Talk:Poquetanuck, Connecticut/Archive 1

Move discussion
This article represents a page move of the Poquetanuck Village Historic District, now a redirect to this article. Please comment in the discussion section below, concerning the desirability of the move and whether the matter should be closed. Comments should address issues relating to the move/merge or split of the articles and are not meant to be a debate at this phase. If direct discussion is required, it will follow in a separate section.  Acroterion  (talk)  14:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Was this a page move from an HD article? I don't see that in the history of this or any of the articles that redirect to it. It looks to me like hte earliest version that had actual content was the sentence "Poquetanuck is an unincorporated community in New London County, Connecticut in the Town of Preston." --Orlady (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Poquetanuck article in its present form was created by Polaron in this edit on June 21, replacing a redirect to Preston. Within the same minute that Polaron redirected Poquetanuck Village Historic District to this article.  The result was just as if a stub article using Elkman generator was created at a NRHP HD name, then moved to a different name.  Subsequently an external link to a B&B was added.  Consider this discussion to be about my suggestion at Talk:List of RHPs in CT to move this to the NRHP HD name.  I would have moved it myself but both pages had previously been redirected to different places, so only an administrator can perform the move. doncram (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments
The article is currently an NRHP HD article with just the Elkman infobox and source footnote and an assertion that Poquetanuck is a village and historic district. What is immediately supportable is that "Poquetanuck Village Historic District" is a historic district. I currently support moving the page to Poquetanuck Village Historic District so that fully sourced information about the historic district can be developed, growing the wikipedia. doncram (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose renaming, but do reword. The current wording of this one-sentence article is unfortunate. It is not accurate to say that "Poquetanuck is a village and historic district." As near as I can determine, Poquetanuck is a village in the town of Preston and the site of the Poquetanuck Village Historic District. The sources that I collected rather quickly a few days ago and listed above indicate that Poquetanuck is a settlement, formerly a center for shipbuilding, with a long history (during most or all of which it was known primarily as "Poquetanuck", not "Poquetanuck Village Historic District"). It's clear that some portion of the old village is still extant (but probably not all of it) and is listed on the National Register as an historic district, and that some or all of the historic buildings in the HD are now used for a B&B. Also, there's a place called Poquetanuck Cove that is close to the village but apparently is in the town of Ledyard. Given the current level of information, it seems to me that the article should remain in its current name, but the sentence should be reworded. Also, add the information about the HD that is in Preston, Connecticut. --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I grant that there was a village named Poquetanuck. I tend towards inclusionism, but I don't know whether or not it meets Wikipedia notability standards.  What is clear in wp:LOCAL and related place notability discussions is that a former incorporated, legal village would be deemed notable.  Neighborhoods and hamlets are not necessarily notable.  Offhand, this currently seems like it was or is a "village" of the hamlet type.  Perhaps "Poquetanuck" is best left as a mention in the Preston article, and not yet split out until someone wants to develop more than a minimal stub.  Or, as I have sometimes done for settlements in western and southern states, a minimal stub could be created stating "Poquetanuck is a village in Preston, Connecticut.  It is associated with Poquetanuck Village Historic District."  And include a Connecticut-Geo-Stub template.  That is following Acroterion's suggestion for wording to avoid potentially false assertions about any relationship.


 * About "Poquetanuck Village Historic District", there is currently no source available commenting about its geographical and historical overlap with Poquetanuck. If the NRIS location information described the HD as being Poquetanuck or substantially the same as Poquetanuck, I would accept that as such a source, but it does not describe it that way.  NRIS apparently describes it as "Roughly, along Main St. between CT 117 and Middle Rd. and along School House and Cider Mill Rd., Preston, Connecticut."  It is quite possible that Poquetanuck historically included parts not in the NRHP HD:  there may be portions later absorbed into different town/villages, there may be gas stations and strip malls not acceptable for HD inclusion, what is currently meant by the name Poquetanuck could differ even since the 1996 NRHP listing of the HD.  It is quite likely that the NRHP HD was created to preserve a certain set of buildings that evoke a certain period of history, and that it serves like a museum about that period.  A museum about one period of Poquetanuck's history would be generally deemed wikipedia notable and to be deemed as a different topic than Poquetanuck itself.  I wish to allow for editors to develop about the museum, the HD, in an article at the HD name.  Or i would defer if others want to start a stub article on Poquetanuck now, too, and just have the HD started by replacing the redirect from the HD name. (Actually, further, I would prefer that Poquetanuck not be a redirect to the NRHP HD name, for reason of not wanting to burden the NRHP HD article's editors with need to explain the redirect and/or to define the current village. doncram (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The historic district would not have been defined were it not for events that occured in this place. The primary source of notability is the historical events associated with the place. The fact that town historians decided it was worth of inclusion in the National Register is secondary. --Polaron | Talk 01:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to NRHP HD name Assertions about the reason for NRHP nomination are entirely speculation based on coincidence in that name. There are many NRHP HDs which have been declared which pick up the name of something nearby.  There is no evidence, no source that the NRHP HD is intrinsically tied up in the identity of Poquetanuck as a village or place.  It could be that this is about some architecturally significant whatever, that happens to be in or near a place of that name.  There is no basis to block a stub NRHP HD article being created, and for that to serve to encourage wikipedia editors to collect photos and develop it further.  Since there is no other information in the article currently, it would be best to move it to the NRHP HD name and leave no lingering article about Poquetanuck, whose notability is not established. doncram (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ regarding the notability of Poquetanuck. Apparently, the village has existed under that name for 322 years. The town website names Poquetanuck and describes it as a "typical small New England village." The state tourism agency website describes one NRHP building as being "located in the historic village of Poquetanuck which was named in 1687." It lists the property's address as being in Poquetanuck, CT, specifically "109 Rte. 2A, Poquetanuck, CT 06365." The village name is listed in the postal service's database as a nonacceptable address, but the fact that it's listed in the database at all indicates that it was formerly in wide use (likely as an official post office name). The historic B&B's website gives the street address as Preston, CT, but it says the property is located in "Historic Poquetanuck Village." There is a Poquetanuck Fire Department, the local historical society offers a postcard sketch of "Poquetanuck Village", and there are numerous references to Poquetanuck and its institutions in the index to the historical society's book of local history. This is a populated place that has existed under the name "Poquetanuck" for 322 years -- that's more than enough to make it notable as a place. Accordingly, I oppose the proposed move of this one-sentence article. --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding and sharing that information. If this were an AFD discussion on Poquetanuck, your information would likely be enough to carry the day to keep an article on Poquetanuck.  I did grant, above, that there was a village of this name, and suggest that a minimal CT-geo-stub article could be created stating "Poquetanuck is a village in Preston, Connecticut.  It is associated with Poquetanuck Village Historic District."  Given Orlady's information, let's agree that at least that much should be done towards having an article on Poquetanuck.  So instead of redirecting the current article to the NRHP name, either (a) move the current article to the NRHP HD name, and start a new Poquetanuck article.  Or, equivalently, (b) change the current article to the two sentences i've proposed, and create the NRHP HD article with just the NRIS information.  Option (b) appears to me to comply technically with Orlady's stated preference not to move the Poquetanuck article, so I am for that.
 * I note that Orlady's web research reported here, unlike in some other CT NRHP - village cases Orlady has researched, has so far not turned up any source specifically describing the association between the NRHP HD and the village/hamlet. We don't know if they are the same or different: they may overlap; either one could include the other; they could be entirely different.  In my view, no one has done their homework to make a positive case for enforcing a merger.  And there are numerous reasons I and others have stated in similar discussions, why an enforced merger is detrimental (for just one:  it dissuades me and potential other editors from developing the NRHP HD article).  So, I don't think there is any case for banning development of an NRHP HD article at the NRHP HD name. doncram (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Much of my "web research" was already documented at the top of this page, under "Notes," on 1 September 2009. This was not an extensive research project. Typing up my findings took more time than finding the websites. If you click on the links I have posted, you will find additional information about Poquetanuck, particularly about individual buildings in the village that are described as being listed on the National Register. Considering that there are only 4 National Register listings in the town of Preston -- three of which are historic districts, and only one of which is located anywhere near Poquetanuck -- it's pretty safe to assume that these are properties included in the Poquetanuck Village historic district.
 * As stated many times before (although not necessarily in this context), I do not see any purpose in splitting this one-sentence stub article into two separate stub articles. --Orlady (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay we disagree. I won't restate all the purposes I have previously stated.  But in my view, having two articles would allow each wikipedia-notable topic to exist as an article, and allow development of sourced information by NRHP editors who don't want to contend with challenges of unsourced information and other problems in a town/village article, and avoid the necessity of describing a relationship between the two.  An enforced merger requires some statement of association, which in many other cases has proven difficult to word.  I think this can be resolved by a third-party judgment that there is no specific sourced information that the NRHP HD is the same as the town/village, and therefore no ban on a separate NRHP HD is supportable.  Orlady, I have asked Polaron to make a specific positive proposal describing under what circumstances NRHP HD articles should not be created.  Likewise, could you make a specific positive proposal?  If it is objective and limited in scope, perhaps what you could provide would be the basis for a solution here and in other cases. doncram (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

