Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Vermont

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Vermont Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vermont portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont.

NRHP HD articles in VT

Extending out from disagreement by several editors (including me) about NRHP historic district (HD) articles in CT, is now disagreement about several places in Vermont. There is now discussion going on in Talk pages of several VT NRHP HD articles or the Talk pages of hamlet/village articles that correspond in some ways to them, or which have been created as counterparts to them.

I object on a basic level to extending the scope of disagreement to Vermont articles, when it should be possible to discuss principles and come to agreement in CT, first, where there is an RFC open and several continuing discussions.

But if escalation into articles in Vermont is going on, I suggest that discussion about NRHP HD articles and counterpart hamlet or other articles should be centralized here. I personally would prefer some general discussion about principles, rather than edit warring, but I will respond to what i perceive as combative editing to prevent the creation of articles on the topic of wikipedia-notable NRHP HDs. doncram (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The separate discussions currently include:

Hartford Village Historic District vs. Hartford (village), Vermont‎, with discussion at Talk:Hartford (village), Vermont‎
Weathersfield Center Historic District vs. Weathersfield Center, Vermont, with discussion section opened below.
Ludlow Village Historic District vs. Ludlow (village), Vermont‎, with discussion section opened below
Wilder Village Historic District vs. Wilder, Vermont, with discussion section opened below
(more to be added)

Hartford Village Historic District

Discussion at Talk:Hartford (village), Vermont‎.

Weathersfield Center Historic District

User:Polaron has at least three times redirected Weathersfield Center Historic District article about an NRHP HD to a stub article Weathersfield Center, Vermont which he has asserted to be a community (I don't know if that is true) and to be the same as the historic district, which is unsourced and probably false. At least two editors (Nyttend and me) have restored the NRHP HD article. This is very boring continuing a low-grade edit war. Polaron, if you have something to say, like to make a merger proposal, please say it here. Or, if you wish to open an AFD about the NRHP HD, please go ahead. But it is wp:disruptive for you to try to get your way to remove a valid, sourced wikipedia article by low-grade edit warring. doncram (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, in response to my opening this discussion section, I see that Orlady has joined the low-grade edit warring and has redirected the article, rather than discussing here. I restored the article. This is tedious and stupefying dealing with such. I do see that Orlady has found an NRHP application document or extract to link to, which should inform some discussion, at: Weathersfield Center Historic District document at CRJC.ORG. But please, Orlady, you are an experienced wikipedia editor and an administrator, and I think you should respect the process that I am trying to set up for merger/split discussions to happen here. doncram (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I was (and still am) horrified to see your version of Weathersfield Center Historic District. I believe that you know better than to create pages in article space that consist of statements like "It includes one or more examples of Federal style architecture" (that is not encyclopedic information, it is a declaration of ignorance) and "It presumably includes at least part of the unincorporated community of Weathersfield Center, Vermont, but, like other NRHP-listed historic districts, is not likely to include the entirety of that community" (that's even worse). I merged the two inconsequential stub articles about the same place into a single inconsequential stub article that does not make any nonencyclopedic speculative statements. My reasons for this kind of edit have been spelled out at length elsewhere, including Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut#Content forking. --Orlady (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the vague but accurate statements: those are what are justified in the absence of better information. I am more horrified by unsourced and sometimes false assertions that read better but which equate villages and NRHP HDs, when it has been repeatedly proven that NRHP HDs are often/usually different from villages they contain or that contain them. It is encyclopedic to show limitations of actual knowledge. It is unencyclopedic to make wp:OR claims. I restored the separate NRHP HD article, which has the NRIS source. Please add merger proposal tags if you like, and direct the merger discussion here, for efficiency of discussion with similar VT NRHP HD articles. doncram (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements are not "vague but accurate." All that they accurately communicate is "Look, Ma, I don't actually have any solid information about this subject, but I spun it into a Wikipedia article, anyway!" Contrast my current text in the Weathersfield Center article ("The Weathersfield Center Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1980. Federal style architecture is represented in the historic district.") with your statements ("A historic district including some or all of the area, Weathersfield Center Historic District, was listed on the National Register in 1980" and "It includes one or more examples of Federal style architecture"). I hope you will agree that I wrote simple declarative statements that are fully supported by the NRIS database entry (your sole information source), whereas your statements were speculation based on that database entry.

Frankly, if you were truly interested in creating useful information in Wikipedia (rather than expanding the number of National Register stub articles), you would be spending your time writing articles based on sources such as this comprehensive compilation on National Register properties and historic districts near the Connecticut River in Vermont instead of creating Wikidrama all over New England. --Orlady (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely like Orlady's version of the Federal architecture statement better. But, Orlady's version does not convey the likelihood that there are differnces between the district and the town. I also do not agree that Doncram has any interest in methodically expanding the number of NR stub articles. There are times when they are useful or even necessary in constructing the big picture frameork for NRHP articles, which I have observed to be his focus. Over 83000 wikinotable places require a coherent and consistent framework to be able to eventually present relevant, interesting, well-written articles about them. And, we all know that I prefer separate articles for historic districts because in my experience they are rarely identical to the village/hamlet/town article with which they are merged or to which they are redirected. Yes, I know they don't have to be IDENTICAL. In addition, I also belive there is detailed information available from nomination documents that is inappropriate in town articles, while demographic information is inappropriate in HD articles. Thus, I prefer separate articles. Lvklock (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludlow Village Historic District

