Talk:Silvermine, Connecticut

pdf move
This sentence: "It is much easier to look at the boundary on this pdf map than the description below, but if the map for some reason becomes unavailable, here's the description:" is unprofessional. It is more reminiscent of a post-it note than an encyclopedia sentence. I also see it as not needed....I moved the pdf file to external links, where it is quite easily accessed without loss of "useability"...the page isn't that big that it would get lost in a huge sea of text TJ0513 03:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please review Wikipedia standards for civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. How do you expect to work with others if this is the tone you take? The way I had it was easier for a reader to use. Your way means the reader won't know that there's a map before going through the (more difficult) description. Your idea of "professional" seems to be to copy the limitations of written encyclopedias and use stilted prose. Is our aim here to impress others with our authoritative tone or get them information?Noroton 22:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to have less faith in the mental capacity of readers than I do. I do not see how removing this sentence would detract from the usability, or prevent access to information.  I'm not convinced in the need for this sentence, while you seem to be operating under the presumption that removing it hinders page usability, which isn't for definite.  Frankly, we're only talking about a three paragraph section of two sentences each.  So, you are failing to convince me of the need for this sentence, when the pdf link can be placed in external links.  I also don't believe taking the sentence out limits the article to the mold of a paper encyclopedia...if they really wanted, they could have this exact same sentence (but maybe reworded to "look at the picture on p. 241" or something, so it's certainly possible in both, but it's just my opinon this isn't the best worded sentence).  Finally, I shouldn't read into my tone, we'e just having stylistic differences, and remember that wikipedians don't "own" the pages they create.  TJ0513 14:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not the mental capacity of readers but their psychic abilities that I have less faith in than you do. A reader interested in the boundaries of the neighborhood shouldn't have to read through that description and THEN discover that there's an easier map to look at. I don't have to read rudeness into your tone, it's in your words.


 * Again, please review Wikipedia civility standards.


 * From WP:CIV:
 * Civility is a rule for the conduct of edits, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas  incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and  stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.


 * Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of  core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a  neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is the only principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. [...]


 * EXAMPLES [and I'm not saying they all apply to you]:


 * Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:


 * Rudeness
 * Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap")
 * Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
 * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
 * Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
 * Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.


 * Noroton 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa!!! I wasn't trying to be mean. You should review Assume good faith....I looked at what I said and if I was out of line by saying the sentence was reminiscent of a post-it note I'm sorry...I could have bene articulate, what I was really trying to convey was that the sentence was a bit informal, and non-encycplopedic in structure (see: The perfect article, "be engaged" towards the end about tone). What in your mind warrants an external link at all, because if *all* of them are related to the articles, we should put them in the beginning to all sections, no?, to make information more easily accessible and not have the reader bother with the article. This is not convincing to me. TJ0513 01:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I really resent cut-and-copy of "examples" if they don't apply.

