Talk:Roaring Brook sites

development
This article was just now started in a semi-automated way, and could use more attention, perhaps including use of sources that might be found online. Please help! :) Try and  and Try, for National Park Service material: Or develop from the sources already included in the article! Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Are separate articles justified?
I am not sure why these particular 2 sites are merged while other archeological sites in the Lower Connecticut valley have separate articles. These particular 2 sites are from different archeological time periods and are only related in their name used in the National Register. We should probably merge all these sites together in a single article relating to the multiple property submission that these properties are part of. Because the information is restricted, there is really no point in having stand-alone articles for each. --Polaron | Talk 15:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very difficult to justify stand-alone articles about individual archaeological sites about which there is no information other than "it is listed in the National Register." However, I don't think that the solution is to merge them into an article about the multiple property submission, which is nothing more than a report -- and a report that also seems not to be available, and likely is heavily redacted if it is available. The notable topic associated with all of these sites is not the report, but rather is "Woodland culture in the Lower Connecticut valley" (or some other appropriate geographical region). I've looked in vain for an appropriate article on that topic, but it apparently does not exist yet. When such an article is created, the individual archaeological sites should be named in the article, and pages like this one should be redirected to it. Do you have enough information to start that article, Polaron? --Orlady (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of the dissertation of the lead archeologist that wrote the NRHP MPS document (Kevin McBride) where the details of the NRHP-listed sites and more are described, so I do have access to information to start a basic article. I had initially thought of doing that (see ) but didn't have enough free time to do a more thorough reading. I probably won't have time to work on it for the next few months at least though. I can, however, send a copy to whoever is willing to write up a basic article. --Polaron | Talk 16:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's an excellent start, Polaron. If you could provide a full citation to the dissertation (or other source that you used), I think we could add a list of the thirteen National Register-listed sites and move that page to "live" article space. --Orlady (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)