Talk:Hazardville, Connecticut

Proposed merger

I am proposing that Hazardville Historic District be merged into this article.

Previous discussions are at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut/Archive 3#Hazardville Historic District and User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list#Hartford County HDs. My comments here are based on the second of these discussions.

First reason for combining the articles is that the Hazardville and Hazardville Historic District articles are about the same topic. The National Register nomination form clearly indicates this. It says (in part): "Hazardville is a section of the Town of Enfield... The village owes its origin to the Hazard Powder Company that operated along the nearby Scantic River from 1835 to 1913. The village grew up on the main street, now Hazard Avenue, that runs roughly parallel to and approximately 1,500 feet north of the river. The powder company site, known as Powder Hollow, and its adjacent 19th-century community are the subject of this nomination." In addition, I note that the historic district is not limited to extant buildings, but includes potential archeological resources (remains of the gunpowder factory) in Powder Hollow.

Secondly, the historic district article contains very little information that is not either (1) already in the village article or (2) easily addable to the village article.

The rationale that has been offered for having separate articles seems to be that:

(1) the centroid of the historic district (as recorded in the NRIS database) is (apparently) more than 0.17 miles from the centroid of the census-designated place (this arbitrary distance being part of an agreement reached between two users to end an ongoing content dispute over other articles),

(2) "the NRHP HD is focussed on the 19th-century community, and it is therefore different from the modern-day community which should be the focus of the neighborhood/village/hamlet article," and

(3) having separate articles is believed to provide greater opportunity for future contributors to add content.

I find none of these arguments for separate articles to be compelling. Accordingly, the village and the associated historic district should be covered in one article, which I believe should be called Hazardville, Connecticut. --Orlady (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I comment now in response to mention of this merger proposal at a WikiProject Connecticut page. I noted the proposal previously but did not choose to comment as I did not expect consensus would be achievable. The above merger proposal dates from the middle of a long, general dispute about several hundred CT NRHP districts and hamlet/village/town/CDP topics which was mostly resolved, despite repeated objections of the merger-proposing editor, by a compromise that decided them all temporarily. In this case the temporary solution was to leave the two articles separate. The solution was intended to apply primarily to cases where no one had bothered to collect the NRHP documents and/or otherwise actually collected information to support a more informed decision. Here, there is now more information available, namely the NRHP nomination document. I believe the document supports having a separate article on the historic district, which may include detailed descriptions and photos of individual contributing properties, and a separate article on the hamlet / village / CDP / whatever of modern-day and historic Hazardville. Note, the National Register of Historic Places' NRIS database describes the historic district as being located in Hazardville and vicinity (emphasis added). Another consideration that i believe is relevant for merger/split decisions is whether local or other editors might visit the place, take photos to upload, and develop the articles. I would tend to want to defer to preferences of a local editor or other editors actually investing their time in developing material in articles on CT NRHPs. Are there any local editors or others willing to visit, here? Or to seriously develop the material about either or both topics (the hamlet and the historic district)? In the absence of that, I would say keep to the compromise solution, that is, keep the articles about the two topics separately. --doncram (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Point of information: What WikiProject Connecticut page mentioned this merger proposal? --Orlady (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of continuity and completeness, Wikiproject Connecticut, Section 5.1 and related section on talk page. Lvklock (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, even better, this one provided by Orlady below that actually works: Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut#Articles pending merge. Lvklock (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The "vicinity" refers to the undeveloped area south of the main village that is thought to have archeological artifacts. I would be willing to develop the Hazardville topic as a single article if I am given permission by Doncram to do so. It is quite clear from the nomination form that the original village and historic district are fundamentally the same. --Polaron | Talk 15:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Aren't those archeological areas outside of the current village, implying a difference btwn the focus of an HD article vs. an article about the current village. Anyhow, could we please set aside the question of merger/split, and work to develop material in the current structure? For example, i had long ago inserted a statement about the 4 salient buildings in the HD. More could/should be said about each. Also, Polaron, could you possibly please create a map of the HD that could be included into the article? I notice that the nomination form gives a lot of data points in its UTM list of coordinates defining borders, and it describes that there are 2 interior, deliberately excluded areas. (Also there is the Powder Hollow and/or other portions of the Scantic River State Park, whose relationship is unclear. See map, linked from the Hazardville, CT article.) This is hard to understand, and hard to convey in text; a map would be wonderful. Actually developing useful material like that would seem more productive than anything else, to me. Also, perhaps it would be good to work at developing all the NRHP articles in this county, first, before revisiting any merger/split decisions. It's okay to develop these articles here, though, but if there is no pattern of general development, it may seem valid to question anyone's motivation for pushing on merger/split changes from the default agreement that we reached. I'd really prefer to see some good development, before revisiting the merger/split decision here. In fact, i'm going to try removing the merger proposal for now. Please understand that as a proposal that we work cooperatively to develop material, not as an assertion that merger can't be considered later. --doncram (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, the removal of the merger proposal tags was disputed, and they are back in place. I think leaving them serves to indicate this is a disputed topic area and will tend to drive away editors who might develop the topics. Again, i would hope for development of material as way towards sorting out facts, eliciting new sources and photos and maps, which eventually might help resolve the unhelpful-in-my-view merger proposal. --doncram (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT]