Silvermine Center Historic District
Silvermine Center Historic District was created using text from this article and now is redundant to what is in this article. A merger makes more sense as this is a neighborhood article rather than a town article. If we remove a detailed discussion of the district to put into a separate historic district article, there's not much history left here. If we include one, a separate historic district article would be redundant. --Polaron | Talk 13:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article on the historic district should stand on its own only if there is more than about three large paragaphs of information on that specific subject, too much to fit into a section of the Silvermine neighborhood. Otherwise we're just forcing readers to go to another page. The National Register box could also be moved into the Silvermine article (I've seen that done before) and the redirect page could remain in categories and National Register site list pages to help readers to navigate to the information. It seems to me this would serve the readers best. Of course, it would be great if we had so much information on the historic district that we couldn't fit it into the Silvermine article. -- Noroton (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the topic is notable and there is more information available for the NRHP district than will be suited for the town article. It is fine for there to be the two articles, or the town article could be edited down to remove duplication of material. Note, the new separate NRHP article does have some separate material already, namely the NRHP infobox and the weekly listing source, and is the appropriate place to accumulate more specific information about the historic district. doncram (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you do a lot of great work with these kinds of articles, and I'd love to see an article on this subject, but only if it's worth the reader's extra bother to move from one page to another. We don't yet have that here. Please consider that it's easier for the reader to keep information centralized on one page until the subject is expanded. As far as I can see, there's just no question that it's easier for the reader to have it all on one page until Wikipedia presents enough information to make it easier for the reader to have it separate. I don't want to cut down on the Silvermine page just to avoid duplication, because that isn't in the readers' best interests either. When the reader has to click to get to another page, it's a distraction from thinking about the topic, especially if the reader is clicking from page to page to find something. I can't think of any benefits that the reader would miss out on if we make the historic-site page a redirect. Do you? -- Noroton (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems clear to me that the HD wants to be a separate article, with more detail about the HD, and that it is different than the neighborhood. However, yes, more material is needed for HD article.  I will put in request now for photocopy of its NRHP document (not available on-line), and will be willing to scan and share that myself (in fact, request sent).  So the article will be developed.  So, there is nothing to be gained by remerging, which only causes disruption and more work.  So decision now should be to keep separate, do not merge.   I am going to wp:be bold and remove the merger proposal tag.  If someone else wants to re-open the merger proposal, I won't object, but please be sure to do it right and put merger tags on both articles pointing to this discussion. doncram (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The historic district article is still currently redundant to the neighborhood article. Unless someone is going to develop a full-fledged independent historic district article that doesn't significantly overlap the main article, a merger is more appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 16:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The district article is not entirely redundant, as discussed previously already. It includes infobox and reference and other details not in the neighborhood article, and neighborhood article has plenty not relevant to HD article.  But I said already i am developing the article.  I am going to develop it. doncram (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Polaron on this one. It appears to me that the story of the National Register listing is all about the neighborhood. I see no benefit in separating that story from the article about the neighborhood. It's not as if the neighborhood article (about 12Kb right now) is so long that it needs to be split into subtopics for readability. --Orlady (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Furthermore, the link for the PDF of the nom form (in the HD article) returns the message "The PDF file for this National Register record has not yet been digitized," leading me to conclude that Doncram is going to have a difficult time using the electronic copy of the nom form to develop an article about the HD. --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In accomplishing the merger, I brought over a reference that was cited in the HD article but not here and the NRHP infobox. I also rearranged some images here, added a category, etc. --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have boldly merged the articles. The HD article did not have the minimum length for a DYK, the text of the HD article was the same as text in this article (except for a meaningless "The district has some significance" placeholder sentence), and the nom form is not actually available online as a basis for building the HD article.


 * Okay, i give up. I had in fact requested the NRHP document by the old process of email request for a photocopy, which O did not seem to understand, but I received an email back from the National Register contact person basically saying it was not convenient to provide that right now, and did i really want it or could i wait some indefinite time until the next batch of CT NRHP documents is scanned and uploaded.  This listing is not brand new, but somehow it was not included in their initial big push, and it is in the next batch to be done sometime.  I guess there will always be new batches, that they will save up new listings and work in batches.


 * Anyhow, given this determined opposition, I won't ask for special effort by the National Register staff on this one, and I accept the merger. It is a win for the opposition to development of NRHP information by people who do not actually have access to one of the most relevant sources of information, the NRHP nomination documents.  I don't see why there is such interest in opposing article development, by people who know or should know they don't have perspective about what is the information they are banning.  Yay, censorship and repression! --doncram (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My position hasn't changed from my comments above (under my old name of "Noroton") -- if enough information can be presented to justify a separate article, let's have that separate article. That was the case with the Cannondale Historic District article, which is why I supported that one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At some time in the future, there may be justification for creating a separate article about the historic district. The content of the article that I merged (this version) did not, however, justify the creation of a separate article. Except for the infobox and the useless placeholder statement "The district has significance described in its NRHP nomination documents", it duplicated content that was also in this article. Furthermore, that content was almost entirely about the neighborhood's efforts to achieve National Register designation -- not about the historic district. Finally, although the article linked to a URL that was identified as the National Register nomination form, because it was only a link to a placeholder page saying returns the message "The PDF file for this National Register record has not yet been digitized" -- thus, the information that was supposed to be the basis for building the HD article isn't readily available. --Orlady (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't clear: I agree with you, Orlady. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your views JohnWBarber. I appreciate that in the Cannondale Historic District case, where you first reaction was to oppose having the separate NRHP HD article, that after reading the NRHP document you agreed separate article would be better and you yourself developed it very nicely.  In general I expect that NRHP documents usually will support having a separate article, and expect it will be justified here too, which you seem to agree with too.  Very diplomatic of you to seem to agree with everyone. :)  Anyhow i defer to your preference to keep just one article until the NRHP doc is actually obtained.  I hope you might help develop other CT NRHP articles, too.  Thanks! --doncram (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Note, for all CT NRHPs, a good source is available, the NRHP nomination document, provided free of charge upon email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. And, in December 2010, the National Register has just made available online copies of almost all of the NRHP documents for CT: see search screen here. However the Silvermine Center HD document is not currently available on-line.

Currently, "Silvermine Center Historic District" is set to redirect to "Silvermine, Connecticut". (Equivalent notice being placed at Talk:Silvermine Center Historic District.) --doncram (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

haunted legends in silvermine
anyone know of any hautnings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.66.157 (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)