Talk:Downtown Hartford

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 September 2009. The result of the discussion was Speedy close and speedy keep.

sources and development

It came up in a discussion elsewhere that this Hartford Downtown MRA is a source for this article. That document, prepared in 1984, mentions 7 historic districts, not necessarily NRHP ones. The Downtown North HD was NRHP-listed in 1988. doncram (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

undue coverage

The deletion discussion that I had opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Hartford was abruptly closed, I think unhelpfully, amidst accusations of bad faith. This cut off legitimate discussion, dismissed some voting already by parties that I think were not involved or aware of any previous disagreements, and in my view "rewards" bad faith disruption of a legitimate discussion. I won't reopen it now myself as an AFD, though IMO the multiple reasons for the AFD remain valid.

One issue not talked out adequately, anyhow, is the extent to which NRHP listings within any "Downtown Hartford" area should be covered in a general article about the area. Note there are approximately 42 NRHP listings identified as being in the downtown area of Hartford in National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut. Only the most important of those should be mentioned in an article about the neighborhood. NRHP designations are not that important. Yes, they exist, but so do other types of zoning districts, school districts, fire districts, etc. Restaurants listed in Zagat's are more important, perhaps. Also, in coverage of the downtown area (e.g. in lists of attractions of Hartford, in the 2005/2006 New York Times real estate article having "Downtown Hartford" in its title, and elsewhere), I see some mention of other historic sites, but no mention of any of the HDs themselves as being important in the context of the downtown area. Note this is a comment on what should be included in this article on the neighborhood. It's a different question than whether there could or should be a separate list-article on the historic districts of Hartford, split out from the Hartford NRHP list. Development of "metes and bounds" or other detailed information about the HD designations could go on somewhere else, but seems inappropriate in this neighborhood article. Wouldn't readers rather learn where they can get something good to eat? :) doncram (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so fix it. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i took a stab at it, by moving the description of NRHP HDs to a new section "Downtown historic districts" in the National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut article. Although the text is somewhat duplicative to the table below it, the size of the section there is not excessively undue coverage, given the topic of the article. I put a hidden comment documenting that the section title is linked to from this Downtown Hartford article. Hopefully this is an acceptable solution which restores this article to balance and which retains other wikipedia use of the material that was developed. doncram (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted your changes to this article, as they eviscerated the article. Removing the descriptions of historic districts and replacing them with a link in a "See also" section pointing to National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut was not helpful to readers. Your guesses about which might be the "most salient historic places in downtown Hartford" were nothing but guesses. The article needs more sources, not more original research.

You are correct that your changes to the NRHP list article are not ideal, but I did not touch that article. --Orlady (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that Doncram reverted my changes: Am I to understand that articles about neighborhoods are not allowed to discuss historic and architecturally significant buildings, because these are the exclusive possession of the exalted NRHP wikiproject? And furthermore, that neighborhood articles must not mention name changes of streets, when those street names are included in the names of National Register historic districts? And that neighborhood articles must not say anything about the restoration/redevelopment of commercial blocks that local people successfully nominated to the National Register?

Sorry, but I don't accept those theories. A city's downtown often is defined largely by its landmark buildings, old retail blocks undergoing redevelopment, historic residential neighborhoods, and similar elements. These topics are not the sole province of the National Register of Historic Places.

If certain people don't like neighborhood articles, they are free to refrain from editing those articles. --Orlady (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing how seriously the addition of the new section damaged the integrity of the NRHP list article, I moved the descriptions out of that section and into the table, then deleted the new section. Accordingly, I will edit this article again, including removal of the unsourced guess about the most "salient" historic places. --Orlady (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about, about name changes and "theories" and so on. You seem to be projecting views upon me which I probably don't subscribe to. The issue I see is that an article about a neighborhood should describe the neighborhood, its importance, and the more salient elements within it. It should not provide an exhaustive list of restaurants included in the area or a list of all NRHP-listed properties or any other type of directory. I do believe that the Connecticut State Capitol and Bushnell Park are actually salient within the neighborhood, but I removed the "salient" wording upon your challenge. doncram (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "name change" refers to the fact that the section on the Ann Street Historic District includes the sourced information that Ann Street is now named Ann Uccello Street. If anything, that detail is more relevant to Downtown Hartford than it is to the historic district (other than the fact that Ann Street is no longer findable), but I did not leave that detail in the NRHP listing table.