about a possible proposal
(subsection and its title created later by doncram)
 * Doncram, can you name a single instance in Connecticut where the name of the historic district is not directly related to the historical significance of the village/neighborhood/town center? You might have a point in cases where the "area of siginificance" is only architecture. In almost all cases, historical event is also listed. --Polaron | Talk 15:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Polaron, I don't know what you are driving at with that question. If you have some way to infer from available NRIS fields, which NRHP HD cases are more likely than others to be situations where you think merger of NRHP HD with a town/village/hamlet/neighborhood article is suitable, I would very much welcome your explaining your reasoning, and your using that to make a positive proposal along those lines.  Perhaps using available NRIS fields, you could run a query and isolate a list of 10 or 20 or however many NRHP HD situations where objective criteria suggest to you that a merger is appropriate.  And you could propose that for some period of time that no separate NRHP HD articles should be created out of that list, and explain why you think that would be good to have as a consensus decision.  I think that if you made an explicit, objective proposal along those lines, that you would get some support, and some help in modifying your proposal to make it workable and not too much in conflict with wikipedia policies.  As Acroterion suggested at Talk:Noank, we can ourselves form any consensus we want.  I don't want to do all of your work for you.  But if you would begin to define some positive proposal, and include some scope limitations, then I would be willing to give comments and help you make the proposal.  By limitations to include, I mean clearly stating yours is a proposal to address only an explicitly stated list, and that the proposal to ban NRHP HD articles is limited to some period like 6 months, after which time any new NRHP HD article having more info about the HD than appears in the town/village article would be welcomed.  If the result is well-defined and narrowly enough limited in scope, I myself would very much want to agree, in order to end this.
 * The current discussion about Poquetanuck Village Historic District, though, is the result of a too-broad campaign, which does not have a consensus supporting it. In June 2008 and June and July of 2009, you went through most or all of the CT NRHP list-articles and redirected several hundred NRHP HD articles to town/village/hamlet/neighborhood articles.  You might then have been hypothesizing that some coincidence in name was enough to suggest that a merger was appropriate and that NRHP HD articles should not be allowed.  That was too broad a hypothesis.  It has been disproven by more than a hundred cases within 6 batches of RFDs so far, where further investigation led me and you and other wikipedia editors to consensus that merger should not be enforced and that the NRHP HD article should be allowed.
 * And, to more directly respond to your question, yes, I do know of cases "in Connecticut where the name of the historic district is not directly related to the historical significance of the village/neighborhood/town center". Pomfret Street Historic District is one, where my reading of its document is that it is specifically not about any village centers, rather it is about a pattern of development of country estates without there being any important centers.  Glastonbury-Rocky Hill Ferry Historic District is another.  Also, out of the list of New London County NRHPs I do not know for sure, but I strongly expect that American Thermos Bottle Company Laurel Hill Plant, Bean Hill Historic District, Burnett's Corner Historic District, Chelsea Parade Historic District, Civic Institutions Historic District, and many other listed HDs are not listed as NRHP HDs due to the significance of a town center.
 * In this Poquetanuck case, started by your redirecting the NRHP HD article on 19 June 2008, I have little information to go on. Why should I suppose it is not like all of the other cases where your initial opinion has since been overturned?  You need to make a positive case, or I cannot possibly agree.  And, in the absence of consensus not to allow the NRHP HD article, the default solution goes back to general wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Wikipedia policy or guidelines support creating new articles, including NRHP HD ones, on wikipedia-notable topics. doncram (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I already listed the criteria I would use in one of these discussions somewhere. To repeat: (1) The historic district name (excluding the words "historic district") should be the same as the locality name and the locality must be a village/neighborhood/section of town; (2) The historic district must have an area of significance that includes NPS Criterion A (historical event); (3) The historic district must be coincident with the village core (the original settlement). I would also add a fourth that the historic district information must be "stubby" (based primarily only on NRIS database information). This would enable someone who wants to put in the work to develop a full-fledged article to not be constrained. --Polaron | Talk 00:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional responses: (1) "It has been disproven by more than a hundred cases within 6 batches of RFDs so far" -- the main reason why I redirected them is that no article existed and that these could be mentioned in the town article in the absence of a full-fledged article. Redirecting to a larger topic is quite common practice in cases where there is very little information on wiki about a smaller topic. My opinion has not been overturned but it is that in these cases (redirects to towns), I have always agreed with you that in the end a separate article would be made unlike the case with villages but that a redirect is better then a red link. I acceded to your demands that the redirects to towns (but not villages) be deleted as it is not something worth arguing about (temporary redirects vs red links). (2) "in Connecticut where the name of the historic district is not directly related to the historical significance of the village/neighborhood/town center" -- that didn't come out quite right. What I had meant was specific historic district articles where I have insisted on a merge with a village/neighborhood/town center articles. Of the things you listed, many are red links meaning I never claimed these should be merged somewhere. Burnett's Corner is actually going to be a merged article (the village known as Burnett's Corner is essentially the historic district). I have never insisted that the Rocky Hill-Glastonbury Ferry Historic District be merged with the ferry. I redirected it per my philosophy that a redirect to a related or larger topic is better than a red link. I have not ever undone your removal of that redirect. The case of Pomfret Street is the only one where I have somewhat insisted. The history of Pomfret is a bit weird in that the principal village of Pomfret became part of another town and the area of Pomfret Street is what later (20th century) became the de facto town center of sorts. You will note that I said early on in all these debates that if you were going to make an article, then the redirect should be removed. --Polaron | Talk 02:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have some questions about what is your proposal. I appreciate that it is limited, and focused on objective-like measures 1, 2, 3, and that that your fourth point is making an important-to-me allowance.  About your (1) above, is there a list somewhere of locality names in Connecticut that might be viewed as wikipedia-notable?  In some cases it has seemed that the legitimacy of localities has been asserted based primarily on the NRHP HD name.  I would be more comfortable if the proposal is limited to only cases where, off some central list, there is verification of the locality and in effect its importance in some way.  About (2), how do you know which ones have NPS Criterion A?  If that is in NRIS, it doesn't show in Elkman output or in NRHP.COM webpages.  About (3), how do you propose to identify whether the historic district is coincident with the village core or original settlement?  Towards clarifying, could you identify which are the cases meeting these three criteria in New London County?  Further, could you spell out what do you then propose be done in those cases.  It's your proposal, but do you propose if there is no current coverage as of now that then an article at the NRHP HD name should be created with place redirected to it, or vice versa, or split half and half, or what?  Vs. if there is minimal NRIS-only type information under either NRHP HD name or under place name?  And then I take it to be your request that the opposite article not be created, until what?  About your fourth point, how is it to be determined if a NRHP HD article to be split off is substantial enough?  To make it objective, perhaps it could hinge on whether an "split" new article is of DYK-eligible length or not.  And, for how long are you requesting for an agreement to run.  It can't be forever.  Perhaps something based on this could work between you and me though, and then it would probably also be possible to get wider agreement. doncram (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Wiki-notable" is not something that is defined by official lists. Nevertheless, here are some official lists of places in Connecticut:
 * Listing of Cities, Towns, Villages, and Boroughs - Note that Canaan is erroneously indicated as being in the town of Canaan; it's actually in the town of North Canaan.
 * Towns, cities and boroughs (all named places that have local governments)
 * post offices - Canaan is correctly indicated to be in the town of North Canaan.
 * towns, villages, and districts without post offices
 * --Orlady (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If we're going by what is "wiki-notable", anything that gets listed as a "populated place" in the USGS Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) is sufficient to have a Wikipedia article. Nyttend can probably confirm that this is current standard practice. In the case of Connecticut, there are 1,303 places on the list. --Polaron | Talk 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this helps. I see that the first suggested link gives "Principal communities" of Connecticut in some official sense, and see that it includes Poquetanuck, Noank, Quaker Hill, and Norwichtown.  About populated places listed in GNIS, I don't know whether or not that suffices on its own to establish wikipedia notability.  I see that it includes the same four, with boilerplate describing each as "Populated Place - Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A Populated Place is not incorporated and has no legal boundaries."  I accept that listing by CT as a "principal community" in the first link is okay for defining (1).  It would seem to me useful to state in many of these articles something like "Podunk is identified as one of Connecticut's "principal communities" by the state's department of economic development" with reference to that list.  Perhaps this one list will suffice for all cases.  Thanks.  What about (2), etc.? doncram (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * [EC] Please don't add that sentence to articles. I would attach zero significance to the label "principal communities." For all I can tell the title "Principal Communities in Connecticut" was invented by the summer intern who coded the web page; the subtitle "Listing of Cities, Towns, Villages, and Boroughs" is a more accurate description. If it makes it easier for you to accept that these are real places, you could footnote that page as a reference citation for the sentence that says "Podunk is a village in the town of Smalltown". --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I further note that the principal communities list names "Burnett Corners" but not Bean Hill. Polaron, given you've spoken up about Burnett's Corner Historic District but not about Bean Hill HD i had also mentioned, does that suggest use of the principal communities list will serve adequately for you too? doncram (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Bean Hill may not be on the department of economic development list, but it is on the Secretary of State's list of towns, villages, and districts without post offices. --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I was just amending my question to note that also the GNIS tool includes Burnett Corners as a populated place but does not include Bean Hill. doncram (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding determining which of the NRHP "applicable criteria" the historic district was nominated for, it can be found in the APCRITD.DBF file of the NRIS database. Nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com also lists the criteria in the entry "Historic significance", where Event = A, Person = B, Architecture/Engineering = C, Information Potential = D. --Polaron | Talk 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In the NRHP.COM page of New London County HDs, "Event" is included in almost all of the HDs there. By my quick count there are 51 HDs there.  The exceptions are:
 * Hadlyme North Historic District --Historic Significance: Architecture/Engineering
 * Mashantucket Pequot Reservation --Historic Significance: 	Information Potential
 * Norwichtown Historic District -- Historic Significance: 	Architecture/Engineering
 * Old Lyme Historic District -- Historic Significance: 	Event, Architecture/Engineering
 * Oswegatchie Historic District -- Historic Significance: 	Architecture/Engineering
 * So using that as a screen would drop just one case up for discussion, the Norwichtown Historic District one. I think there are not villages/boroughs/sections corresponding to any of the others.


 * In 40 of the other 46 cases "Event" is listed first. Exceptions are:
 * Burnett's Corner HD -- Historic Significance: Person, Event
 * Colchester Village Historic District --Historic Significance:Architecture/Engineering, Event
 * Hadlyme Ferry Historic District: Historic Significance: Architecture/Engineering, Event
 * Hallville Mill Historic District--Historic Significance: Architecture/Engineering, Event
 * Post Hill Historic District Historic Significance: Architecture/Engineering, Event, Person
 * Salem Historic District --Historic Significance: Architecture/Engineering, Person
 * If "Event" appearing first is used as a screen that would drop Burnett's Corner, Colchester Village, and perhaps Post Hill (i don't know if it is a village/town/section) from discussion. I think the others are not in question.


 * The sequence of "significance" items in the database may not be meaningful. I believe that the "significance" item is often based on a series of checkboxes on the NRHP nom forms. In such cases, the sequence in the database is likely to be an artifact of the sequence in which the checkboxes appear on the form (but note that the form design has changed over time). --Orlady (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, good that the NPS criteria is available in NRIS, and that it can be deciphered from NRHP.COM publicly posted webpages. Applying this (2) criteria does not appear to narrow things down much, but it is objective.  What about (3) etc.?


 * About (3), Polaron, I am expecting you to have to go through some process that will not be transparent to others, because most of these are "populated places" without legal boundaries. You've mentioned having a CT atlas before which indicates locations of, if not very clearly showing areas denoted by these.  Just describe what procedure you would do, or have done already, to assess overlap vs. the NRHP HD.  I know you also have the UTM coordinates which show approximate bounds of the NRHP HDs.  I know you've made maps for a few of these using those coords, but I don't know how easy it is for you to plot them and to compare them to your source(s) about the villages.  What I would want, if we are to follow your judgment, is for you to specify your sources and procedure that you will go through.  It could turn out later that the procedure was imperfect, but at least you followed it. doncram (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see several options here. We can always have some uninvolved third party look at the available information and make the determination. In many of the historic districts, I have photocopies of the maps of the state Plan of Conservation and Development that show boundaries of historic districts that are also designated as state/local districts so I can tell you the actual boundaries, but I suspect this wouldn't be sufficient for you. I can also easily look up the boundaries of historic districts designated before 1984 in the microfiche collection of nomination forms at the library. Some towns also have their historic districts mapped and available online. One can also compare the NRIS centroid coordinates with the coordinates for the populated place entry of the GNIS. One can also use the polygon coordinates of in the NRIS and see if the populated place coordinates are within the polygon. One can also find old maps of various villages (the University of Connecticut has a good map archive online) and compare that with the NRIS polygon information or actual nomination form boundary descriptions. --Polaron | Talk 14:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Briefly, as for the approximate area of the NRHP HDs, I accept the polygon coordinates (the UTM list) available within NRIS as adequate for showing the approximate extents of the HDs. The side I don't get is how you or I or anyone can objectively understand to be meant by any of the village/hamlet/whatever names, other than they are associated with a GNIS point location.  But I'm not going to be able to fully consider your comment and to respond completely right now.  I find myself hesitating for reasons probably best discussed elsewhere.  For the moment, I'll just say I was not aware of the state's Plan of Conservation and Development, but find it downloadable available here in PDF, and find accompanying town maps also in PDF, and I am looking at these, although I realize that may be a bit of a tangent.  I'll reply further in a day or two.  If you want to go on to address the other questions, beyond (3), please do. doncram (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Villages have no legal boundaries, true. However, if it is surrounded by rural territory, it is quite easy to see the extent of the settled area from satellite maps. Also, many of the villages (the more well-known ones usually) are marked by signs when you enter them along a state highway and this serves as a good demarcation for villages, especially ones that are part of a larger urban area. Some towns also define village districts/fire districts/special taxing districts that can be used for delineation. Maps for these are not usually online but can be checked in the town assessor's maps at the various public libraries/town halls. As a local, a lot of these issues are quite obvious to me but I do see your point of the need for more objective criteria. --Polaron | Talk 16:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On (3), the state's economic development town maps are complementary sources and better in some ways than satellite map, as they use color coding to show areas intended for preservation. But they lack labels of places. The Preston shows an isolated rural cluster in yellow, but i suspect that cluster is not Poquetanuck. I can't tell where Poquetanuck is in on that map, i can't line it up with Google map display of the Poquetanuck coordinates location. The corresponding town map covering Noank appears not helpful, because Noank is not isolated.

Getting town-specific map for village districts/fire districts/special taxing districts seems not practical for a proposal. (If separate research is to be done on each case, the most obvious thing to do is obtain the NRHP document which would explicitly address whether (3) is met, and then and only then entertain any merger proposal. Lack of specific research in each case is arguable reason to oppose any proposal requiring mergers.)  I think you want to make a proposal which covers all the cases where there is not yet specific knowledge of relationship between village/hamlet vs. NRHP HD, i.e. where the specifically relevant NRHP document is not yet available, as well as covering where the NRHP document has been obtained and supports (3).

I was hoping you could explain what you would go through in making your judgment, but maybe a positive proposal from you has to amount to a request about a list of places, where it is simply your judgment that (3) is met. What is your reasoning, for Poquetanuck, anyhow, that it meets your criterion (3) "The historic district must be coincident with the village core (the original settlement)"?

