Talk:Wilton Center Historic District

Material about included properties
I was trying to develop this material, but find that the Wilton Town website is inaccurate or that it is describing a different historic district.

Removed passage (which I had not finished editing): It includes several properties that are individually listed on the NRHP:
 * Daniel Gregory House, 11 Belden Hill Road, from c. 1775
 * Original Congregational Church Parsonage, 65 Ridgefield Road, 1832
 * Old Town Hall, 69 Ridgefield Road, 1832
 * Congregational Church, 70 Ridgefield Road, 1790
 * Nathan Comstock House, 77 Ridgefield Road, c.1810
 * Winton House, 80 Ridgefield Road, 1926
 * Halsey House, 98 Ridgefield Road, 1934
 * Deodate Davenport House, 108 Ridgefield Road, 1791

It also includes
 * Alan Spirer House, 16 Deacon’s Lane, from 1988

References The passage was at first a cut-and-paste, by another editor, from the reference. Since it is just a list, I guess there is not too much of a copyright issue, but i was starting to edit it in part so that it would not be just a cut-and-paste. However, the source asserts that those 8 buildings are NRHP listed, but while checking on them individually I am finding that not to be the case for several (including Daniel Gregory House, Halsey House, and Deodate Davenport House), or at least not under the names given here. Also, it is not clear from the source that this list of properties in HD #2 of Wilton is the same HD as Wilton Center HD. So I am taking that website as a non-reliable source for this information, although it is suggestive of some info that could eventually be added to the article.

What the article really needs is for someone to get the NRHP application document which would list the contributing properties and serve as a reliable source. doncram (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because these are not separately listed on the NRHP. They are contributing properties to the district. The districts are identical. It was first a local historic district, which was later nominated to the NRHP. If you insist on splitting these, you should allow them to develop not inhibit their development. It might as well redirect to the town article if you're not going to allow editors to edit the article. --Polaron | Talk 16:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot see the alleged problem here. It's clear (from the NRIS coordinates and various pages at the town's website) that the Wilton Center historic district on the National Register is the same as the town's Historic District Number 2. The town's list of specific properties included in the historic district is therefore a perfectly reasonable thing to include in the article. It is not necessary to have a copy of the paperwork that the town submitted to the National Park Service to determine this. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This list, a cut-and-paste, was removed three times now by me, the first time because there was no source whatsoever and the second time because the source had problems, at least for my interpretion of it, which i stated in my edit summary that i would discuss here on the Talk page, which I did. The third time i removed the list was by simple Undo because it was clear the editor adding it back in had not considered the Talk discussion (in fact i think he jumped in to revert before the promised Talk section was added by me) and it did not correct or address anything relating to the problems or questions i pointed out.  All of my edits were perfectly civil I believe, and should not be interpreted as unfriendly or anything like that.  Orlady, your edit does respond at least somewhat, although the footnote added by your starting with a reversion is not as far developed as the footnote I was developing, and which appears above. doncram (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not doing a full cleanup job after my initial edit to the article. I got distracted by real life. I have now done additional cleanup.
 * However, I take issue with your suggestion that there was something wrong with cutting and pasting the list of properties into the article. That list is what it is, not a creative work that is being plagiarized. --Orlady (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)