Talk:Stafford Hollow, Connecticut

removed material
"As early as 1779, Stafford Hollow was the site of a blast furnace, known as Phelps blast furnace, that processed bog iron ores. The Phelps furnace is reputed to have produced cannon and cannon balls, kettles, and pots for use by the Continental Army. It operated until 1840, when the local ore supply had been used up. " Reference:

I removed the above material from the article, as I cannot see, within the source stated, where the assertions are supported. I am interpreting the source, instead, as providing general information about the topic of bog iron ore in Connecticut, which might be okay as some kind of general See also type reference, but not supporting the direct assertions. Please advise me if I am wrong, of which page exactly each assertion is supported, if it is. doncram (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Doncram, the monograph is a PDF file. Acrobat Reader has search capabilities that allow searching of PDFs. If you use Acrobat Reader to search that article for terms such as "Stafford Hollow" and "Phelps furnace" you will find that the content is fully supported. I have restored it the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, sorry, i didn't think to try the PDF search, i see now that it does work. Most PDF files i happen across are not searchable ones, such as all or almost all NRHP-related ones from National Register, from NYS, and from other sources, including ones like the Registrar's official weely listings of NRHPs in past years, where scanning in way to allow searching would be hugely helpful.  Well, you can search in them, but you get no hits, and it takes a try or two to establish a PDF file is not searchable after all.  So it has been trained out of me, to try that.  I did go through the whole document twice.  Anyhow, adding a page number would help most readers. doncram (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I hear you. Those New York State National Register files are very annoying! They aren't actually PDFs. The worst part is the limitations of the viewer, which displays only one inch at a time (unless you print the document) -- have you found a way around that limitation?


 * As for adding a page ref to the document about iron and copper mining and smelting, this isn't an instance where a discrete fact appears in the source. I found it necessary to read a fair chunk of document to assemble the short snippet that I inserted into the article. --Orlady (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: note done. Skomorokh  17:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Stafford Hollow, Connecticut → Stafford (non-incorporated village), Connecticut — There is a large town, Stafford, and it includes a non-incorporated village or town center area also named Stafford. There was some historic usage of "Stafford Hollow" for the non-incorporated village area, including in a 1987 NRHP nomination document for "Stafford Hollow Historic District", and "Stafford Hollow" can be mentioned as an alternative, historic name in the village article. But Google maps does not recognize "Stafford Hollow" and uses Stafford instead for the village location. And my quick Google search does not find reliable current use of "Stafford Hollow" name for the village. And an official state list of "Principal communities" of Connecticut lists it as Stafford within town of Stafford. So I am requesting two moves to better names, with what i think is suitable extra disambiguating parenthetical phrases. doncram (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Stafford, Connecticut → Stafford (town), Connecticut