And back on (2), it looks to me that the sequence of importance listings is meaningful. I don't have NRHP forms for any of the New London Cty HDs where NRHP.COM lists Event (criterion A) not first. But I just reviewed some Nother RHP application forms for places where NRHP.COM lists Event out of order. Specifically i went to this NRHP.COM county listing for one New York State county where i have some of the NRHP documents already, and where all but restricted address ones are downloadable from the NYS historical office. The first three are: Polaron, it's your proposal to make, whether to limit it to ones where Criteria A is listed first, or listed at all.
 * Elbridge Hydraulic HD whose NRHP form shows no checkoff boxes, but it makes sense to me that as an archeological site of ruined buildings that its information potential (D) is salient (and the document plus familiarity with the place I know this is not similar to any one that you want merged). It seems likely to me that someone applied good judgment to list its information potential before Event, in data entry or in some followup correspondence.
 * Fabius Village HD, has A and C checked off, but Architecture/Engineering is listed first in NRHP.COM. Its narrative text on significance states "Fabius Village Historic District is architecturally and historically significant..." and, in my interpretation, the document goes on more about architecture than anything else.
 * Hanover Square HD, similar as for Fabius, having architecture described first.

Suppose you could now list the New London County ones which you think meet your 1, 2, 3 criteria. If there is to be an agreement, what is agreed to, and some reason for why, would need to be stated in a message displayed at each affected page. What specifically are you wanting to request for these cases? doncram (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said, just have an uninvolved third party look at the available information and make a determination whether the historic district and village are the same location or not. You are looking at it from the wrong point of view. It is typical that a historic district is established because of the historical significance of a New England settlement or industrial village. In the absence of information, it is better to assume the original settlement and the historic district are the same. What makes you believe that the historic district and the historic village are not the same? Look at the coordinates of both locations. --Polaron | Talk 00:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was hoping you would make a proposal in the form of a request, and I would agree because I would pretty much have to. You would have jumped through some hoops and made it somewhat objective, and it would be defined and limited in some ways, and we would be done.  And as time went on eventually CT place articles would get developed and it would be possible to figure out later whether the initial agreement was in line with final decisions on articles or not, giving some useful perspective if anything like this came up in another state.  But if you are not willing to make a request to list out and settle all cases, then there is no general proposal to agree to.  I think your calling for a third party to make the assessments on which items meet criteria 3 is sort of a copout, it is not taking the responsibility to make those assessments yourself and ask for others to agree to them.  I don't think there is anyone available who could or would make those assessments.  Acroterion is willing to assist in closing selected discussions like the 4 now open, upon completion of some discussion, but I don't expect that Acroterion wants to intervene and get deeply involved in hundreds of cases (Acroterion could speak up and contradict me, but that is my guess).  I think you, Polaron, are the available CT "expert", and you have earned some respect from me in your judgment shown in other cases.  For example, I appreciate your point somewhere above that you did not argue in ways that I would view as invalid about the ferry district case.  Previously, I did strongly object to what I felt was your too-broad assessment that hundreds of NRHP HD articles should be merged with towns/villages/whatever, and/or to your edit warring rather than discussing.  At this point, if you would make the assessments where you know enough about local situations to make them, I am inclined to agree.  I do want to help you make a complete proposal that I can agree to.  I will continue to participate here if you would continue defining what goes into a proposal.  However, I will post separate comments about Poquetanuck alone, in case a proposal is not completed in form that i can agree to. doncram (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wanted to hash out using logical reasoning the criteria as to when a village article and a historic district articles would be essentially talking about the same thing, without worrying about how many would be merged or not. From your analysis above, it seems to me you're more interested in the fraction of articles under debate that would be taken off merging consideration. Do you think the criteria make sense or not? If you're happy with the criteria, I can give you a list but if you want to see the list so you can tweak the criteria to further limit the list, that would be an odd way to go about it. Let's set the criteria using logical reasoning and then whatever list we get is what it is. We'll make a list once we have an agreed-upon set of criteria.
 * On a related note, if you are going to trust my judgement on whether the a village and historic district overlap spatially, it will be the case that all the villages I have strongly argued for merging would satisfy criterion 3. My feeling, however, is that you don't trust my judgement on these things, and that is why I said let an uninvolved third party do the evaluation. It's not a cop out, it's what someone would normally do when he doesn't fully trust the other party. I have been already selective in what I think should be merged, which is why I didn't bother fighting for town centers with the same name as the town, and you will also note that there are still a significant number of red-linked historic districts that I feel would need their own articles. --Polaron | Talk 02:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough for you to have and ask those questions. I would also like it if it was possible to define suitable criteria by logical reasoning.  I am maybe more pessimistic now than you:  I don't believe the NRIS database and other uniformly available objective-type information will suffice to make logical determinations in all cases. I think that there will be errors both ways, and I think it comes down now to trusting your judgment on a reasonable set where there will be some errors, but not too many.  I repeat that i do appreciate your judgment shown gradually, though i disagreed with your initial too-broad redirecting.  Please don't misunderstand my comments about the narrowing effect or not of your stated criteria.  Certainly, it is more easy for me and anyone else to agree to a proposal/request, the more narrowly it is defined.  If you will narrow down your request to something that addresses just one CT NRHP HD, say, I would certainly agree to it, except I don't want you to make too narrow a proposal either, that you yourself won't really accept.  It is your proposal to make.  I do think it is hard to come up with objective criteria, and that it is useful to compare any proposed criteria to what the effect of those criteria would be, though.  It's good to consider if stated criteria would lead to unintended decisions, when applied to available data.  I appreciate that you have refined your judgment, and I do note that you are not disagreeing in many cases.  It has built some trust:  i would not be egging you on towards making a complete proposal, if I did not trust you now, that you will use informed judgment and that you would not just throw in completely inappropriate cases just for spite or something.  I am pretty much now willing to accept your judgment on the cases where you "have strongly argued for merging".  Which ones are those, though?  It is confusing for me and others.  There was initial edit warring on many cases where you would not now strongly argue.  There are other cases, perhaps some in New London County, where there was not yet any discussion or edit warring.  It is your request to make.


 * Only in part because you hesitate to come forward with a list about (3), I wonder if it is not so easy for you to make all the judgments needed. Of course you or anyone would be more knowledgeable about some places and less about others.   If making a request is coming down to your providing a list of your judgments on (3), and you are not fully ready to do so, maybe we could make some accommodation.  Do you want to do it in a couple phases, going through the so-far-discussed cases first as one batch, and allowing for you to open another batch or two later?  If you have some doable procedure to make determinations, I would prefer to have it all covered in just one batch.  It has seemed intolerable to me in the past that what was going to be argued was random, unpredictable.  I would very much like to have one settlement to settle it all, but if that is not practical to accomplish in one batch, please, you have to say so. doncram (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Polaron, or Orlady, how about some further movement here? There is not yet a complete proposal/request. doncram (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have given you the three primary criteria. Are they acceptable to you or not? If they are, I'll prepare a table of all New London county historic districts and how they satisfy progressively the three criteria. --Polaron | Talk 05:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't answer the question without a proposal being completed. Your tabulating New London HDs would advance matters, please proceed.  But, you have to go further, you have not yet stated what you want to request for the cases that meet your criteria.  There could conceivably be totally unacceptable requests, like to disallow any separation of articles, forever, even if definitive sources showed that a NRHP HD was completely different from a "village" area.  I am not saying that you wuold want such an unreasonable outcome, but I could not agree to that, for myself and for future wikipedia editors.  I think a key part of your making a reasonable proposal is there being some sunset date on your request.  In certain cases, you want to request no separate creation of NRHP HD articles for some period of time.  I suppose because you believe that will further the advancement of town/village/hamlet/neighborhood articles, during that period of time?  Actually i  don't really understand why you want to make the request, but you have to make the request or I cannot agree to it.  If you make the request for all NRHP HD articles in CT (more than i think you wish) to apply for just one week (shorter than I think you wish), and then there is no restriction on NRHP HD articles after that, then I will agree to that.  If you make the request for a narrower set that seems reasonable, for a somewhat longer but reasonable time, with clarity defining your criteria (4), then I may also agree.  I can't promise to agree to a final, completed proposal, on the basis of just part of the proposal.  Again, tabulating the New London Cty cases goes in the right direction for you defining a reguest. doncram (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we determine that they're totally different then they shouldn't be merged. My proposal will basically merge the two if they have the same name and they are in the same place and the historic district was established in part because of the historical significance of the village (as opposed to purely architectural significance). If the two places are the same, there should be one article. There should be no time limit -- it's either the two places are sufficiently the same or not. If it's the former, there should be one article forever, if it's the latter there should be two articles forever. Now a split due to length considerations can always be made at any time by any editor who is willing to work on a specific topic related to the locality. Do you think the three criteria are sufficient to indicate that the village and historic district are sufficiently the same or not? --Polaron | Talk 14:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So your proposal is that for cases where you will list, there shall be merged articles forever (meaning that separate place or NRHP HD articles are banned by the proposal) unless there is need for split due to length considerations. Which do you want to ban:  the place articles, or the NRHP HD articles, or make it 50-50?  Also, you said above that you wanted to limit the forcing of merged articles to cases where "the historic district information must be 'stubby' (based primarily only on NRIS database information). This would enable someone who wants to put in the work to develop a full-fledged article to not be constrained."  How is that to be addressed in your proposal?  There shall be no splits, unless someone creates a competing place or NRHP HD article that is longer than a stub?  I think it could possibly be acceptable for a limited list proposal to request no splits unless the split-out place or NRHP HD article is at least starter length as defined in the DYK process (DYK does not allow stub articles).  State your list for New London County, please. doncram (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Criteria 1 and 2 are easy enough to check. Of the 50 historic districts in New London County, 14 of them will satisfy criteria 1 and 2. For a quick way of evaluating criterion 3, a comparison of the centroid coordinates of the historic district and GNIS-listed coordinates of the populated place was done with an arbitrarily set, strict criterion of <0.1 mile separation (we can discuss the specific value later -- I think it is too limiting because of quirks in how the populated place coordinates are chosen). Of the 14, 6 will be removed by the requirement of coincidence of coordinates to <0.1 mile. The 8 places that are left that ought to be merged (unless split for length constraints) are: Baltic (redirect to HD), Burnett's Corner (redirect to HD), Greeneville (no place article currently), Hallville (no place article currently), Jordan (redirect to HD), Mystic Bridge (merge to Mystic; now redlink), Poquetanuck, Preston City (no place article currently). So, in terms of existing dual articles, only Poquetanuck makes the cut. Baltic, Burnett's Corner, and Jordan were moved from their village titles and should probably be moved back. --Polaron | Talk 17:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we use a <0.2 mile separation criterion, Quaker Hill and Taftville will satisfy criterion 3, which is probably more reasonable. Noank has a 0.25-mile separation, Gales Ferry has 0.30 miles, and Mystic River has 0.44 (if merging with Mystic, but it is <0.1 mi if merging with West Mystic (non-existent article)). --Polaron | Talk 17:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Thank you. Are you saying that you checked about (1) that those 8 are in the list of principal communities?  Are you saying that you checked about (2) that "Event" appears in the NRHP.COM-stated reasons for significance?  About (3) I will agree to the .1 mile HD centroid vs. GNIS place location approach.  What are you proposing for these 8?  That joint articles should be created at the NRHP HD name for all, none, or half (feel free to pick which four of the eight)?  What are you suggesting about how much length for a split-out article is sufficient to split.  If not the DYK length, what length?  Also, I don't understand what you mean about only Poquetanuck making the cut. doncram (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * About .1 vs. .2 mile within criteria (3), Taftville is not at issue (isnt that the one where the primary NRHP name is the same as the place name?). Gales Ferry can be dealt with in a different exception that i would propose myself (relating to there being two similarly named NRHP HDs, which might best be dealt with in one article).  Mystic River is not the same name as Mystic or West Mystic, so is not at issue.  About Noank, I have and have offered to share the NRHP document which will support a split-out article on length considerations.  So the .1 mile criteria meets your wishes for all but Quaker Hill i guess.  I would prefer the .1 mile distance. doncram (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The village name should take primacy as the significance of the historic district is more limited than the village. So in cases where merging is appropriate, the article should be at the village/neighborhood name. For splitting, if one has the NRHP nomination document and actually details each property in the article, then a split might be appropriate in such a case. Quaker Hill has a separation of 0.17 mi. This is primarily because the GNIS coordinates are located on the new (20th century) state road whereas the old through route had to veer further inland to go around a cove that is now bridged by the state road. In other words, the GNIS coordinates for Quaker Hill do not coincide with the geographic center of the place. Also, Mystic River is the old name for the western half of Mystic before it was consolidated by the U.S. Post Office under a single name for convenience. The inhabitants just then followed suit and used the name Mystic as that is their postal address. --Polaron | Talk 18:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional info: Hallville is the only one of the eight not listed as a "principal community" although it is a GNIS-listed "populated place". Also, the name of the district is "Hallville Mill" although an alternative name is listed as just "Hallville". In this case a single article at the historic district name would probably be more appropriate (i.e. the village article is a redirect to the historic district article). --Polaron | Talk 18:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. This is enough information.  I will draft, off-line, a summary proposal based on what has been discussed, intending for it to be a consensus agreement that all the participants here would agree to abide by for a significant length of time, and which would be a "request" to other editors.  Also I will address the issues of content forking and split guidelines.  Note, it could be argued that the current joint Poquetanuck article is itself not a valid split from the Preston town article.  So i will try to cover that, aspect, that it is suggested that if a joint article for a "principal community" and NRHP HD combo is to be created, it should be at the community name.  But that the joint article should not be split from a town article until it is long enough, itself.  If it is not a principal community, a split from the town article should be to the NRHP HD name.  There will be some odd consequences from the proposal, but I think no more than from other proposals which could be made.  I will try to point out the odd consequences and suggest how those can be mitigated.  Give me a day or two, okay? doncram (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