Sorry to rain on your parade, Doncram, but you, as the person who split the Historic District stub out of this article and then chose to ignore the merger templates for 3 months, are not somehow entitled to sashay in and remove the merge templates unilaterally because you disagree with merger. I gather from your little essays above that you now think it was magnanimous of you to ignore the invitation to discussion, remove those templates, and invite Polaron to make additions that conform to your personal vision of what the two articles should contain, but I am not interested in playing ego games (nor reading walls of words). I have restored the merger templates because the merger proposal was never discussed. If you continue to believe that it is necessary to have two separate articles about Hazardville and the HD, please explain your reasons, and please do so without alluding to personalities, "long, general disputes," Poquetanuck, or anything else not directly related to the topic at hand.

As for the article(s) themselves, please allow me to call your attention to the fact that I substantially expanded the history section of the Hazardville article back in January and February. The sentences that you recently moved here from the historic district article provided information that was already in this article, albeit in greater detail and with more context. Accordingly, I deleted the new additions as redundant -- but I see that "Lord Mayor Doncram" reverted my edits while I was typing this comment!

Regarding Powder Hollow, if you read the history of Hazardville and the background on the historic district, you will find that Powder Hollow was the site of the gunpowder plant that was Hazardville's long-time raison d'etre and that blew up in a 1913 explosion. Powder Hollow is part of Hazardville. The fact that the gunpowder factory buildings are gone and have not replaced does not mean that Powder Hollow is not part of Hazardville -- and the archaeological areas are not outside the village.