Oppose The town should always be the primary use of ", Connecticut" where the term is ambiguous as towns are of prime importance in Connecticut. Further, "Stafford Hollow" is quite a common name and is referred to in many public documents and books. A valid alternative name in common use is often used to avoid parenthetical disambiguation. There is no benefit to going to an ambiguous name for the village. --Polaron | Talk 17:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Naming convention wise, I think that is not right. I have the impression that Wikipedia policy&practice on naming is to use the primary name of a place, adding a disambiguating parenthetical phrase if necessary, rather than calling a place by a secondary name.  And, the use of disambiguating parenthetical type-identifying phrase "(village)" or "(town)" is common in New York State placenames, for example.  I do have the impression that "(town)" or other disambiguating parenthetical type-identifying phrases are not yet commonly used in Connecticut placenames, although perhaps they should be. --doncram (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Stafford is the name of the legal incorporated town that includes multiple unofficial villages, including Stafford Hollow and Stafford Springs. The indication that the place called Stafford Hollow may have been known at some time in the past as "Stafford" does not justify calling it "Stafford" in Wikipedia (it's "Stafford Hollow" for crocodile's sake!) or disambiguating the town name. BTW, Stafford Springs is now the main center of the town. --Orlady (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, either you or I misunderstand something. It is my impression that "Stafford Hollow" is the term that may have been used at some time in the past, which does not justify calling it "Stafford Hollow" in Wikipedia. It is my impression that its common usage name is "Stafford". Links to actual current usage examples, official from the town or otherwise would be most helpful. --doncram (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment As nominator, I support the move, although i am open to actual other information coming forward. Checking some other CT placename sources that Orlady has specifically advocated using previously, I am not finding support for "Stafford Hollow". The CT post office names link here shows Stafford, Staffordville, Stafford Springs. (The Principal communities list here shows the same three.) The CT list of placenames not having post offices here shows Stafford Village. The U.S. GNIS system is not currently working for me to check (at site perhaps here and other urls that have worked previously for me). However i think all GNIS locations are picked up in Google maps. I further checked Mapquest, which shows Stafford but not Stafford Hollow. Further, from the article I think that it is only a 1944 history and a 1986/1987 NRHP nomination document that even mention Stafford Hollow, much less establish that there is a place commonly referred to by that name now. Honestly i think it is called Stafford or maybe Stafford Village now, not Stafford Hollow. --doncram (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC) GNIS identifies this "populated place" as "Stafford" and lists "Stafford Hollow", "Furnace Hollow", and "Stafford Village" as variant names, with the same reference (Hughes, Arthur and Morse S. Allen. Connecticut Place Names. Hartford, Connecticut: The Connecticut Historical Society, 1976) cited for all names. I can't pretend to know why they picked "Stafford" as the primary name. The postal service shows 3 post offices serving the town of Stafford(!). "Stafford" is the accepted name for zip code 06075, "Stafford Springs" is the accepted name for zip code 06076 (with "Union" as an accepted alternate, presumably because the PO also serves the incorporated town of Union, and "Stafford" and "West Stafford" as "not acceptable names), and "Staffordville" is the accepted name for zip code 06077. Google maps places the 06075 post office in Stafford Hollow, so it is reasonable to guess that the post office nomenclature might be the reason why GNIS prefers "Stafford" to "Stafford Hollow." --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The list of non-post office place names also shows Stafford Hollow if you look more carefully. --Polaron | Talk 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, yes over in a different column. Is the Stafford post office in the hamlet?  That would tend to establish that the hamlet is called Stafford officially.  The non-post-office mention of a place of the name "Stafford Hollow" unfortunately does provide a location for the place of that name. --doncram (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, Doncram, Connecticut doesn't have "hamlets". I can't help but think that this continuing effort to impose New York State nomenclature on Connecticut places is a symptom of disguised contempt for the state of Connecticut. I can't understand, thought, why someone with contempt for -- and apparently no independent knowledge of -- a geographic topic would attempt to control that topic's treatment in Wikipedia, in persistent opposition to other contributors who have direct knowledge and interest in it. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The NHRP nomination for the historic district (which calls this place "Stafford Hollow") provides good documentation of the situation. It notes that Stafford Hollow was the site of the town's common, dating from the 1700s. Also, it explains that before 1845, town meetings rotated among the different sections of Stafford (presumably including Stafford Hollow), but in 1845 a town hall was built in Stafford Hollow. Stafford Hollow was also the location of two churches. It is reasonable to infer that because Stafford Hollow was once the site of some of the town's more important civic functions, some people referred to it as "Stafford Village" or just "Stafford" (aside: in some other New England towns, such a village is called "Center," like "Manchester Center"). However, "Stafford Hollow" seems to be the most persistent name for this location.
 * Also, the draft economic development plan uses "Stafford Hollow". The town website even calls the Stafford post office as the Stafford Hollow post office (technically incorrect but shows that local people call the place "Stafford Hollow" rather than the post office name). Also, this event announcement  shows Stafford Hollow. The use of Stafford Hollow is quite common when one is distinguishing between the village and the town. Again, there is no benefit in using an ambiguous name when a non-ambiguous commonly used alternative name is available. --Polaron | Talk 20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The obvious benefit of using the "ambiguous" name is to call it by its actual name. Who are we to try to impose a different name?  When 2 people in a room might have the same first name, there is a tendency for people to try to be specific in some way when referring to one or the other, but when you write down their name on an attendance list you don't give them different names. --doncram (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual place named "Stafford" is the town. This is the town's official name. The town is the only legally established entity involved in this discussion. Since it is the legal municipality, it is the place that should be covered by the Stafford, Connecticut article. As Polaron has documented, Stafford Hollow is the principal name for the unofficial village that is the subject of the Stafford Hollow article. This notion that Stafford Hollow must necessarily be called "Stafford" instead of "Stafford Hollow" -- because it is the former center of the town of Stafford and at some time may have been called "Stafford" -- seems wrongheaded. Why disambiguate where no ambiguity exists? --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unless there is another place in Connecticut called "Stafford Hollow", then the article is at its correct name. If the official name of the village is Stafford Hollow, then that right there eliminates any chance of it being moved to a name that doesn't include "Hollow".  TJ   Spyke   15:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding. "Stafford" is more likely the "official" name of the village, and "Stafford Hollow" is a less-used alternative name, as far as i can tell.  However, there is no truly official name, because the "village" is not incorporated, it is what would be called a hamlet or an unincorporated community elsewhere.  TJ Spyke perhaps makes judgment based on what is in the wikipedia article now?  That is... not a reliable source. --doncram (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Stafford" is the official name of the entire town, which is the only officially named and legally established entity involved in this discussion. Since it is the legal municipality, it is the place that should be covered by the Stafford, Connecticut article. Even if there is a possibility of ambiguity, it should be clear that the name of the legal municipality is the primary usage of "Stafford, Connecticut." Any need for disambiguation can be adequately handled in the article text, or possibly a hatnote. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the most significant feature appears to be the historical district. Certainly no need to force an arbitrary, wikipedia-specific, disambiguation on to an otherwise perfectly valid name. older ≠ wiser 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Some of the editors (me now included) agree that for Stafford Hollow 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.

For now, "Stafford Hollow Historic District" redirects to "Stafford Hollow, Connecticut" and content, such as it is, is merged. (Equivalent notice being placed at Talk:Stafford Hollow Historic District.) --doncram (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)