back to Poquetanuck alone
Assuming that a general proposal will not be completed, we need to go back to talking about available information about Poquetanuck alone. I believe there has been no specific sources provided which compare the meaning, or multiple meanings, of "Poquetanuck" to the Poquetanuck Historic District. In there being an edit war or merger proposal or wish or whatever to have a single article, the parties in favor of "merger" have not even done the basic homework of obtaining (and sharing) the NRHP application document that would provide very relevant information. "Merger" means going against wikipedia policies that support having stub articles on wikipedia-notable topics that can grow to be good encyclopedia articles. It has been shown in many dozens, if not hundreds, of cases in wikipedia that where an editor wishes to create an article about a historic district, that it works out well to allow that to be developed separately. For a recent example, Lake Linden Historic District is an article that was developed recently (I started and contributed to it, although it was another editor who contributed pictures and did most of the development, and others helped too), that I think serves as a nice complement to Lake Linden, Michigan, an article about a town or village. If anyone wants to develop that town article more, now there is good material to add to it. I assert that the material would not now be available if editors were not allowed to create the separate NRHP HD article, free from complications of developing material within a larger town article with its various problems of sourcing and otherwise being uncomfortable or unpleasant to work in (and precluding getting the DYK exposure that was obtained). There are many similar cases of allowing NRHP HD articles, and obtaining good results. I believe that all parties participating, including Polaron, would agree that eventually a detailed NRHP HD article can be developed which should be distinct from an article about Poquetanuck, a place which is probably amorphous but no doubt historic and "loved" like other CT "principal communities". There is no wikipedia policy or guideline against stub articles on wikipedia notable topics. The Poquetanuck Historic District is a notable topic. If there is not movement on a complete and general proposal/request to handle CT NRHP HDs that in some way meet Polaron's 1, 2, 3 criteria and allowance for 4, then I would like for this merger or move or whatever discussion to be closed in favor of allowing two articles, so that editors such as Swampyank and me can create a fully sourced, uncomplicated NRHP HD article. A very important upside of this would be that wikipedia development can proceed avoiding edit warring and/or otherwise heated dispute about defining the association between the two, which is required in a merged article. A potential "downside" of allowing that is that there may be some duplication of some information for some time, but honestly I don't even really see how that is a downside. Another downside is that proceeding that way would would diverge from the preferences of Polaron, an active and valued wikipedia editor. The difference in opinion is only about when a separate article shall be allowed, whether a stub can be created now (which I think would advance the development of good separate articles) or whether a stub shall be disallowed until a well-developed NRHP HD article is created. About the timing of allowing a separate NRHP HD article, Polaron is, however, free to make a proposal or request about dealing with this and other CT NRHP places. In the absence of a completed proposal that is reasonable and can be accepted, I feel that there can be no prohibition against proceeding on the separate NRHP HD article development, starting with it being a mere stub using just NRIS information. doncram (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Lvklock (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding Poquetanuck alone, there is still next to no information to use as a basis for ONE stub article, much less two separate articles. Furthermore, it doesn't appear that anyone here sufficient interest in Poquetanuck to create a "fully sourced" and "detailed" article about the village, the historic district, or any other aspect. I know that I have no particular interest in the place, yet I believe I have added more text and sources to the article than anyone else has. I see no more reason to split this 5-sentence stub into two separate stubs than when it was just a one-sentence stub.


 * It is disappointing for me to learn that experienced contributors are espousing the creation of separate NRHP stubs so that contributors can avoid "various problems of sourcing and otherwise being uncomfortable or unpleasant to work in" that are perceived to be associated with articles about cities, towns, villages, and other settlements. Most topics of interest in an encyclopedia are somewhat complicated, and articles about settlements are actually much less complicated than most topics. If skilled and experienced contributors find it too hard to craft solid articles about settlements -- even relatively uncomplicated settlements like Poquetanuck -- it might be time to declare Wikipedia to be a failed experiment. --Orlady (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have problems with the current article as edited by Orlady, although I appreciate the effort put in. My strongest reaction is about the lack of explanation of relationship between Poquetanuck vs. the also bolded Poquetanuck Village Historic District.  It is not even stated that they are "associated".  If it cannot be explained to readers why a second name is given, why two topics are being covered in one article, then it seems intolerable to me that they are shoehorned together.  Of course I understand that Orlady's wording deliberately avoids stating any relationship, because there is no available source to support describing the relationship.  Avoiding unsourced statements is a good thing.  But for a joint article, I happen to think it is better to confront the issue by exposing the current lack of definitive information, by saying something like one includes "some or all" of the other.  Orlady cringes at such openly ambiguous wording;  i cringe at what I perceive to be a more embarrassing state of an article which tries to finesse the issue and imply they are the same (which we don't know).  The current joint article suffers greatly from the fact that no one has collected (and shared) the free, available NRHP application document which would explain the relationship.  The pair of alternative articles would also be greatly improved by information from that document, but having it is not crucial for them.  In my view, describing the relationship must be explained in a joint article.  It is the barest minimum requirement for having a merger, that the relationship must be explained, and the proponents of merger have not done the most basic homework (request the stupid document) in order to be able to explain it. doncram (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I no longer cringe at the opening wording of the article. I eliminated the problematic wording with my first edit of 9 September 2009.


 * The vagueness of the article serves to highlight the fact that the entire article is based more on ignorance than on actual information. The article is an assemblage of disconnected factoids gleaned from various online sources: Poquetanuck is a village, it's in the town of Preston, it's adjacent to Poquetanuck Cove, it's one of three main historical settlements in the town, it has some sort of history of shipbulding, there's a National Register historic district listed in 1996 and about which a few salient statistics can be obtained from the NRIS database, and the HD includes the supposedly-haunted Captain Grant's Inn built in 1754 (also some associated properties that aren't currently mentioned in the article).


 * The specific omission of an explicit explanation of the relationship between the village and the HD is partially a reflection of that same ignorance, and also of the fact that a place like Poquetanuck has no fixed boundaries. However, it's clear that the HD corresponds to the village. The coordinates in NRIS and the streets identified in the HD description correspond very closely to the location marked on maps as "Poquetanuck" (after making allowances for irregularities in street names on various different online maps -- not all of these names appear on all of the maps). The approximately 80-acre area of the HD (equivalent to a square 1867 ft on a side) is big enough to encompass the area east and northeast of Poquetanuck Cove that is identifiable as a village on satellite photos.


 * As for the fact that "no one" (presumably a reference to Polaron and myself) has obtained and shared the NRHP document, I believe that is attributable to the fact that neither of us indicated any particular interest in building or discussing this article. History indicates that Doncram proposed a structured discussion of New London County historic districts, including Poquetanuck Village, and the rest of us were pretty much invited to "be there or be square." Considering the amount of research I've done into a place I don't care about (unlike some of the other Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont communities that have become bones of contention) just so I could participate in the discussion, I confess that I feel a bit resentful that I'm being castigated for not having done even more. Anyway, I would bet that the Captain Grant's website descriptions of three historic homes are going to turn out to be extremely similar to information on the NRHP application. --Orlady (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I think this discussion of one vs. two articles is undermined by having just the example of the one article under development, and not the two. So, I will proceed to start a Poquetanuck Village Historic District article and to create a complementary Talk:Poquetanuck/alternative1 article which does not suffer from the problems I perceive.  Hopefully this will be more helpful than engaging in combative edits in the current joint article. doncram (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to ask that no new articles be created about Poquetanuck until someone has a decent source to base an article on. --Orlady (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Orlady said "If skilled and experienced contributors find it too hard to craft solid articles about settlements -- even relatively uncomplicated settlements like Poquetanuck -- it might be time to declare Wikipedia to be a failed experiment." I think that the strength of Wikipedia is in allowing people to contribute in the arena in which they have interest/expertise, without REQUIRING them to spend what time they have to contribute in acquiring new expertise in which their interest is slight or non-existent.  If I want to do the stuff that someone else thinks should be done along with what I enjoy, I'll go to work and get paid for it. Lvklock (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Call me a fool, then, for thinking that article development is supposed to be a collaborative process.


 * I did not have any part in creating the cookie-cutter "place" articles (not including this one) that focus on Census demographics and seem to be such a thorn in the side of NRHP Wikiproject members. Furthermore, I have resented the existence of those sections when I have had to undertake research to resolve vandals' creative changes to statistics like per capita income and percent African American, and I have been annoyed when the articles fill up with junk like unsourced lists of former police chiefs, former high school football players, and movies filmed in the town. However, I have never found it in any way difficult to insert a History section or a description of National Register properties into one of those articles (but I wholeheartedly agree that such an insertion does not obligate me to clean up the rest of the article). The overall quality of the encyclopedia is not improved if I create separate articles about my pet subtopics simply because the articles about the parent topic aren't as good as my new content is going to be. --Orlady (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not belive that NRHP Wikiproject members find "focus on Census demographics and seem to be such a thorn in the side ", but for some reason you seem to find our trying to facilitate creation of good HD articles by creating a stub as a way of welcoming further development a thorn in your side. I believe thta adding a good section to a lousy article takes away from the good section, and so if I have no interest in fixing up the lousy article will instead prefer to develop a sepaarte good article.  Further, none of this arguing in CT and other New England states would have happened had Polaron not preemptively changed HD redlinks to redirects to a bunch of lousy articles in the first place.  Apparently just the existence of a redlink encouraging future development of HD articles was a thorn in his side.  Lvklock (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment
Doncram's asked me to offer my opinion on the discussion above. I have a few questions and observations first:
 * What would the sources be for a separate article? NRIS doesn't amount to much: all we know is that the HD exists and that it has the same name as the town.
 * Any parallel article development should be done in userspace for the time being per WP:CFORK. The argument I'm seeing is uncomfortably close to a violation of this guideline: creation of a content fork to avoid an argument.
 * There are no deadlines. Why is this important right now, especially in the absence of the NRHP nom, which would in a single stroke render the thousands of words expended above moot. Why are we creating, either as a standalone or as a section within a parent article, anything in the absence of more than a statement of mere existence? Why does this have to be done now? I see a permanent circular argument that can easily be resolved. One day this will all be on NPS Focus. Until then, or until someone obtains the noms or similar documentation, this looks like a divisive waste of dedicated, productive editors' time.  Acroterion  (talk)  03:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I asked specifically for a narrower judgment on how to proceed with the merger/split discussion. There is a joint article at Poquetanuck;  i have proceeded to create a pair of alternative articles for the NRHP HD and a complementary Poquetanuck article, in order to allow comparison of the proposed joint article vs. what i would propose as equivalent paired alternative articles.  Polaron by one reversion (not yet more) has battled against creation of the paired alternative, which seems to me to undermine discussion of which is better.  It is a narrow question of how to conduct a discussion of a merger proposal.  Should only one alternative be allowed to exist during a discussion, or should both alternatives be allowed to exist so that a more informed decision could eventually be made?  It seems anti-American or something like that, to suppress discussion by disallowing expression of what an alternative pair of articles could be.  I reverted Polaron's reversion of my creation of an alternative Poquetanuck Village Historic District article;  Polaron has not yet reverted again, so perhaps it is not an active edit war.  Anyhow, I call for an explicit ruling stating that, while this merger proposal is open, both the current joint article should be allowed, and also a pair of articles at the NRHP HD name and at an alternative location for an alternative Poquetanuck article, should be allowed.


