Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Connecticut

Nice work in progress

Upgrade rating to Start, as list-article is a complete list with an article for every NHL that it indexes (meeting Start definition for WP:NRHP). Nice to see this list-article developing along further, now with 22 photos and with good descriptions for most sites. :) doncram (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

photo requests

Up as far alphabetically as Emma C. Berry (sloop), I added photo requests to the talk pages of the CT NHL articles lacking photos. In each case i just paste in:

Photos and/or photo uploads are needed.

• HABS or HAER photos may be available for this site. Search HABS/HAER here
• NRHP photos linked in article, if labelled as NPS-owned and/or taken by NPS employee, would be public domain. Other photos in NRHP document may not be public domain however.
• New photos would be helpful.

I added a photo of the Sturges house to the article and have removed Fairfield County from the list of requested photos. 67.84.27.8 (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Photos

I live in Connecticut and would be willing to fill in some of the missing photos. I'll update this page with my progress. Chrissypan (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

state historic sites

This note to respond to Nyttend's two bold changes of this article, the first of which per wp:BRD I reverted, and I expected Nyttend to open discussion here. He just repeated with edit summary "None of our featured NHL lists include state sites: only NHLs belong on NHL lists", and i reverted again, and open here.

Nyttend, please, I don't personally want to consider this now. I built this CT NHL list and added the CT historic sites. Yes, I get that the title of the article does not exactly, fully describe the entire content of the list-article. And of course i do not and have never owned this list-article. What the list-article contains is discussed in the lede however, and no one is deceived. There could be different ways to resolve it, like to agree to split the article or to agree to rename the article or to agree that the current name plus lede is okay. This relates tangentially to a historical issue of the NY NHL list status, which is referenced in an ongoing RFC and/or it was referenced in some discussions around that. You can force the issue here if you wish. I would prefer you do not at this time while that RFC is hanging over me. I have some interest in re-submitting the NY NHL list for FL status and part of this issue could be addressed in that process. For me to either call for wider consideration of the content issue here or in the NY NHL list, right now, is a bit exhausting to contemplate. There are several other open issues involving calling for other NRHP editors help, such as a small crisis about disambiguation, and the NRHP HDs in Connecticut, which I would rather see advanced rather than opening a new issue on this right now. --doncram (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, these sites simply doesn't belong — they're beyond the scope of this list. They're not NHLs, and they're not essentially equivalent to NHLs as an NHS is. Remember what you said before (I can't remember which list, so I can't give you the diff) when someone proposed removing an NHS from a list of NHLs — your words were essentially "the National Park Service includes them on the list of NHLs, so we should too". Look at the NHL list for Connecticut — you won't find any of these three on that list. If we include sites that aren't recognised by the National Park Service, what won't we include? After all, the only things on either of our currently featured NHL lists (Indiana and Alabama) that aren't NHLs are former NHLs. Lists need to be complete to be featured; if state historic sites belong (and surely there are plenty of them in both states), how is it that either of them became featured with such a glaring omission? Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for listening to what i was saying :( . I don't understand what you mean here, that "lists need to be complete to be featured"; is this not a complete list of NHLs, and more? What's not complete? Also, well, what do you want to do instead, start a separate article on the CT state historic sites? Or just delete that, as you have done, and as I have reverted again. I do take issue, by the way, with text you are adding:

Before the institution of the National Historic Landmarks program, certain historical areas came under the protection of the National Park Service; they are treated by the National Park Service as being equivalent to National Historic Landmarks.

