clear question.
 * But here, anyhow, have you asked Nyttend to explain his source? I expect that the information has a source, which would be good to mention in a footnote.  Then even if you think the information is incorrect, it is sourced and not our fault.  But the really correct place to raise questions about info in the article is in the Talk page. doncram (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, here, I know the answer to the question is in the NRHP application document. Asking other reader/editors what is their opinion about the Waldo House property is probably not going to generate any useful information.  Someone could verify, yes, that the signage and fencing on the other side of the road is for the state park, but that would not rule out other possibilities.  It is just so clear that the way to answer the question is to get the NRHP application document, that I don't think soliciting general readers would be helpful.  In the Oregon article where i had left a question, it was more directed to the very active Oregon wikipedia editor group, and indeed one of them was able to answer the question. doncram (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for assuming that I have specific information :-) but I don't. Because it's in both counties, and Sprague is directly south of Scotland, it's obviously in both.  Since we're listing by municipalities, it's quite incorrect to list it in Scotland on this list.  Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the contention is whether or not it actually extends into Sprague, and hence whether it is only in Windham County or not. The state document indicates it is only in Scotland, which contradicts the NRIS. Anyway, I have made the comment into a less intrusive footnote. It would be good for readers to be pointed to a possible error and maybe one will come along that has definitive information. --Polaron | Talk 03:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems like even a non-intrusive officially sourced footnote in neutral language is too much for some people. Since this is a pre-1984 nomination, the university library here does have the NRHP nomination forms in microfiche. I'll look at the NRHP nomination of this property tomorrow and let you know what I find. --Polaron | Talk 03:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that was unusually quick for an editor with different tastes to find it, i see. But, you can't argue, it is a fair removal.  The removing editor can't even be nice by opening a discussion section for it at the Talk page, because it is already open and pretty well discussed. doncram (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for convenience (Waldo House)
It's one thing to say that the NRIS is wrong on counties when they're far apart — for example, the bits under the "New York: county location issue" header of WP:NRIS issues. However, seeing that this is on the county line, it's obviously a tiny mistake at worst. Seeing that the NRIS lists it in both counties, and seeing that we don't have access to a nomination form that shows it clearly only in one county, why should we dispute it? Places listed as "House" can easily extend across a road, so there's no reason to believe (without our precise nomination form) that the boundaries end at the road, while your state document most likely details just the house rather than the area actually listed. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose that's possible. I should be able to find out tomorrow. For this particular case, the NRIS actually lists it in only one county (New London) not in two counties but is quite obvious that it is definitely in Windham County so there's a definite NRIS error in any case (error of omitting Windham County). --Polaron | Talk 05:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that it's only listed in W by the NRIS? The "State and County" search feature at the NRIS is currently not working, so I went to Elkman's county table generator and nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com; both include the house in both counties.  Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It didn't show up in the Focus search page when choosing Windham County as a search parameter. But if other sites do indicate it is in New London County as well, then the actual database entry probably does have it and it was just an error of omission on the Focus site. --Polaron | Talk 12:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Focus system is a document retrieval system with nearly complete coverage of National Historic Landmarks but otherwise incomplete coverage of NRHP-listed places. It is different than NRIS, a database which is meant to record every NRHP listing, essentially to serve as the "National Register" itself (although it has a few data entry typos and a few omissions, relative to what has been recorded officially in weekly new listing announcements).  Data entry is based upon the NRHP application documents which are themselves extremely accurate in clearly stating the counties in which a property or historic district is located at the date of application.  (In the town/city field, however, what is entered into NRIS is either a town in which a property is located or a significant larger town or city that the property is near to, whatever is indicated in the original NRHP application.  In many cases the town/city will be across a county line or even a hundred miles away, but it is not correct to say that the NRIS system is in error for saying a place is near to that city.  For lighthouses, what is entered is often the port city which serves lighthouse tender ships, hence a Long Island Sound lighthouse may be indicated as being near to New Haven.)  Every six months or so, a new downloadable version of the NRIS database is made available.  Elkman's system is a search system based now on the latest download from March 2009.  Available queries in the Elkman's system provide access to more information in the database, in some cases, than the National Park Service's own public query system.  Separate links to Focus and to the main NRIS search screen are provided here: http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm.  In wikipedia we have not usually credited Elkman's system as being a separate source, we just indicate NRIS.  Thus, NRIS is the reliable source which asserts the property is in two counties. doncram (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The description has been edited to state "Building is in Windham County but part of lot extends into New London County." Actually, that is not to my taste.  I think this is fabrication, because I think it is not known by Polaron or anyone here whether a property parcel spans the line.  It could be there are two property parcels, separated, like many farms have.  It could be a secondary structure, perhaps a barn, perhaps a cemetery that is now in the park property.  And so on with other possibilities.  I prefer Nyttend's previous wording which asserts less.  Polaron, I am going to revert your edit now for this reason.  I request to you:  Please stop editing on this topic, in the absence of real knowledge and valid sources backing up that knowledge.  A way forward would be for you to obtain the NRHP application for this place, as previously discussed. doncram (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Table for reference
Here is an NRIS-based table, for reference in looking up village name locations. The table included in this list-article has been revised to show town names instead.