 * To respond to Acroterion's broader questions (not necessarily relevant for the narrow process question):
 * An expected major source for the NRHP HD article is the NRHP application document. In dozens or hundreds of wikipedia articles so far, that document has served to provide extensive information for development of a detailed article about an NRHP HD separate from any town/village/whatever article which includes the HD.  Another expected major source is the photographs of future wikipedia/commons contributors.  Wikipedia has a major exception for original research in the form of photographs, which are welcomed.  Photographs of multiple contributing properties within the historic district would provide major substance and inspiration for a full, detailed article.  For example, photos from a local wikipedian made all the difference in developing Lake Linden Historic District, about an NRHP HD in Michigan.  It is virtually certain, in my view, that within a few years there can be full, detailed articles about a great percentage of NRHP HDs nation-wide, using primarily the NRHP documents and new photos.  Creating lesser articles now advances the cause, by establishing that others will be welcome to develop fuller articles.
 * About the 2nd question, Lvklock and I did respond to Orlady's comments about content forking at Talk:List of RHPs in CT previously. I think that Lvklock's comments there, especially, are compelling, and i note that Lvklock's last comment there was reasonably eloquent and, as such, was not answered.  Here, why do you suppose it might be content forking?  Poquetanuck is a name applying to various historical areas that changed over time, for which multiple sources will be available;  I don't have the relevant NRHP document but it seems relatively obvious based on dozens or hundreds of cases that Poquetanuck Village HD is a different, very well defined topic for which reliable sources will be available.  They are different topics both with reliable sources;  there is no obvious content forking.  Nonetheless, I will further review the content forking guidelines. doncram (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the basis for the statement that "Poquetanuck is a name applying to various historical areas that changed over time"? In my internet research on the subject, I have found no indication that there ever was more than one place called by that name -- unless one counts Poquetanuck Cove (which is a body of water adjacent to the village) as a "place". --Orlady (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * About the 3rd question, what is the urgency? I agree and have stated many times that obtaining the free NRHP nomination documents would be highly relevant.  Without the NRHP nomination document, and hence without ability to compare the NRHP HD to the populated place, it seems frivolous to argue that a wikipedia-notable NRHP HD cannot be created (one which will most likely eventually be separated anyhow).  There is no urgency whatsoever to blocking by edit warring, or by consensus, the creation of legitimate NRHP HD articles.  Development of the NRHP HD articles will in fact advance the separate populated place articles.  What is the urgency to freeze development of wikipedia?  I do allow for the possibility that if Polaron completes an acceptable request, I would likely agree to suspend development of NRHP HD articles, despite my not understanding urgency or basic reasoning for the request. doncram (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The biggest unknown in the proposed comparison between the historic district and the village is not the NRHP nom form -- it's the boundaries of the village, which is a place that has no defined boundaries. To "determine" where Poquetanuck ends (i.e., its outside boundaries), it would likely be necessary to go door to door through the area and ask the residents whether or not they think they live in Poquetanuck -- and, of course, different people will turn out to have different theories on the subject. There should, however, be no doubt that the "Poquetanuck Village" that gives its name to the "Poquetanuck Village Historic District" is the same place as the "village of Poquetanuck" that is covered by this article. --Orlady (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To clearly answer the narrower question, no "paired equivalent articles" such as the ones you propose should exist outside of user space, per WP:CFORK; once created in user space, they may be incorporated if consensus is found to support their inclusion in a manner that benefits Wikipedia. You are expressly proposing a content fork.
 * I agree that "within a few years" there can be detailed articles on NRHP districts in contiguous villages where there is sufficient NRHP-related material that integration into the parent village article would be awkward. Whether they are separate or integrated will depend on the documentation available and on consensus that exists at the time a detailed article can be written: not before. Any discussion concerning what might happen in a few years when more information can be found is interesting, but at the present time fruitless and divisive. If we don't have reliable sources, we shouldn't be writing anything. It can wait. We have a list of HDs, undisputed by anyone, and there it can sit as a redlink until information is acquired. We remove the HD information from the article until such time as appropriate information is found illustrating the congruence (or lack of congruence) between the two. What is the urgency to write articles which have no firm basis in fact? It's not all or nothing, it's not a matter of global policy, it's an issue of basing decisions about this article's scope and content on a foundation of knowledge, and neither camp appears to have enough information to make a convincing case.  Acroterion  (talk)  11:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the whole thing started because Polaron was not letting them "sit as a redlink until information is acquired", but instead was redirecting redlinks to place articles. And now, he insists that those redirects are the status quo and should remain. Lvklock (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, until someone actually has enough interest in the subject and the proper sources to write a decent article. --Polaron | Talk 16:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. The status quo was the redlinks.  Let's go back to that and be done with it. The FORCED development of HD info in some lousy place article is counterproductive, in my often stated view.  Those redirects sometimes overrode redlinks set up specifically to properly disambiguated NRHP names, and try to in advance determine wether the separate HD article can exist, which in many cases in can and should.  I have at times agreed to inclusion in a GOOD place article, or in one I knew enough about to fix, though it is rarely if ever my preference.  But, my to do list is full of local HD's I've not developed at all, even though I have great pics, because it's currently set up as a redirect to some lousy neighborhood or CDP article with the same name minus the words "historic district".  I won't agree to putting future local editors into that same position wholesale. Lvklock (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you think redirects are never appropriate? Also, you think it's not appropriate to put pictures of historic buildings in a neighborhood article because the article title doesn't have "historic district"? If the neighborhood and the historic district are essentially the same, what's wrong with having a single article to avoid duplication and forking? --Polaron | Talk 16:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I often think redirects are useful. But, to redirect an unmade article to another article that doesn't cover the topic in order to preemptively disallow the possibility of a separate article is ridiculous, IMO.  I have and will develop historic district articles to an extent that I firmly believe is most appropruiate in its own article, which I have discussed at length elswhere in this labrythine bunch of discussions.  I choose not to contribute "good" stuff to articles full of "bad" stuff, because then I feel responsible for or reflected upon by the "bad" stuff.  So, no, I rarely add pics about a place to a lousy article.  An your choice of saying the status quo happened AFTER you made disputed edits pretty much denies the meaning of status quo, IMO. Lvklock (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The crux of this discussion is a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes a useful redirect. I think that it is now widely agreed here that it is generally not helpful to redirect an article about "Lower East Bugtussle Historic District" to the article "Big City." The issue has far more to do with the Poquetanuck and Poquetanuck Village Historic District, and how one interprets the guidance at WP:Redirect that currently advises deleting a redirect "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject." I contend that a Wikipedia user who is skimming a list of New London County NRHP listings and is curious about Poquetanuck Village Historic District is far better served by a blue link to a minimal stub article about the village of Poquetanuck (where most of the information that the user will find is truly relevant) than by a redlink.
 * I am coming around to the idea that the blue link that appears in the NRHP list possibly should not be a redirect, but rather should be a piped link (in the form Poquetanuck Village Historic District ). In order to entice a well-informed user to create a new article about the HD, a redlink to the HD can be salted into the village article (this is suggested by WP:Redirect). This way, the uninformed user who wants to know what a Poquetanuck Village Historic District is will not be disappointed, but a knowledgable person who is eager to create the HD article will be aware of the existence and contents of the village article before undertaking to write an HD article. Having said all that, I still think that there should be no more than one stub article about this village of Poquetanuck until such time as someone gets a whole lot more solid information to use in writing a decent article (and even then, there might not be enough info to justify two articles). --Orlady (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (After long delay) I don't quite understand why you suggest a pipelink at the NRHP list-article but this seems like some helpful movement.  It is generally good to point to guidelines, policies, and past discussions about such, and the sentence you found is very relevant to quote here.  By the way, i thought the quoted text must have been added just recently to the wp:Redirect editing guideline, but checking its history I see that the statement has been there for at least a year already.  About what should appear in the New London County NRHP list, I think that a redlink should show there to correctly signal that a new article about the HD could be created.  A pipelink conceals that, and especially given history here, it would suggest that a new article is not going to be allowed by someone, just as does the current redirect.  But the location or description column of the list-article, instead, can include a link to the village article, accomplishing your goal of ensuring that a person eager to create the HD article will be aware of the village article.  Since it has been decided to show Town names rather than other locations in the CT NRHP list-articles, I guess the link should be in the description column, and I will add something there right now.  Won't that do?  I can't imagine then that anyone would start a substantial HD article without being aware of the village article.  I also would be perfectly happy to "ban" semi-automated creation of NRHP HD articles for CT, and to include a general request on the Talk page of the list-article that would-be HD article creators should first obtain substantial information in order to start a good article, and refrain from creating a mere NRIS-based stub.  About whether a red-link to the HD should appear in the Poquetanuck article, I am not sure.  It seems too hard to come to any agreement how the HD should be mentioned.  So I suggest just leaving a note, perhaps a template box, at the Talk page of the village article, suggesting that a Poquetanuck HD article could be created when solid information is available, and suggesting how to get the NRHP document for it. doncram (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

back to Poquetanuck alone, again
I am coming around to Orlady's view, expressed above, that there should be at most one stub article on Poquetanuck and/or Poquetanuck Historic District. I think it should just be Poquetanuck, with no mention whatsoever of a Poquetanuck Historic District. Since no one has done the simplest homework of obtaining the free NRHP application document which would describe a possible relationship, it is not known if the NRHP HD overlaps or is completely separate or what, vs. the "village" or hamlet. Thus, the relationship cannot be described, unless the vagueness of what is know about the relationship is revealed, in a statement like "Poquetanuck includes part or all of Poquetanuck H D", which we all believe to be true. However, that apparently is unacceptable to some. I appreciate that Orlady has tried to finesse the issue of describing a relationship, by just stating what is known, that Poquetanuck H D is a historic district, but that is a non sequitor in an article about something else, Poquetanuck. So I just now edited the article to remove the mention of the historic district. I suggest leaving it this way unless and until the relationship is known and can be described satisfactorily. doncram (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire village is basically the historic district. The boundaries extend north somewhat on Schoolhouse Road to include Poquetanuck School. --Polaron | Talk 18:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean here exactly. Do you mean that the HD extends north out of the hamlet to include the school, or that the hamlet extends out of the HD to include the school?  And, how do you know this, what are your sources. doncram (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing since that area is in the original 17th century village. Poquetanuck has physical markers on its entrances indicating the historic district boundaries along its streets so you can pretty much see where the limit of the historic district is along a street. --Polaron | Talk 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is the same thing? Does the HD include the school or not, in your view?  You can't start to offer information and then not explain... or at least that does not help advance anything.  And, whatever you say based on your personal knowledge alone, without support, can and should be challenged and removed from this article.  If you want to get in information about where a sign is located, you could possibly proceed by taking a photo and uploading it.  There is an exception to the general wikipedia no original research dictum, for photos.  I am not sure what you could prove with a photo that just says "you are now entering" the historic district, though.  Is there something you could photograph that shows both "welcome to the village" and the "HD starts here".  If you could provide that, that would support a statement in the article that on, say, the west side of the village, the HD starts at the apparent village limit.  Why not get (and share) the NRHP document though?  I don't understand your battling to keep unsupported assertions in articles. doncram (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The district boundary does extend to along the street to roughly where the school is (the school appears to be a relatively newer building so I don't know if it is a contributing property plus it has been closed for a few years now). I was in the area 2 years ago but can't get pictures as I recently moved out of state. And yes, there are signs that say "Poquetanuck Village: A national Register District" along the east end west ends at Route 2A and at the north end on School House Road. I don't know if there is one on the Ledyard town line from Cedar Mill Road. Finally, NRIS does say that "Poquetanuck" alone is another name for the historic district. Based on what you said previously, I think that means the entire village is the historic district. --Polaron | Talk 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to force out personal information, but your explaining that you are no longer in the area does help to explain why you would not simply provide the photos that could help answer some questions. That's too bad, and then also it is unfortunate that all this contention is no doubt driving away any locals who could be interested in providing photos and developing these articles.  But, bottom-line, since no one has obtained and shared the NRHP document, there are no sources available currently to document any assertions about relationship.  I think here and elsewhere that the simplest solution is just to remove the unsupported material, including any direct or implicit claim that an HD is the same as a village.  And, no i have not ever agreed to, or meant to imply, that the presence of a village name in an alternate name field for an HD in NRIS would be sufficient to assert that the HD is the village.  For the Poquetanuck HD, the Elkman output shows "Other names: Poquetanuck", but that is not enough to conclude anything.  It is like a mere "See also".  What I said elsewhere was that if NRIS describes the location as being the village, that would suffice.  For this HD, NRIS states the location is "Roughly, along Main St. between CT 117 and Middle Rd. and along School House and Cider Mill Rd., Preston, CT".  This is unlike the Norris District case, where NRIS describes its location as "Town of Norris on U.S. 441, Norris, TN". doncram (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The NRIS entry for Norris, Tennessee is different because Norris is an incorporated municipality, and the HD listing is for the entire place (more or less -- amazingly, the nom form does not specify boundaries). In contrast, Poquetanuck is not an official place and does not have established boundaries that could be cited.
 * Yes, exactly. By the way, would you please share the Norris NRHP document to me?  I didn't realize you had a copy.  If you would, I would cancel my own request to the National Register.  As you know, in the dispute about Norris District, I deferred to an editor who obtained the document and who I believed was intending to use it to develop the Norris article, but who did not, and who also refused to share the NRHP document to me.  I thot that was odd, and it has made me wonder what the NRHP document stated.  The goal there and here should be to create shared, common information.  I hope we all can agree on that. doncram (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It turns out that the nom form for the Norris District is extremely similar in its contents to several of the published sources already cited in the article Norris, Tennessee. The nom form adds little or nothing to the article. --Orlady (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just went out and found that the Norris District NRHP document was in today's mail. I was honestly asking if you would share, as I have offered to do for other NRHPs, and I wish you had just agreed.  But I have it now, so that request is moot.  Looking at the NRHP document, I agree it does not specify borders and that it is the town as a whole that is listed.  But I see lots in the document that is interesting and that is not covered in the Norris, Tennessee article.  It has not been my impression that you wanted to win arguments by withholding information, but this little exchange leaves a bad taste for me. doncram (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the dispute over the school. However, it is not "original research" to associate the HD with the village. Several sources that I cited above (and in some instances added to this article earlier, but my content is no longer in the article) do discuss the National Register listing in connection with the village: this state website discusses the "historic village of Poquetanuck" and mentions that Captain Grant's house is on the National Register, this book indicates that Captain Grant's house was listed on the National Register in 1996, the Captain Grant's B&B website describes several buildings as on the National Register, and this local historical society website even has a sketch of "Poquetanuck Village". Finally, a town "newspaper" from September 1996 (something that I just discovered online -- I think it was posted recently) carries the headline "Poquetanuck Village and Hallville Listed on the National Register of Historic Places" on a story that says (in part) "Peter Leibert, president of the Preston Historical Society, has received notification that both Poquetanuck Village and Hallville have been selected to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, effective August 22. 1996. Thus, these two villages join the village of Preston City, and the Long Society Meeting House in this great honor." (See page 13 of page 13 this issue.) --Orlady (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