As for "salient elements", I contend that the 42 NRHP-listed properties, including the elements of the 8 historic districts, are important aspects of downtown Hartford. They are a major part of its history; they help to define its streetscapes; many of them are important as commercial, governmental and cultural centers; and they may present both opportunities and challenges to the area's future vitality. I have two main problems with your assertion that the Connecticut State Capitol and Bushnell Park are the most "salient" historical elements in the neighborhood: (1) it is your unsourced personal opinion (and I could easily form equally unsourced arguments to the contrary) and (2) the primary dictionary definitions of "salient" relate to height and visual prominence, but neither of these is particularly tall.

I agree with you that the neighborhood article should not provide an exhaustive list of restaurants. Did someone propose that it should? --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the opening statement in this thread. doncram (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, your edits in the NRHP list-article make it better. I agree that the individual HD descriptions serve better as description entries in the table there. Here, though, the current version of the article is now only somewhat worse. It contains excessive description of NRHP historic districts which are relatively unimportant, even perhaps relative to individual NRHP listings that may be more important but are not mentioned. And this excessive material now exactly duplicates passages in the Hartford NRHP list-article (where it is more appropriate). A different approach, perhaps based on describing major commercial avenues, could be tried? Or perhaps follow the approach of hitting the salient points of the neighborhood as mentioned in the New York Times article or other general articles about the neighborhood. I believe my edits reducing the NRHP HD coverage were an improvement to this article but i won't contest further now. Perhaps another editor later will try to fix the article. doncram (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is admittedly in need of improvement -- it's largely unsourced, it omits key information, and it's a patchwork of discrete elements that are not very well connected. Removing most of the content, however, is not likely to lead to improvements. --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my checking a couple Hartford attractions websites, which can provide some perspective on what is viewed as important locally, it is my view that none in the list of NRHP HDs deserves individual mention in an article about the neighborhood, that they rate lower than a number of individual historic places such as the Wadsworth Atheneum and so on. Filling in all the more important attractions and mention of schools and so on down to the minor importance of these NRHP HDs would make an excessively long article. I think removing them is an improvement, clearing away clutter that will never properly be part of a good article. It's funny, you have sometimes suggested that I want to overstate the importance of NRHP places whereas you have what you believe to be a better perspective, but here our roles seems to be reversed. doncram (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Okay, I have replaced what i view as undue coverage of NRHP historic districts by one sentence "The downtown area includes eight historic districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places: the Ann Street Historic District, the Buckingham Square Historic District, the Department Store Historic District, the Downtown North Historic District, the Elm Street Historic District, the High Street Historic District, the Main Street Historic District No. 2, and the Pratt Street Historic District." Hopefully that should suffice. The linked articles are not greatly developed, but include as much or more material as was here. Please consider wp:Sofixit if u think the links aren't great, i.e. please develop the linked articles. The material seems relatively low-priority for direct inclusion in the Downtown Hartford article itself. --doncram (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Census Tract 5021 nearly approximates the official neighborhood boundaries. Differences: tract includes State Police Academy; tract includes area between Sheldon St and Whitehead Hwy (east of So Prospect); tract excludes block defined by So. Prospect, Sheldon, Main, Buckingham; tract excludes area between I-84 main line and Exit 49 ramps; tract excludes block defined by I-84, Flower, Cogswell, Capitol.
The main part of Downtown is almost coincident with voting district 5e. Downtown North (north of I-84) is part of voting district 5c. A small portion between I-84 and the Exit 49 ramps is part of voting district 5d. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs)

The public library's webpage about downtown has Census 2000 and historical demographic data for the area defined as Downtown. --Orlady (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Old Wounds (Move back to main Neighborhoods article)

I hate to bring this up, but why is this a separate page on Wikipedia? There isn't much here that disinquishes it from the other neighborhoods in Hartford and I think it would be a nice addition to rounding out the Neighborhoods of Hartford, Connecticut article. There is only 351 words in it's current form and that isn't much more than other neighborhood writeups like Clay-Arsenal and Upper Albany with 320 words and even less words than Frog Hollow's writeup with 443. I think we should move this text back to the main neighorhood article and redirect this one to that. Especially since the stentence on the Neighborhoods article isn't 100% accurate (with some court buildings in Frog Hollow. I want to know your thoughts since this was a debated concept before. Joshfinnie (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Downtown Hartford. 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) 12:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]