That seems unsatisfactory, especially here in this article, as the NHS listed towards the bottom of the article was listed in 1990, far after the NHL program was instituted in 1960 or so. I'm not sure your edit is improving this list-article. --doncram (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is that if these state historic sites belong on this list, any list without state historic sites is incomplete. Featured lists must not lack a type of category that belongs on the list, but both of the featured lists of NHLs lack a list of state historic sites; qed. a list of state historic sites must not be a category of content that belongs on the list. Shall we add state parks to List of areas in the United States National Park System, or shall we add your local state senator to List of United States Senators from New York? Kindly observe that as the National Historic Landmarks program does not include these sites, they are not NHLs. This is a list of NHLs in Connecticut, not a list-of-NHLs-and-a-few-state-historic-sites-in-Connecticut; the state sites are out of scope and thus do not belong on this list. You can create such a list if you want; but it doesn't belong here any more than a state park belongs on a list of national parks. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't like your style of talking this out with me now, in which you delete repeatedly syncopated with just one comment. That is not securing a consensus. Your way here seems bureaucratic and harsh. Some could choose to comment that my editing style in dealing with one particularly edit-war-prone editor has seemed that way too, but I have tried to be more moderate than that editor, and responding by reverts has seemed to be a necessary tool at times (such as when the editor seemed to be willfully violating agreements made and abandoning discussion), in addition to extensive Talk page discussions and other efforts. I would hope you and I would have a more cooperative editing relationship. Is there no more positive way to address this. Does your making one comment here or in an edit summary entitle you to force your way with one more deletion of another editors work? I don't think that is the idea with wp:BRD process.

About what to do, I accept that something is not perfect here. I had envisioned this list-article to cover the top most important preserved historic sites in Connecticut, which might include state historic sites. The current title does not capture that. But your forcing your way does not seem to make it better to me. Your edit summary "Anything not an NHL doesn't belong on this list" is inconsistent with your edit. You are re-explaining and keeping a non-NHL one, the NHS one. And there is mention of the 2 former NHLs. So you are accepting/supporting something other than just NHLs. You have pointed twice to the 2 state NHL lists that have reached FL. I contributed significantly to both of those FLs, both beforehand in developing many of the NHL articles and participating in the FLC reviews. And their form also derives from the form I and others developed in the NY NHL list. I am not recalling whether state historic sites seemed particularly prominent in AL or IN. If they were particularly prominent, there, then perhaps they should have been included in a top historic sites of the state type list-article. You have noted that what was packaged together in those two cases was the current NHLs plus former ones plus, at some level, coverage of NHSs and other historic NPS areas. Which is what i was able to argue for successfully in those cases. They are useful precedents, yes, but not the only way to go. --doncram (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Our source includes the NHS. Who are we to quarrel with an NPS source to say that the NPS treats it as equal? If it belongs on their list of NHLs, it belongs on ours. Former NHLs are also relevant here, because they've been included on the "current NHLs" list in the past. Conversely, the state sites have never been NHLs or treated by the NPS as equivalent to them. This is not a "List of top-level historic sites in Connecticut" — it is a list of NHLs. WP:SCOPE puts it quite succinctly: irrelevant information doesn't belong on a list. Period. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Folks, may I suggest that while it might be better to split out the state historic sites to a separate list or article, Nyttend created a situation where there is no list which includes the state historic sites. That's the worst of all possible worlds.

I have reverted Nyttend's change pending a consensus on the best way to list the state historic sites. Per WP:BRD, please don't just redo the deletion; discuss the difference of opinion and try to reach a consensus.

I note that there is no article Connecticut State Historic Sites, which I looked for when I found the unparented Category:Connecticut State Historic Sites. Maybe a starting ppint woukd be to write that article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So what? Why is it better to have an erroneous page than to have missing information? By including these sites here, we're telling the reader that they're NHLs, which they patently aren't, according to the point of view of any reliable sources. This is a matter of following WP:V — you cannot verify that any of these are treated like NHLs by any reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've created the separate list as List of Connecticut state historic sites, as either of you could have done days ago. Please observe that the source website never uses the term "state historic sites", so it's possible that there is no such official designation. Someone may need to rework this list entirely, because I get the impression that these are simply historic properties owned and operated by the SHPO. Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, observe that there are only five sites, not six; the Amos Bull Tavern isn't included. Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Nyttend, you are overstating the "error". It is clearly explained in the article how many of the state historic sites are NHLs and how many are not NHLs, and which are which. I really don't want to argue here, as I expressed above, but nor do I want to see decent material deleted and a unilateral change enforced by one editor. Nyttend, could we interact differently, e.g. per wp:BRD process? It really is not BRD process for one editor to make a comment at the Talk page and then revert the article to his/her version, as if their comment established a consensus. This last comment did not do that: it was misleading and in error, itself, as I have just replied. I restored the article again to the version edited by BrownHairedGirl so that other edits like an image centering can be implemented, separately from this discussion. Sorry if i did lose some centering adjustment, which I cannot easily figure out where it was, to reimplement. --doncram (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

