Jump to content

Talk:Clarksville, Missouri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge Proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As I suggested on the Clarksville Historic District page, I think these two pages could do with a merger. As it stands, this article is fairly brief. If the article on the historic district could be merged in, then I believe we could drop one stub article and improve another (at least if the historical district section were expanded slightly) with a section that is more than the standard statistical information on a given town.Tyrenon (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Opposed to this merge. An entire district on the National Register of Historic Places is not only worthy of its own article, it is a related but still separate topic than Clarkesville, Missouri, like Colonial Williamsburg is a separate topic from Williamsburg, Virginia or Old Town San Diego is separate topic from San Diego, California. An article being "fairly brief" is reason to expand it. Wikipedia has no deadline. It takes time for articles to develop and simply because one user is in a hurry to see a well-developed article is not a reason to delete/merge it.--Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference I see in both cases is that Williamsburg, VA and San Diego are both notable on their own above and beyond a procedural entry (i.e. a simple listing of census facts and geographic location) and brief history. San Diego is one of the largest cities in California and in the US (and is subject to numerous justifiable content forks based on its length), and Williamsburg served as the capitol of Virginia for about a century (and also has a few forks of its own in addition to CW...again, justifiable, and it probably needs another one for history). In the case of Clarksville, most or all of the town would seem to be covered by the historic area and the town is entangled with the historic area to an extent Williamsburg isn't. Clarksville may merit a section on its history (I can't find a reliable section on that, but it seems to have been notable for a time as a port on the Mississippi), but above and beyond that there is no way I can see it being more than a slightly-glorified stub.Tyrenon (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging if the historical significane of the NRHP district is directly related to the history of the city. In other words, if what can be written about the historic district also holds true for the city, then there is significant overlap and a merged article would lead to a better presentation for both topics. --Polaron | Talk 03:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no information yet developed that the NRHP HD is nearly the same as the city in terms of its boundaries. Even if the city included the entire HD, the NRHP HD article on its own can be developed to include a possibly long list of contributing properties which would not be suitable for the city article; the city article can continue include claims about celebrities who grew up there and whatnot that is not appropriate for the NRHP HD article. Note, I believe that views like what Polaron actually states, essentially to Support merging IF certain conditions are met, as meaning the article should not be merged, unless and until all those conditions are met. So I read the discussion so far to show 3 effective opposes to the merger now. The best way to resolve the situation would be for some interested editor to obtain the authoritative, extensive, reliable NRHP application document that is available for free from the National Register and develop the NRHP historic district article. doncram (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging This merge discussion began just over three years ago, and thus far, the only discussion is essentially split 2 for merging and 2 for opposing (not counting my opinion yet). The last discussion on this was June 29, 2009, so I think we need to wrap this up. Looking at both articles, they are both very, very short. Clarksville, Missouri, itself only has a population of 490, so comparing it to San Diego, California and Williamsburg, Virginia makes no sense. An article about the historic district, which I would assume is within the city boundaries itself, is still a very short stub after three years. It really makes the most sense to merge the historic district article into this one, since they are both related and both very short. WTF? (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Clarksville, Missouri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Clarksville, Missouri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clarksville,_Missouri&oldid=1200210416"