I continue to contend (now more than ever) that the historic district article does not have sufficient independent content to be useful (or to make much sense) as an independent article. In its current form, it consists of 4 sentences, plus reference citations, external links, and an NRHP infobox. The four sentences document the HD's section-town-state location (also in the Hazardville article), state that the HD dates from 1835 (that's apparently the date in the NRIS database, but I think it's inaccurate to say that that the whole HD dates from 1835; that's just the date when the first powder mill was built), tell when it was listed on the NRHP (a factoid not currently included in the Hazardville article, but that could be easily added), describe the boundaries and shape of the district (I'm not convinced that "irregularly shaped area that surrounds two interior areas that are not historical" is the sort of detail that Wikipedia users need, but I know that Doncram disagrees), and identify four "dominant" buildings in the district (that kind of information could easily be added to the Hazardville article). I don't see anything there that justifies a separate article, and I believe that information about the historic district would be more useful (not to mention interesting) if presented in the context of the history that the HD designation commemorates. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As Doncram said elsewhere, we should defer to the editors who are actually working on the article. In this case, most of the non-boiler plate content regarding the topic of Hazardville was added by Orlady. Based on the current content of both articles and a reading of the significance of the historic district from the NRHP nomination, a combined article would work best here. --Polaron | Talk 14:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this merger, if only because Hazardville itself is a section of Enfield and small to begin with. I can't see how the Historic District would grow to become much larger or better researched without straying into questionable notability. Combining them would make for a much stronger article without any loss of detail. Markvs88 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I stepped away for a few days so as to respond in more measured tones to Orlady's comments above and to her edit summaries. Orlady has a nasty, sarcastic way which can sway discussions, and I think that it is important to consider that, so as to try to separate whatever valid content might be in her comments from the vitriol. The vitriol should not be allowed to sway an argument. I am not imagining this. I have been the target of personal attacks by her in the past and she has been requested by me to tone it down, and advised by others. Not long ago she was proudly proclaiming that she "strongly dislikes" me. I don't know her and can't describe her motivations, but her editing on CT NRHP topics is mostly opposing me, and it sure seems largely as if her purpose in editing in CT NRHP topics here and in general is largely to oppose me and to cause contention, rather than to help build a congenial community of editors working productively. Here, she uses offensively familiar and sarcastic tone with me. In the comment above and her edit summaries here, here and here, i get the sense she is attacking me and trying to discredit me within this little conversation here. I don't care so much, but i recognize it as another petty instance in a long pattern. Note, in my recent edits to this page i made a point to add a better formed NRHP document reference which included author, date of preparation, and a photos document that is an integral part. She deleted it, then after i restored it, she makes a point of finding fault with it. It was a properly formed reference already though, so for her to find fault she has to go to weird lengths, asserting that its publisher the National Park Service is not the publisher, and that the photos shouldn't be included. The National Park Service provides the document; they are the publisher of the document. About the photos, they are an integral part of the document. Each photo is cited within the document. It is a much less adequate source about the Hazardville and the historic district if the illustrations are arbitrarily omitted. Given this, I interpret her editing on this silly point as malicious in a petty way, and ill-informed. I do believe the intensity of Orlady's dislike for me blinds her to adopt contrary positions that would not otherwise be her choice. I find it ironic that Orlady has not along ago requested that I do not adopt a personal tone in dealing with her. I do wish we could do that, as i have previously requested many times. But, when Orlady adopts a nasty, personal tone in a given discussion, i think it might be helpful to point that out, and to ask others to try to set it aside. An alternative is to raise it at her talk page or wp:ANI, but it doesn't seem worthwhile. Polaron is used to this kind of bickering between Orlady and me; I don't know if Markvs88 is. I certainly regard it as unpleasant, probably for all concerned.

I'll respond more on the substance of recent comments later. --doncram (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, I repeat my statement above: If you continue to believe that it is necessary to have two separate articles about Hazardville and the HD, please explain your reasons, and please do so without alluding to personalities, "long, general disputes," Poquetanuck, or anything else not directly related to the topic at hand.

As for my admission that I dislike you, I guess you can shoot me for being honest. Let me remind you that I told you that you in the context of saying that you already thought (this is 2 or 3 years ago; I've lost count) that I was engaged in a personal vendetta against you before I was even aware of who you were. However, subsequently, your persistent insistence on turning every interaction into a personality conflict (and, seemingly, to attack me at every conceivable opportunity) has succeeded in causing me to dislike you. I am asking you to believe that my statements about this article have nothing to do with you personally, and I would ask you also to participate in subject-matter discussion of this pair of articles without interpreting everything personally. --Orlady (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay great. "please do so without alluding to personalities"???? You want to make new assertions that are personally offensive, and then ask me not to "interpret everything personally"? To spell it out for you, I consider it offensive that u assert i believed u were in a personal vendetta before you were even aware of me. I consider it offensive for you to assert that i insist on turning every interaction into a personality conflict. I don't believe for a second that your statements about this article have nothing to do with me personally! What a joke. Other than your further poisoning the atmosphere, what does your additional statement now add? I already said I would return to comment about the substance of the discussion. --doncram (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Well, here's my read on this particular discussion:

Personal references: "Sorry to rain on your parade, Doncram", "you...are not somehow entitled to sashay in", "you now think it was magnanimous of you", "Lord Mayor Doncram"

Request in the same entry to "please do so without alluding to personalities". What? I read that the editor requesting that personalities be left out of it was the first to bring them in.

"I am not interested in...reading walls of words". Interesting, since the entry this was in had exactly twice as many lines as the previous entry of the editor being referred to. I believe previous experience and personal feelings were brought into that statement, since it doesn't seem to vaildly refer to THIS conversation.