After ec: I'll look at the separate list you mention. It seems improper, process-wise, for you to delete material out of this list without establishing some kind of consensus first, causing edit conflicts and so on, but I will look at that. --doncram (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Quick reaction: one simple point is that a split out list is separate, and does not serve to identify, here, which of the NHLs are CT state historic sites. It may be appropriate to have a separate article on the CT state historic sites, AND to have them all listed here. Another factual point, responding to Nyttend pointing out what he may believe was a factual error by my editing sometime in 2007 or 2008. It seems, per this, that Amos Bull House was the home of the state historic site program offices, but was transfered to another entity in 2008. So I believe I had used the linked source to find that there were six, then. The same linked source shows there are five now, yes, but it was not a factual error made by me to have written that there were six, which was then supported by a source. Also, could we give this split/merger discussion a break for a few days, in order to develop articles about the separate sites, some still redlinks, under question. That would build information that would inform a merger/split discussion. --doncram (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as the image centering — one image was centered and the rest weren't, so it messed up the columns. Please look at the source website for the state sites: there is no official designation of these sites. It's not as if there were a "Connecticut Historic Landmarks" program; they're just a few sites that happen to be run by the SHPO. This makes an even stronger reason to leave these sites off the list — nobody gives them special status. You've never explained why sites that are patently not NHLs belong on a list of NHLs: this is not a "list of really important historic sites" in Connecticut. Unless these sites become NHLs, they will never belong on this list. Nyttend (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The 5 properties purported to be "state historic sites" are simply properties owned by the state and operated by the Commission on Culture and Tourism. I am not aware of a "state historic site" designation and a cursory online search does not show any. There certainly are other state-owned historic sites that are operated by other agencies of the state government aside from these five. Why are they not included here? Also, Amos Bull Tavern has been purchased by a non-profit corporation known as Connecticut Landmarks and is no longer state-owned or operated. Further, there is actually an official "state historic landmark" designation as well as a "state archeological preserve" designation. I have been unable to find a comprehensive list though. --Polaron | Talk 16:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: I found the state archeological preserve list [1]. --Polaron | Talk 17:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, once again, as is common in this wikiproject, there is a valid issue to work out consensus on. But, instead of taking it to WT:NRHP or otherwise trying to achieve consensus first, one editor is trying to force his changes over the objections of another BEFORE consensus is reached. Why do we do things this way? It makes us look bad to the rest of Wikiworld, and fosters our reputation as a contentious wikiproject. My opinion? I would like there to be a top level list that discussed all of the most important historic sites in a state (World, National, State). I do not know what you would call it. I have no strong opinion either way about whether you would then also have a list of NHLs and a list of SHS, or whether they would redirect to the top level list. I do think we should talk it out though. Nyttend, are you TRYING to start an edit war? I thought that the point was that when someone asks to discuss first, that's what was supposed to happen. Aren't you an admin? Shouldn't you know that? Lvklock (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

[EC; outdenting for now] - I'm glad to see the State historic sites split out into a separate list article. I believe that I've seen a complete list of Connecticut state historic sites on one of the state websites, so it should be possible to ensure a comprehensive list. The fact that some sites have two designations does not mean that all sites with those same two designations need to be combined into a single list. (Many movies win multiple awards. Does Wikipedia have combined lists for the Oscars and the Golden Globe Awards? --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - The New York NHL featured list debacle is mentioned in the current RfC, but it is not a subject of the RfC. It is mentioned there only as a factual observation that is part of the background for the RfC: that I perceive that my objections to Doncram's featured list nomination were the original cause of his long-standing belief that I am out to get him. --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)