Talk:Weathersfield Center, Vermont

Merger proposal
Discussion was initiated at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Vermont, and is replicated below for convenience. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Imported discussion
User:Polaron has at least three times redirected Weathersfield Center Historic District article about an NRHP HD to a stub article Weathersfield Center, Vermont which he has asserted to be a community (I don't know if that is true) and to be the same as the historic district, which is unsourced and probably false. At least two editors (Nyttend and me) have restored the NRHP HD article. This is very boring continuing a low-grade edit war. Polaron, if you have something to say, like to make a merger proposal, please say it here. Or, if you wish to open an AFD about the NRHP HD, please go ahead. But it is wp:disruptive for you to try to get your way to remove a valid, sourced wikipedia article by low-grade edit warring. doncram (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, great, in response to my opening this discussion section, I see that Orlady has joined the low-grade edit warring and has redirected the article, rather than discussing here. I restored the article.  This is tedious and stupefying dealing with such.  I do see that Orlady has found an NRHP application document or extract to link to, which should inform some discussion, at: Weathersfield Center Historic District document at CRJC.ORG.  But please, Orlady, you are an experienced wikipedia editor and an administrator, and I think you should respect the process that I am trying to set up for merger/split discussions to happen here. doncram (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Doncram, I was (and still am) horrified to see your version of Weathersfield Center Historic District. I believe that you know better than to create pages in article space that consist of statements like "It includes one or more examples of Federal style architecture" (that is not encyclopedic information, it is a declaration of ignorance) and "It presumably includes at least part of the unincorporated community of Weathersfield Center, Vermont, but, like other NRHP-listed historic districts, is not likely to include the entirety of that community" (that's even worse). I merged the two inconsequential stub articles about the same place into a single inconsequential stub article that does not make any nonencyclopedic speculative statements. My reasons for this kind of edit have been spelled out at length elsewhere, including Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut. --Orlady (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * About the vague but accurate statements: those are what are justified in the absence of better information.  I am more horrified by unsourced and sometimes false assertions that read better but which equate villages and NRHP HDs, when it has been repeatedly proven that NRHP HDs are often/usually different from villages they contain or that contain them.  It is encyclopedic to show limitations of actual knowledge.  It is unencyclopedic to make wp:OR claims.  I restored the separate NRHP HD article, which has the NRIS source.  Please add merger proposal tags if you like, and direct the merger discussion here, for efficiency of discussion with similar VT NRHP HD articles. doncram (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your statements are not "vague but accurate." All that they accurately communicate is "Look, Ma, I don't actually have any solid information about this subject, but I spun it into a Wikipedia article, anyway!" Contrast my current text in the Weathersfield Center article ("The Weathersfield Center Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1980. Federal style architecture is represented in the historic district.") with your statements ("A historic district including some or all of the area, Weathersfield Center Historic District, was listed on the National Register in 1980" and "It includes one or more examples of Federal style architecture"). I hope you will agree that I wrote simple declarative statements that are fully supported by the NRIS database entry (your sole information source), whereas your statements were speculation based on that database entry.


 * Frankly, if you were truly interested in creating useful information in Wikipedia (rather than expanding the number of National Register stub articles), you would be spending your time writing articles based on sources such as this comprehensive compilation on National Register properties and historic districts near the Connecticut River in Vermont instead of creating Wikidrama all over New England. --Orlady (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)