Ooops. Maybe I didn't exactly mean that. "I would tend to want to defer to preferences of a local editor or other editors actually investing their time in developing material in articles on CT NRHPs. Are there any local editors or others willing to visit, here? Or to seriously develop the material about either or both topics (the hamlet and the historic district)?" To which the reply is made "I would be willing to develop the Hazardville topic as a single article" to which the response was "Anyhow, could we please set aside the question of merger/split, and work to develop material in the current structure?"

Unanswered (as far as I can tell): "What WikiProject Connecticut page mentioned this merger proposal?"

Upon further looking, I suspect this is a disingenuous question, since I found it with a couple moments search, but, I'll play. Wikiproject Connecticut, Section 5.1 and related section on talk page. Lvklock (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That was not a disingenuous question; I had looked for the page, but did not find it. It was a dumb question, though -- I had foolishly limited my search to WP:Talk and Talk: pages. Here's a working link to the section (which was created about 3 weeks ago): Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut#Articles pending merge. AGF. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apologize for suspecting disingenuity. I looked at the talk page first, too, and was puzzled by the fact that while there was a section about a merge section, it wasn't explicitly mentioning the article. Then the merge section on the talk page led me back to the project page where it was. But I can see that if you were searching for a word or phrase you wouldn't have caught it. Lvklock (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the substance of the merger, I, as always, believe that the historic district is sufficiently different from the current CDP or whatever kind of place it is to warrant a separate article. I am not going to change that view. Orlady is not going to change her view that they should be merged. Polaron , I believe, would also vote for merge. Doncram is always going to believe that they should be separate. We cannot be the first set of editors involved in such a circumstance where we all have firmly held beliefs that the others just aren't going to change. I have better things to do than to fight this fight over and over. At the same time, I hate to see those who apparently don't like the "let editors do what they like and are good at" attitude that built Wikipedia drive away others by insisting that articles on valid topics be developed to some standard they set arbitrarily before they be allowed to exist. In my opinion, this innate conflict is killing Wikipedia. Are the stub articles that Orlady so dislikes appropriate for a "done" encyclopedia? Nope. But that's not what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is a changing, growing document, and stubs are a way of facilitating that change and growth. If we all went Orlady's way, it would be required that every editor produce perfect, complete, encyclopedic articles BEFORE posting them on Wikipedia. It just isn't gonna happen. There are few enough people who want to do any of it, without having to wait for those who are willing to do it ALL. Lvklock (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am passingly familiar with the Doncram/Orlady saga (and have no desire to get involved!), but I still have the opinion that in this case a merged article makes more sense than having two smaller ones. If the Historic District somehow grows to a much larger detailed size it could always be split off again. But given how small Hazardville is (and the HD is only about 15% of that I think?) it seems this fairly unlikely unless someone with a stake took it on as a project. Markvs88 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: Polaron has re-started low-grade contention, by ignoring this non-concluded discussion and editing the Hazardville article to remove the merger proposal tag and make other changes duplicating material in the separate Hazardville Historic District article. I reverted P's edits and he re-established them. This is familiar ground! The only thing different from many previous cases, is that P did not redirect the separate Hazardville Historic District article. Due to his past edit warring on such cases, he is under a specific editing restriction for six months. i am not sure when that editing restriction expires, but I don't look forward to his possibly resuming past practices when it does.