An 1868 Beers map of Preston has an inset for Poquetanuck (labeled Poquetanock) and shows that the village corresponds to the short description of the historic district in the NRIS. It's interesting that the village straddled the town line between Ledyard and Preston at that time. The border appears to have been adjusted sometime between 1893 and 1941 (I don't have maps in between) so that the entire village is now in Preston only. Doncram, what makes you think that the two places are not the same? --Polaron | Talk 23:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe he said they weren't the same. What he said was IN THE ABSENCE OF SOURCES......Have you added that map to the article as a reference?  If not, the the statement in question is UNSUPPORTED. Lvklock (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Because the article is protected, Polaron can't add sources to it right now. Furthermore, some content and sources that were previously in the article were deleted in the repetitive merge-split process. --Orlady (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Replying to Orlady's last comment, I don't know what Polaron was suggesting about the school either, although it seemed to go towards documenting that the village is different than the HD. Your previous examples of a house being said to be NRHP-listed don't directly help in describing the relationship between the HD and the village better than saying there is known to be some overlap.  I am already willing to take Polaron's word on there being some overlap between the NRHP HD and the village, that some or all of the HD is included in the village, and vice versa.  I believe that there is some overlap, but that is different than there being any mutually acceptable main-space statement of relationship.  As a practical matter, I now think it is best to remove mention of the HD (and then also to delete the redirect) if the relationship is not known.


 * The relationship is pretty clear. Poquetanuck village and Poquetanuck Village Historic District have the same name, they are in the same place on the map, the street names listed in NRIS are the names of the streets that correspond to what looks like a village on satellite images, the local historical society says that the village is listed on the National Register as a result of the society's efforts, and various sources say that certain buildings (known not to be individually listed on the National Register) in "Poquetanuck" or "Poquetanuck Village" are on the National Register (listed in the same year that the HD was listed). Accordingly, I can't see any justification for expunging all information about the HD from the article, as you are proposing. (Furthermore, I'd like to restore the information that has been removed.) --Orlady (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * About the new source that you found, it doesn't actually discuss and compare the bounds of the NRHP HD and of the village. It does at least mention them both, and sort of seems to equate them.  I don't know about using that as a source to say that the two are substantially the same.  For one thing, I suspect that whatever you could write would amount to more finessing of the question of what is the relationship of the two.  Also, local newspapers are often regarded as not reliable sources, and I recall that a local news article about the ferry HD seemed to be incorrect in what it claimed about the new HD there.  You could try formulating a new version of the Poquetanuck article in a Talk subpage here.  But if you formulate a footnote using the town newsletter, I expect that it will be deleted later, whenever someone actually gets the NRHP document, because it doesn't appear to have any permanently useful information.  So why bother?  Why not just get the NRHP document now? doncram (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the "newspaper" article (it's not much of a newspaper -- more like a printed bulletin board, on which submitted items are reproduced verbatim), you'll see that the local historical society officers who prepared the nomination (together with a lady who works for the town) are the people who say that the two villages were listed on the National Register. If the people who prepared the nom form say that "the village" was listed as an historic district, what justification could there be for a bunch of Wikipedians (who have never even been to Poquetanuck) to read their nom form and declare that the historic district is not the same place as the village? --Orlady (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, it's not a good source, but we should rely on it anyway? Lvklock (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather, the article is an unadulterated statement by the local historical society (the same people who wrote the NRHP nomination), not an interpretation by a newspaper reporter who might have misunderstood something. An earlier comment had expressed the view (a view which is not based on WP:RS, I hasten to add) that local newspapers are not reliable sources, and I interpreted that as mistrust of reporters and editors. --Orlady (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Orlady, would you please make a specific proposal as to how you would like to resolve this Poquetanuck vs. NRHP HD article issue. Please create an alternative version of the Poquetanuck article that includes a supported description of the relationship between Poquetanuck and the NRHP HD (if you want to mention the NRHP HD) and includes whatever other sources you feel should be included in the article.  You can do so in a subpage to this Talk page.  (Acroterion commented somewhere above that this could be done only in a User space page, but the guidelines are in fact clear that Talk subpages are fine, and it would be sensible to have it as a subpage here as an extension of this discussion.)  My basic proposal is to keep the Poquetanuck article essentially as it is, with no mention of the NRHP HD, and for there to be no redirect from the NRHP HD to this article.  The NRHP HD should show as a redlink in the CT NRHP list-article and in the Preston town article, but not be mentioned at all in the Poquetanuck article (which is odd, but that is my proposal, because it seems too difficult to construct any mention in the Poquetanuck article).  And, further, it is my proposal that there to be no mere NRIS-based NRHP HD stub article created.  And my proposal is also to ask via a template at Talk:Poquetanuck that no one should create the NRHP HD article unless a) a DYK-equivalent length starter article could be created, using substantial information like the NRHP document, and b) the person creating it judges that it is beneficial to have the NRHP HD be a separate article.  I already modified the NRHP list-article's description column to link to the Poquetanuck article, per your suggestion somewhere above.  You create an alternative proposal, and then let's have a limited bit of question and answer about what the proposals are, and then have a vote or whatever, and move on.  Polaron and I have more or less agreed to abide by Acroterion's ultimate decision.  I am assuming that you don't want to get and use the NRHP document before a decision is made.  The decision would be more or less binding on Polaron and me, but I hope you would also agree in advance to abide by it, whatever it is.  If you want to collect and use the NRHP document first before a decision is to be made, please say so.  However otherwise I think we should come to a decision about this one article, within a day or two. doncram (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [partial outdent] I'm ignoring this personal request of yours, Doncram, for a good reason. May I remind you that you and I were both admonished to avoid interaction with one another? Please refrain from personalizing content discussions -- with anybody -- and in particular, please refrain from trying to turn content discussions into personal debates with me. Thank you. --Orlady (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Orlady, thank you for responding, as otherwise the discussion would be stuck. I meant my request for you to make a specific proposal to be constructive, so that there would be two clear alternatives.  I am interpreting Acroterion's revised comments as requesting at least that we do not argue "argumentatively", as in going back and forth in a ping-pong fashion. And we should avoid making personal statements about each other and our motivations, but otherwise how we are to interact in this and other split/merger proposals is not completely clear.  I thought that at this point in the discussion it would be helpful to ask you to state a proposal comparable to mine, so that a decision could be made.  Since you have had some success in digging up sources, at least one of which specifically mentions both the NRHP HD and the village, I would think it quite possible that if you would make a proposal, that your version could "win" a vote or be chosen by Acroterion.  Your answer is clear though.  Thanks. doncram (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the school, it was strange to me that the historic district boundary extended so far north along School House Road when the properties along the street look more recently built, including the school. It turns out that what was commonly known as Poquetanuck village in 1868 did extend to include a building known as School No. 4 at roughly the same site, so that may have someting to do with it. A 1776 map can also be found in one of the newsletters of the Preston Historical Society at the time the NRHP application was approved. The older map is essentially the same as the 1868 one. Doncram, do you think the proposed criteria for merging is reasonable? If so, how about we implement it for all New England villages and be done with this issue? I'm sure you'd like to get back to actual editing like I do. I think it's a good compromise -- based on the results for New London County, you'll get some of what you want and I'll get some of what I want. What do you think? --Polaron | Talk 04:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Polaron, I appreciate your bringing the comprehensive solution approach up again, and I will try to get back to it in the section about it above. I hesitated to come forward with a complex proposal in part because I realized it would be sort of complex, and I somewhat fear being ridiculed for it being that.  However there is no proposal stated completely enough to be agreed to, and it is unclear whether others would abide by any agreement between you and me.  So I think we should also proceed with deciding specific cases as here.  In the main line of our general discussion about NRHP HDs, I believe we agreed to select a few articles to discuss in depth and that we would abide by third party judgments that would finally settle those cases.  Now, I think it is time for a vote or a judgment by Acroterion on this article.  This one has been discussed far enough, in my view.  Here's my proposal restated:

Proposal A
Poquetanuck proposal A (9/22/2009): ''We agree to keep the Poquetanuck article essentially as it is now. Additional material about Poquetanuck could be added to the article but there should be no mention of the NRHP HD. There to be no redirect from the NRHP HD to this article. The NRHP HD should show as a redlink in the CT NRHP list-article and in the Preston town article, but should not be mentioned at all in the Poquetanuck article. If someone obtains and is willing to share the NRHP document (which is expected to clarify the relationship), however, then specific mention of the NRHP HD could be added to the article. We agree that no mere NRIS-based NRHP HD stub article should be created. We agree to ask via a template at Talk:Poquetanuck that no one should create the NRHP HD article unless a) a DYK-equivalent length starter article could be created, using substantial information (such as would be provided by the NRHP document), and b) the person creating it judges in good faith that it is beneficial to have the NRHP HD be a separate article.''


 * I'd be happy to answer questions, or consider any different proposal that covers the current and future development issues. Orlady above has declined to provide an alternative proposal.  Polaron, please feel free to make an alternative comparable proposal.  Otherwise, can you and others please vote "Support" or "Oppose" on this proposal now?  If/when Acroterion wants to make a closing decision in favor of this or a different comprehensive proposal, I will abide by that. doncram (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already made a proposal. I listed three criteria for when merging is appropriate that are easy enough to verify and added a fourth provision that details about the historic district can be split out whenever someone actually comes and fully expands the article using the NRHP nomination form. The criteria are logical and does not disallow future splits. Prohibiting even mentioning the historic district in the locality article seems ridiculous from the point of view of building an encyclopedia article. Per WP:REDIR, the temporary redirect should be tagged with R with possibilities until someone expands the article with the NRHP nomination information. --Polaron | Talk 04:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Just so people don't have to scroll through all the text, the criteria are: (1) The historic district name (excluding the words "historic district") should be the same as the locality name and the locality must be a village/neighborhood/section of town (i.e not the town itself); (2) The historic district must have an area of significance that includes NPS Criterion A (historical event); (3) The historic district must be coincident with the village core (the original settlement) (I've outlined one way to check this by plotting the GNIS coordinates of the place and the NRIS coordinates of the historic district and checking that the separation is 0.10 mi or less); (4) the historic district information in the article must be "stubby" (based primarily only on NRIS database information). --Polaron | Talk 04:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Polaron, I believe that Poquetanuck Village HD meets your 1, 2, 3 and 4 criteria, or at least you assert it does, right? Let me try to put what Polaron is meaning for Poquetanuck into this comparable specific proposal.  To make it precise, I put in one alternative on how the article is to characterise the relationship of the NRHP HD to the village (that it shall claim, without requiring source, that the village is "substantially the same as" the HD).