Anyhow, about the merits of merger or keep split, I appreciate Markvs88's last comment, but I don't see merit in prejudging that other editors cannot/will not develop more detail. I just added some more detail, listing out some of the more significant properties out of 260 contributing properties in the district. This development supports/encourages locals or others to come forward with photos and other development. In general as i have stated I will usually support following anyone who actually takes on the initiative to develop material describing a historic district and to visit and take pictures, etc. Here, as with other CT historic districts, I see edits by Polaron and Orlady that mainly do not develop substantial new material about the historic district, but rather just argumentatively shift material to a hamlet/village/town article. Their edits do not develop how the surviving buildings and other artifacts in a historic district serve as a living, current museum, embodying architectural styles of the past and reflecting past history. Their preferred type of merger then conveys to locals and others that detailed development about the historic district will not be welcomed by Wikipedia. I think it hurts rather than helps development. So, now with having developed the Hazardville Historic District article further, I ask for further comments and propose removal of the merger proposal, and keeping separate articles. --doncram (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, alright then... can we agree to remove the merger requests to both this and University of New Haven Police? Because if your point that "one cannot tell the future will hold" is valid, you'll need to change your POV on the Talk:University of New Haven page. If so, all is consistant and I would be fine with dropping the merger proposal... if the Historical District section in the Hazardville, Connecticut remains (with the main article link) as it is currently. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll revisit the merger proposal there. Offhand it seems possibly different as there may or may not exist any good example articles of type that the merger article there could grow into. Relevant for here, there are many good examples of great historic district articles in other states developed largely from the detailed NRHP nomination documents such as is available and linked in the Hazardville Historic District article. There are pretty good historic district articles in Connecticut, too, including Whitney Avenue Historic District (to which Polaron contributed) and Cannondale Historic District (developed by me and JohnWBarber). Do let's talk about models for that other article, at the merger proposal for it. --doncram (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There has been no development in the last 3 months. All you've added now is a list of properties with no context, which anyone is readily available in the nomination form. Are you committing to developing the article in the same vein as the Cannondale one? I'm willing to bet that if no other editor develops the article in the next 3 months, you would still think a split is warranted. Keep in mind that the original state before you came in was a merged article and that you split it unilaterally against opposing views. Perhaps the solution is to repurpose the other article as a list-type article and discuss the historic district within the context of the village/neighborhood. --Polaron | Talk 17:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, YOU did not develop any substantial material about the historic district during 3 months, or ever. So no way have you earned any deference. I now have done some development, and the article now provides some real context, and gives purchase to any local or other editor who would develop more. If the merger proposal is now ended, then I myself might be further inclined to develop further here, too. The presence of the merger proposal and the contention here, probably dissuades other editors somewhat. It sure is a turnoff for me.

And, that is absolutely false that i unilaterally implemented a split. This case was explicitly discussed in a big long mediated process which you participated in, and the split rather than merger was decided with your aagreement according to criteria you suggested! --doncram (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not my problem that nobody developed the article. Apparently no one is interested, not even locals. That is all the more reason why a merger is better. The historic district article right now doesn't have any useful information. There is much more to be learned about Hazardville here than there. --Polaron | Talk 17:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm amused by Doncram's use of the term "low-grade", since it is a very apt description of the quality of his substantive contributions to the Hazardville Historic District article that he is so determined to defend. I wish that certain people would devote more effort to the creation and maintenance of quality content -- and less effort to the creation and maintenance of wikidrama. A couple of examples of why I call the HD article "low-grade" work:

• The historic district article starts off the a statement that the historic district dates from 1835. That is a seriously misleading statement. The history of the village begins in 1835, but (with the possible exception of one house) the individual buildings on which Doncram chooses to focus in the article aren't that old. The HD article does not provide any actual information about the significance of 1835 for the HD; to find that out, a person needs to read the Hazardville article.
• For several months, the core of the five-sentence historic district article has been the sentence "The four "dominant" buildings in the district are the school, the institute, the Episcopal Church, and the Methodist church." Which "school" would this be? Which institute? For that matter, which Episcopal and Methodist Church? The reason that the article didn't say is that Doncram copied the information from the NRHP nom form without incorporating any of the context provided by an earlier section of the nom form. Doncram has now added a factoid about the Hazardville Institute, but I doubt that any of this detail ever would have crept into the HD article if I hadn't added more complete discussions of these four buildings to the historic district section of the Hazardville article.
• Most of what Doncram added to the article today is a list of some of the individual buildings in the HD, by address, inelegantly worded (e.g., "*Old Methodist Church, 292-294-296-298 Hazard Avenue, c. 1830-1850, was prior Methodist church (see accompanying photo #9)") copied from the source and including references to material (such as "accompanying photo #9") that can only be found in the cited source (although the wording implies that it's in Wikipedia).