Proposal B
Poquetanuck proposal B (9/22/2009): ''We agree to free editing of the Poquetanuck article, including mention of Poquetanuck Village Historic District stating that it is "substantially the same as the village" with no source necessary. The NRHP HD name wil redirect to this article, and "Poquetanuck Village Historic District" will appear in bold to avoid surprise for arriving readers (or there should be other explanation of redirect, per wp:REDIRECT guidelines). We agree that no mere NRIS-based NRHP HD stub article should be created. We agree to ask via a template at Talk:Poquetanuck that no one should create the NRHP HD article unless a) a DYK-equivalent length starter article could be created, using substantial information (such as would be provided by the NRHP document), and b) the person creating it judges in good faith that it is beneficial to have the NRHP HD be a separate article.''


 * Polaron, does that capture everything you want for this case?  I think we are not done if we do not agree to what the article will say about the NRHP HD.  Otherwise the cycle of edit warring continues indefinitely, and it is not an agreement that settles this case.  I personally oppose having an unsourced claim equating the village and the HD, as in this draft proposal B.  But if this proposal is selected, I agree not to remove the claim, which I would otherwise be perfectly well entitled to do.  Perhaps a better alternative proposal could be created using the sources that Orlady has identified, but I am not myself willing to draft alternative wording and to compose a footnote using them.  Perhaps someone else could try here: Talk:Poquetanuck/VersionB?  I'll paste some previous version of the article to there, for anyone else to develop.  Otherwise, let's vote on A or B. doncram (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Other sources such as those typically provided by the various town historical societies and available maps (including verbal descriptions) for the village and historic district should of course be used to assert the relationship. Secondary sources are usually available. I will put a couple in once we've settled this. --Polaron | Talk 12:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We're having a failure to communicate here! Polaron, it sounds like you oppose Proposal A and also what i drafted as Proposal B.  I also oppose Proposal B which makes the unsourced and possibly false claim that the village is "substantially the same as" the HD.  (Also I think based on Orlady's past history, that Orlady could object to the drafted Proposal B's wording as "original research".)  I want for you to state now what you want in the article, so that we could agree to your version or agree to my version.  Could you please put what you want to say, and what you think are valid secondary sources supporting it into Talk:Poquetanuck/VersionB, now?  Honestly, what do you want?  I am suggesting that we agree on one version or another, or have a third party make a judgment, and agree to stop edit warring about this article! doncram (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To try to be absolutely clear: Polaron, I understand that you believe that there should be just one article.  I understand that you believe that here the historic district here is substantially the same as the village.  However, as far as I known there are no secondary sources which directly support that, and honestly i don't know if the HD is the same as the village.  What I want is for you to agree to Proposal A, which would involve having there just be one article, but for the NRHP HD not to be mentioned until you or someone else gets the NRHP document which would allow for explicit description of the relationship.  Can you agree to that, please?  Or if not, make your different proposal that you want to ask me to live by, and we'll flip a coin or have Acroterion choose, to pick one.  This is a proposal to end edit warring on this one article!  Or are you saying you want to edit war indefinitely?!? doncram (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are maps that show they are the same. The historical society newsletter says the village is a historic district. What makes you think I oppose my own proposal? There are many sources outside the nomination form that indicate they are one and the same. There are none that indicate they are not the same. I doubt even with the nomination form you'll find an explicit statement to your liking. Like all other sources, it will probably talk about the two places interchangeably. As long as we can point to some indication of the relationship, it should be mentioned in the article. I want to have as much information that is available about both the village as a locality and as a historic district in the article, including the relationship (especially in this case where they are identical), even if that information has to come from non-NRHP sources like the Preston Historical Society. There are a good number of books about the history of Preston and its villages that can also be used. There are several historical maps of the area showing the extent of the village. --Polaron | Talk 17:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You say that there are maps and sources but you do not show any! Actually, if i had to bet now, my current guess would be that the NRHP document in this case will say that the historic district is essentially the village, and that an informed editor would then judge that it is appropriate to make just one unified article.  But there are no references so far provided which actually compare the village and the NRHP HD (unless you want to count the newsletter mention provided by Orlady which essentially equates them, although it does not attempt to discuss boundaries).  Let me revise what I said above, and just striked out.  Instead:  As far as I know there are no secondary sources available which directly support a mainspace statement that the village is substantially the same as the NRHP HD.  If there are such sources, and you can use them to construct any such statement, please demonstrate!  But in the absence of such demonstration, I think it is best (most consistet with wikipedia policies and guidelines, least confusing for future CT and NRHP editors) to go with Proposal A.  That leaves the way clear for development.


 * But okay, let's clarify what Proposal B is, so that it means what you want it to mean. Namely, if Proposal B is chosen, we will agree to the redirect of the NRHP HD name and merger of article, and you can further, later, add any secondary sources you want that speak about the NRHP HD.  Note I am deliberately phrasing proposal B to include explicit assertion that the NRHP HD is substantially the same as the village.  If you want not to assert that they are substantially the same, then that would be a different proposal.


 * I myself prefer A but would be willing to accept Proposal B to settle this case, a) if it is your request, and b) as long as it is agreed that there will be an unsourced assertion that the village and the NRHP HD are "substantially similar" (or that can become a sourced assertion if a source becomes available, or the assertion can be revised with sources to clarify whatever is the actual overlap, like whether or not the school and other modern properties are included or not). If there is not such an outright assertion, as in previous versions of the article which attempted to finesse the issue, then I am not myself willing to agree, because that would violate common sense and wikipedia policies too much for me to stomach (it would make the redirect a surprising redirect and violate policies on redirects, it would appear that two distinct topics are only accidentally covered in the same article, it would cause confusion for future readers and editors, it would not settle this case permanently well enough to be worth agreeing to).  Is proposal B now your request? doncram (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has always been. All I'm saying is that sources will be added for any significant statements once this is all settled. --Polaron | Talk 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I agree to B also then. Maybe others can say where they stand, too.  Otherwise, let's u and i try to make this work.  There's a template to draft, the article at Talk:Poquetanuck/VersionB can be revised, eventually this long discussion is to be archived (and linked to from the template probably). doncram (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Might I say: Hooray? Might we consider the above to close the discussion without the need for arbitrary judgments?  Acroterion  (talk)  02:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1
So much fuss over so little! I'm glad that the prolonged discussion of this brief article seems to be concluding with a reasonable approach. As far as the question as to what I prefer, I was reasonably satisfied with the last version of the article that I edited (I don't know why most of that version got trashed), although I also agree with Doncram's removal of the Georgian architecture category, I'd be happy to dispense with the silliness about the inn supposedly being haunted, and I believe there's some additional sourced material that could be added. It's evident to me that the HD and the village are the same place, and I don't comprehend the proposal to ban the article from mentioning the HD. I am afraid that also fail to comprehend either (1) the requests for formal agreements on the future editing the article (it looks to me like the agreement could end up longer than the article) or (2) the statement that a template needs to be drafted. --Orlady (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, well this "reasonable approach" could easily unravel. In pasting in the Proposal B version to the Poquetanuck page just now, I further added a citation needed tag on the claim that the HD is the same as the village.  I hope that the citation needed tag will not be disputed.  In particular, if Orlady would want to insist on the finessing approach to avoiding the currently unsourced claim of substantial similarity (and thus the citation needed tag), as in the last version she edited, then there is not an agreement yet, and I suppose we go back to edit warring.  I consider it an essential part of this agreement that Polaron and other editors in favor of Proposal B are personally accountable for the assertion that the HD is substantially the same as the village.  I am agreeing to Proposal B, which gives me some responsibility too, but if it turns out later that the HD is significantly different then I certainly will feel free to point out that I preferred A and that it was Polaron's judgment that turned out to be wrong.  I think Polaron is okay with that.  If we apply a similar agreement to many other cases, it will eventually turn out that Polaron was wrong in a few of them.


 * Also there is some importance now to Orlady understanding what is involved in this tentative agreement, if something like it is possibly to be used to settle other cases. Orlady, could you be more specific on what you don't understand about the request for formal agreement on future editing?  What Polaron and I want to agree to is a proposal that gives guidance to future editors, and bans ourselves from future edit warring against them.  In many other cases, if not this one, some other editor is likely to come along and want to start an NRHP HD article.  No one here is entitled to be a dictator preventing that, and in fact we both want to allow that to happen (see Polaron's criterion 4).  The suggestion is that we ask the future editors, as nicely as we can, not to start a separate NRHP HD article unless they have at least gotten the NRHP document and given some informed consideration to the question of whether there is need for a separate article.  I don't think we want them to create an NRHP article which has just, say, one additional sentence about the HD which does not already appear in the village article.  But it would sure help them to know how much more about the HD they would have to write, for it to acceptable to us, especially if they are aware of the previous edit warring on CT NRHP HDs.  Asking them not to start a separate NRHP article unless it is at least DYK length is a way of operationalizing that.  The DYK length is arbitrary, but it is well defined, widely understood, and there are DYK reviewers and tools like wp:DYKcheck which provide support to determine if a new article meets our request.  About drafting a template, I mean creating a polite, boxed statement of our request to future editors of this article, to appear with the wikiproject boxes above and to appear on the Talk page of the NRHP HD redirect to here.  Acroterion drafted something like that for one of the CT NRHP articles, but I can't find it now.


 * So if you agree to Proposal B, Orlady, you are agreeing to roll over and allow it, in the future, if someone else takes that much trouble in order to create a separate NRHP HD article. Other future editors might object to the split and possibly prevent it or revert it, if it happens, but you would be agreeing now not to work against it, yourself.  For a possible general proposal, I was asking Polaron to include some time limit on the agreement.  The effect of that would be that if there were a split proposal after 6 months or whatever time limit expired, we ourselves would be allowed to participate however we wish.  But this current Poquetanuck proposal has no time limit.  Orlady, are you willing to agree to that, or do you have any specific questions or a different proposal?  I would rather secure an agreement now that includes you, rather than going into what Polaron and I are supposed to do in the future if you don't agree. doncram (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Orlady apparently does disagree and edited the article back to a "finesse" type version avoiding claim of substantial similarity of the NRHP HD and the village. I take it as an admission that there are no secondary sources which establish substantial similarity.  Perhaps even she has found a source which establishes they are different?  Anyhow, I reverted her edit to the article.  I restored, hopefully temporarily, the previously edit-protected version of the article which contains no unsourced claims about the NRHP HD by not mentioning the NRHP HD.  I request to others to keep that version in place, until some consensus is established.