As I said, I wish that certain people would devote more effort to the creation and maintenance of quality content -- and less effort to the creation and maintenance of wikidrama. --Orlady (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, i am quaking in my shoes that Orlady can play some gotcha-type remarks about wording mistakes. What on earth is the point? She wishes to discredit me, because she dislikes me personally and can pounce on a grammar error? Orlady provides more sarcastic commentary in this edit's edit summary. What rubbish! And I do agree that editors, including Polaron and Orlady, oughta put some effort into articles. On Conntecticut NRHP articles, I am pretty sure they have written about 10x as much in Talk page arguments against having NRHP articles, as they put into any NRHP articles. Although I have written a lot to respond to their Talk there, I think i have contributed more directly to articles than in any of these Talk page discussions. I do know for sure I have put in far more, relatively, than they. What rubbish, all this contention is, all seemingly to dismiss the validity of NRHP topics. I have no idea, fundamentally, why they were originally interested in pursuing this stuff. Now, there is clearly a lot of momentum and stubbornness and personal vendetta type reasoning playing in. I have some stubbornness too, sure, but i actually do like developing these articles and allowing and working with others.

So, anyhow, I take it we are concluded that these two articles should remain separate. Is that correct? --doncram (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Knock it off with that "quaking in your shoes" business, Doncram. My comment wasn't a personal attack or threat. I'm not out to get you (and never have been, in spite of your long and successful campaign to make me dislike you). This is about the dismal quality of the content that you insist in foisting upon Wikipedia.
As for your insistence that your historic district article must exist separate from the Hazardville article, I guess we have all learned that when Doncram is involved, "consensus" is redefined to mean "Doncram gets his way." If you are going to throw tantrums until you have your way, I guess we could keep the articles separate, but I contend that the Hazardville article should not link to the HD article (particularly not as the "main" article about any topic) because the link to the HD article detracts from the article about Hazardville. --Orlady (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Knock it off with the sarcasm and the personally-oriented remarks, yes, please do that. Nonsense about dropping link from Hazardville article to Hazardville Historic District main article, that is just being petty. --doncram (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What's petty is your insistence that the low-grade article you created about the HD must exist as a stand-alone article. My view of the situation is that the separate article that you insist on maintaining is of substandard quality, and it is a disservice to Wikipedia users to suggest that it is a better source of information about the Hazardville historic district than they can find in the Hazardville, Connecticut article. --Orlady (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Only Orlady has really contributed anything of worth to the Hazardville article. It is you who are preventing further work by not allowing the actual content editors to have the article structure that they like. If you leave the Connecticut articles alone, maybe I can actually have the motivation to start writing. You only get interested in these whenever I do, and once you show up, I lose all motivation to write content. If you promise not to touch the Connecticut historic district articles, I'll start writing them up one by one over time. --Polaron | Talk 18:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not true either. I contributed the incredibly brilliant identification of 4 buildings in the h.d. as being dominant, which O has picked up upon and expanded somewhat. About your wanting to develop NRHP articles, about historic districts or otherwise, there is plenty of opportunity for you. You rejected all reasonable offers for you to take as much time sas you wished to develop any specific one, during the long mediated process. Why not pick any one of many historic distirct articles where the decision, per your/my compromise, was to go with a structure that you preferred, rather than start by removing merger proposal contrary to the mediation-supported decision, and contrary to an open merger proposal discussion. Let's continue at your Talk page or return to the big mediation discussion. Or go with any historic district article where there never was any disagreement about structure?

So, anyhow, I take it we are concluded that these two articles should remain separate. Is that correct? I expect to remove the merger tags shortly. --doncram (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just your style, isn't it? Declare yourself absolutely correct and disregard any contrarian views. If I am to start working on something, I would like it as a unified article. Otherwise, there's no point. Can we do that with this article? --Polaron | Talk 20:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My current position is that Doncram can have his separate article, but it can be an orphan until such time as he chooses to create decent content. The Hazardville article shouldn't have to point to it. --Orlady (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hazardville, Connecticut. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116131813/http://home.att.net/~mkm-of-enfct/EHS/EHShistory.html to http://home.att.net/~mkm-of-enfct/EHS/EHShistory.html

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) 15:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)