 * It could be we come to a consensus for a Proposal B version that omits Orlady, and such a consensus is allowed, but I would like for someone other than me to declare that we have such a consensus.  Or is Acroterion's agreement with Polaron and my positions enough?  If others agree, please do restore the Proposal B version.  Note, also, the NRHP HD infobox happens to appear in Poquetanuck Village Historic District which is actually still edit-protected and was not changed to be a redirect pointing to the Proposal B version. doncram (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * [EC] I must confess that I don't understand the problem that Doncram had with my wording, which changed "The Poquetanuck Village Historic District is substantially the same as the village.[citation needed]" to "It is the site of the Poquetanuck Village Historic District." By saying that the village is the site of the HD, we can establish an relationship but avoid the epistemological challenge of trying to determine whether the boundaries of a village that has no defined boundaries are the same as the boundaries (which may be precisely or loosely defined) described in the NRHP nom form.
 * Furthermore, I fail to understand why Doncram's concerns about my wording of that sentence made it necessary to revert all of my other changes to the article, such as changing "Historically, Poquetanuck was one of three distinct settlements in the town, the others being Preston City and Long Society. The village of Poquetanuck was the site of shipbuilding activity." back to "Historically, Poquetanuck was one of three distinct settlements in the town and was the site of shipbuilding activity." --Orlady (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have the time to discuss in detail, but it's my intention to limit this accommodation to just this article for the time being, based on Polaron and Doncram's apparent agreement. Let's see what comes of it. I removed the protections on other articles to allow others to edit, on the basis that the tit-for-tat edit war is over; that does not mean that the current accommodation sets a precedent. I will emphasize: the Doncram-Polaron Treaty applies only to Poquetanuck. Action on other articles is contingent on good behavior by the involved parties. We'll revisit this when I get back, and I ask that all involved parties confine themselves to 1RR (at the most). Let's not get bogged down in condemnations of "finesse." Sometimes finesse is a good thing, and I recommend that "is associated with" or something like is a sufficient term of art.   Acroterion  (talk)  15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, i have restored the Proposal B type version, with edit label stating this is the "consensus" version (meaning agreed upon by P, me, A). doncram (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is someone going to explain why my wording changes to this article were unacceptable, or am I supposed to accept that this article has one or more owners who don't want my help? --Orlady (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will point out that Doncram and Polaron should not interpret cooperation to exclude all other editors' contributions. Re: "meaning agreed upon by P, me, A." I have not "approved" any choice of wording and in fact have not been following the editing, lacking the time, and am about to sign off for the week.   Acroterion  (talk)  18:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My interpretation is that agreement to leave these articles merged hinges upon Polaron's criteria, which include that the "place" and the "HD" be "substantially the same". In this case, Doncram has repeatedly asked for provision of some specific reference to support that.  He has finally given in and agreed to include the assertion without this reference (which Polaron has stated would be added later), in order to come to some conclusion and move on.  Replacing "substantially the same" to "is the site of" returns this article to a category of articles not included in Polaron's criteria for merging.  Doncram is not agreeing that any "place" that "is the site of" a HD should be merged.  On the one hand, I'll admit that it took me a while to see this disticntion....on the other hand, Doncram, as he always does, is struggling to establish and maintain some systematic, mutually acceptable way to proceed forward and establish a framework for NRHP development.  In the absence of the reference and some positive assertion of sameness, the wording becomes the only expression of why this article differs from some other article where the HD is just some small part of a "place", as opposed to "substantially the same". Lvklock (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. If it is not believed that the two are substantially the same, and for that to be stated in mainspace, then it is not justifiable to force the merger and to block development of an NRHP HD article.  Note also that an "is the site of" statement is not adequate to explain to readers why they have been redirected to this article, and why two topics are seeming to be covered in one article. doncram (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is at least one source that would support a statement that "the village is listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1996," but because strenuous objections have been raised to making that sort of straightforward statement, the "site of" language was an attempt to provide true and sourced information without offending.
 * With or without an NRHP nom form, I believe that it is a philosophical impossibility to prove or disprove that the the boundaries of the village (which is a place without defined boundaries) are the same as the HD boundaries (which may be precisely or loosely defined) described in the NRHP nom form. Given that there is no precise definition of the village and it is likely that there is no precise definition of the HD, it's not only silly, but likely also inaccurate, to say they "essentially the same place".
 * Additionally, the fact that "essentially the same place" has been proposed as a criterion for covering a village and an HD in one article does not mean that the article needs include a statement that the two are "essentially the same place." All articles must meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, but articles don't say "the topic of this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Similarly, the discussion on this page of the need for "essentially similarity" does not mean that the article must use the words "essentially the same."
 * Seeing that no one has explained why it was deemed necessary to revert my "other" editorial improvements to this article, I am going to restore those changes. Further, I will insert the "village is listed" language and cite the source. --Orlady (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

PS (just wondering): In an article about a military hero who lost a leg and now wears a prosthesis, would you say that "he graduated from West Point", or would the fact that he now has a different leg cause you to say "he is essentially the same person who graduated from West Point"? --Orlady (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal C

 * Orlady, I hope you don't mind but i am going to copy your new version of the article to Talk:Poquetanuck/VersionC and restore the version that had some degree of agreement here. I am sorry if this will temporarily drop any other changes you made to the article, besides the main change of dropping the claim of substantial similarity.


 * Please understand that, with assistance of others, I have been trying to help run an orderly discussion of proposals here, and you declined to provide a proposal earlier, before there was a choice by some here to go with Proposal B. Your immediate protestations that you did not understand the proposal, and your immediate challenges by editing away from the Proposal B version, clarify for me that we need to be more explicit about what the agreement is asking of other editors.  Can you please understand, now, that it is a two part request:  a) asking that other editors not create an article at the NRHP HD name (unless they get the NRHP document and do a DYK-level article and judge that splitting is beneficial), and part b) asking that other editors do not remove the unsourced assertion in the article that the two are substantially the same, unless they improve upon it with sourced statements that clarify the relationship, preferably using the available free NRHP document that is expected to be the definitive source.  (Contrary to your assertion, from my experience with CT NRHP HD documents, I believe that document is highly likely to precisely define the exact boundaries of the NRHP HD.  We both now know that one oldish TN NRHP HD document did not define boundaries, but all the CT ones i have seen do.)  Other editors are free to add whatever they want, otherwise.  The way forward for editors to improve the article is very wide open.


 * Can you please be willing to accept the agreement between Polaron and me here, and abide by our request? I will understand if you want to make alternative proposals for other NRHP HDs not yet agreed upon, but can you please let us be done with this one, and move on?


 * If others wish, though, I could be willing to consider your version as a late proposal C. Or to consider if your version meets the part b request terms.  I tend to think it does not suffice, myself, because the source does not attempt to describe either the village or the HD, and I am 99% certain that the HD is very well described in the NRHP document.  So, really, why argue further when there is an agreement that at least P and I understood and accepted, and when the real information could be and eventually will be obtained in the NRHP document? doncram (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. In particular, could you and others please look at Talk:Quaker Hill, Connecticut and Talk:Norwichtown and work on developing those articles and/or proposals to end/prevent edit warring on those ones instead? Then there are a few hundred more to go thru, after. doncram (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In view of the way this discussion is being recast as a personal debate, I think it best to stand back and ask an uninvolved third party to step in and provide input. --Orlady (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC) PS - Please note that the fact the Doncram decided that Polaron and Orlady should discuss Quaker Hill and Norwichtown at this time does not obligate me to rearrange my own priorities to fit Doncram's plans. --Orlady (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno what is personal here, but third party comments are welcomed by me too. Invited mediator Acroterion opened discussion for 4 New London Cty issues:  this one, for Noank (which i think is settled), and for Quaker Hill and Norwichtown.  A is not available for awhile, but i hope it is possible we could still come to some agreement on the Q and N2 ones. doncram (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies to all: my time available for WP has been limited and fragmented, as I have personal commitments that have taken much of my time and focus as well as professional commitments, chief of which is finding work for my firm in what is still very much a recession in the construction business, and that must take priority. I will work on a summary review of the events associated with this article, as a limited objective.  Acroterion  (talk)  19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems an OK idea, I guess, if you can't wait for Acroterion to return. Kinda puzzles me why Orlady would have watched Polaron and Doncram struggle to this agreemnent and then immediately changed it. Lvklock (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been trying mightily to avoid engaging in direct one-on-one interaction with Doncram. (It hasn't been easy, here and in situations like the AfD he started for Downtown Hartford.)
 * My understanding was that Proposal B meant that the village and HD would be discussed in one article, not two, because they are substantially the same place. I did not realize that Doncram was insisting that the words "substantially the same as the village", and no others, must henceforth be used in the text of the article to describe the relationship of the village and the HD. The language that explicitly states that the HD is "substantially the same as the village" incorrectly suggests that each entity has a distinct and separate identity -- and a clear definition. The reality seems to be that the village is only vaguely defined -- it never has been formally defined, and we don't know how the HD is defined, other than by the names of the streets given in the infobox. (As I stated above, I believe that it is a philosophical impossibility to prove or disprove that the the boundaries of the village are the same as the HD boundaries.) Moreover, there is a source in which the Preston Historical Society (which wrote the NRHP nom) states that the village (not the core of the village, a part of the village, nor an area "substantially the same as the village") is listed on the National Register. My reading of the discussion above led me to believe that sourced statements could be added to the article. The statement I added is fully supported by the source I cited, and it replaced a statement that was (and is) tagged as needing a citation. --Orlady (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously we all like sourced statements best. However, I can see a distinction between the statements.  To me, "is the site of" is not anywhere near string enough to REQUIRE merged articles.  Polaron and Doncram are agreeing that they are similar enough to do so, and trying to find some way of stating that, in the absence of explicit info.  To me, your argument supports separate articles, since it's "a philosophical impossibility to prove or disprove that the the boundaries of the village are the same as the HD boundaries."  You seem to be arguing that they are not "substantially the same".  That leaves open the possibility that they are indeed distinct, and appropriate for separate articles. Lvklock (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be possible for Wikipedians to determine by consensus that the village and HD are substantially the same (for purposes of determining how to handle the subject matter in Wikipedia) without having to make a statement using those exact words in the article. By analogy, Wikipedians often reach consensus that a particular topic is notable (for purposes of determining how to handle the subject matter in Wikipedia), but the article does not explicitly state that the topic is "notable".
 * For what it's worth, I have withdrawn my proposed "is the site of" language in view of objections raised here. In its place, I favor the sourced statement "It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as the Poquetanuck Village Historic District" (because that is what the source says). --Orlady (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

edit warring condemnation
Would other editors please condemn Polaron's recent edits, starting and extending edit warring on NRHP-related articles in VT, RI, CT. He acknowledged at Talk:Wyoming, Rhode Island that he is engaging in what amounts to disruptive editing. This is wp:POINTY and is disruptive. He is now arguing at my Talk page, making some commitment to edit war in articles not related to Poquetanuck, in order to make some point about Poquetanuck. I can't deal with this. I have just agreed, above, to spend some quality writing time to craft an acceptable proposal out of Polaron's discussion. I am totally unwilling to continue, if Polaron is ignoring wikipedia policies and guidelines to try to win arguments by edit warring. THIS IS WHAT THE WHOLE DAMN ISSUE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT. If administrators early on had just blocked him for his boorish behavior and edit warring rather than discussing, then he would have been forced to put into words what were his wishes, and this would not have dragged on for many months. Please, others, tell him to stop.

I do grant there is a small point in what Polaron is edit warring about. He is apparently objecting to my creating the separate Poquetanuck Village Historic District article, which I did in order to further my discussion of the issues here. There is opportunity in the above discussion to respond to Acroterion's comments and to discuss it further. If I must, I will return to that discussion about how a contested merger/split proposal should proceed, instead of working on the overall agreement. Frankly I think it is stupid to fight for a merger proposal by undermining the split proponents' ability to show what a split would look like. Polaron seems, instead, to be fighting a long-term war, and is determined to establish a "status quo" and insist upon that. This is intolerable. I will discuss the issue of how to conduct a merger/split proposal and where alternative versions should be allowed above, sometime later. It is outrageous that Polaron should again be trying to get his way by edit warring. doncram (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will state for the record that I find Polaron's childish one-ups-manship disruptive and unuseful. While I am much more sympathetic with Doncram's frustration, I can see that his insistence on creating the HD article at this time during the discussion probably egged on Polaron's counter-productive behavior.  Here's my view overall.  Polaron tried to enforce his ideas of one article per place by redirecting wholesale every HD redirect he could find in CT, thus removing all redlinks which were in many cases properly disambiguated names, and in all cases could have worked to stimulate development of an informative HD article.  Since Polaron would not countenance the redlinks, Doncram reacted by beginning to create minimal stub articles in place of Polaron's often inappropriate redirects.  This drew anti-minimal stub people into the fray (like Orlady).  The idea of FORCING development in a wide variety of place articles, involving NRHP oriented editors in articles with problems beyond their interest and expertise drew me in.  Now Polaron insists that the status of things after his series of of disputed redirects is the status quo and should be allowed to remain until all discussion is then resolved.  However, he then draws out the discussion without doing much to actually come to a conclusion, thus getting his way by stonewalling attempts to actually reach consensus, leaving most of his disputed edits in place.  Why should he try to reach consensus when as long as he doesn't, things get to stay his way?  This, then, prods Doncram into action in order to see some movement somewhere.  Honestly, I'm tired of the whole thing.  Each and every step of this process created new specific issues to argue over.  I vote for returning everything to redlinks the way it was before Polaron became redirect happy.  IMO, this is no fun, nor am I seeing where it's useful to the individuals or to Wikipedia as a whole. As far as I can see, consensus building is all about being the stubbornest so that everyone else just goes away and lets you have your way. Lvklock (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)