User:Polaron has several times redirected Ludlow Village Historic District (Ludlow, Vermont) article about an NRHP HD to a stub article Ludlow (village), Vermont which i believe he has asserted to be the same as the historic district, which is unsourced and probably false. At least two editors (Nyttend and me) have restored the NRHP HD article. This is very boring continuing a low-grade edit war. Polaron, if you have something to say, like to make a merger proposal, please say it here. Or, if you wish to open an AFD about the NRHP HD, please go ahead. But it is wp:disruptive for you to try to get your way to remove a valid, sourced wikipedia article by low-grade edit warring. doncram (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Ludlow Center Historic District is in Massachusetts. Could you please clarify which article(s) you intended to talk about? --Orlady (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, i wrote "Ludlow Center Historic District" when I meant to write "Ludlow Village Historic District". And, there are two of the Ludlow Village name, one in Massachusetts (perhaps different than a Ludlow Center). Anyhow, I created a disambiguation page Ludlow Village Historic District and I revised my statement above to link directly to the Vermont HD that has been subject of redirects and restorations. Thanks. doncram (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now that I know what you're talking about, I have to say that Ludlow (village), Vermont wins hands down over Ludlow Village Historic District (Ludlow, Vermont) as a source of information on the historic district. Neither article says anything of particular value about the historic district, but the village article at least provides some useful context. The HD article essentially says "the historic district exists", and it does not even include a link to the village article. To the unenlightened observer, it might appear that you are deliberately trying to prevent wikipedia users from accessing relevant information. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why the HD article doesn't link to the village article? --Orlady (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, it's not about one wikipedia article on a wikipedia-notable topic "winning" over another wikipedia article on another wikipedia-notable topic. I'll add that link you wish for now as i restore the NRHP HD article one more time. It sure would be better if involved editors would work to improve complementary articles about NRHP HDs and the towns that contain them / the towns they contain, rather than tearing down the opposite versions. You could jolly well have added the village link yourself. doncram (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Another odd thing is that Polaron has continued edit warring to delete the separate NRHP HD article and redirect that, while Polaron did kindly reply to a question at the talk page of the NRHP HD article. According to Polaron, the size of the historic district is 90 acres, while the village article describes itself as covering 1.4 square miles, obviously a much larger and different area. I just added that into the NRHP HD article, although with a citation needed tag.

To clarify, i oppose a forced merger of the two articles. I would add explicit merger tags to the articles for discussion to happen here, myself, but I don't actually advocate merger. So, Polaron or someone else who wants merger, could you please add merger tags (directing to here please), if you actually want to discuss merger? doncram (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilder Village Historic District

User:Polaron has several times redirected Wilder Village Historic District article about an NRHP HD to an article Wilder, Vermont about a CDP. I believe he has asserted the CDP/village is the same as the historic district, which would be unsourced and probably false. At least two editors (Nyttend and me) have restored the NRHP HD article. This is very boring continuing a low-grade edit war. Polaron, if you have something to say, like to make a merger proposal, please say it here. Or, if you wish to open an AFD about the NRHP HD, please go ahead. But it is wp:disruptive for you to try to get your way to remove a valid, sourced wikipedia article by low-grade edit warring. doncram (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has repeatedly blanked this article and replaced it by a redirect, including with edit summary stating "original state was merged, make a split proposal if you like" or something like that. I added a link from its talk page to here, for this to serve as the requested "split proposal". However, note that it is hard to have a civil discussion if the content is repeatedly deleted! I think it is only reasonable to permit the NRHP HD article to be developed, as i am doing at a slow pace. Arguing in edit summaries at the same moment as blanking the page is unlikely to work in establishing consensus about whether the NRHP HD article is wikipedia-notable or whatever. doncram (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has commented at Talk page of the NRHP HD, that "No content is being deleted! All information is in the unified article at Wilder, Vermont." Actually, i had previously added some material to the NRHP HD article which is not included in the Wilder article. It is fine for anyone developing a town/village/hamlet article to draw material from an NRHP article; that is one way in which paired articles can be complementary. But, the HD article is likely to develop into a more detailed discussion of the contributing properties which are not appropriate to cover in such detail in the town/village/hamlet article. doncram (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think the article Wilder Village Historic District is a piece of junk in its current form. I have a strong hunch that the reason why the village is listed on the National Register has far more to do with the historical attributes that I described in the history section of Wilder, Vermont than it does with having 202 buildings and one other unidentified object, not to mention "one or more examples of Queen Anne style and Colonial Revival style architecture." My basic problem with the firewalls being built between HD articles and village articles, however, is that I suffer from the delusion (actually, I think what I believe is true and is confirmed by many of the NRHP nom forms I've seen, but many NRHP Wikiproject participants disagree with my view) that when a historic village area is listed as an historic district, the listing usually is intended to celebrate the village's history and to preserve the village as a whole entity, not to commemorate an inventory of 2 churches, an Odd Fellows Hall, 8 tenements, 41 single-family houses, 3 garages, and a partridge in a pear tree (or whatever). --Orlady (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "that when a historic village area is listed as an historic district, the listing usually is intended to celebrate the village's history and to preserve the village as a whole entity, not to commemorate an inventory", it is often both, in my experience. For example, the Bethel Historic District (Bethel, Missouri) nomination form states that the district is significant both historically and architecturally. Historically would be relevant to the town article, but architecturally probably woluldn't be. Lvklock (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, you forgot the two turtledove vendors' shops :-) Of course the typical district is meant to encompass the village's history in general, but most of these districts include only a portion of said typical village. The buildings have to be rather clustered (if they weren't, they would be multiple property submissions), so they clearly exclude other areas of the village in many of our hypothetical cases. It's helpful to list the number of buildings and object etc., not to say "Building 203 isn't included", but to show how many buildings are of a historic nature, etc. After all, a large number of these districts are generally added for architectural reasons. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilder is different from most of these districts: it appears that the district and the settled area are virtually identical. For that reason I've proposed a merger: please continue discussion at Talk:Wilder, Vermont. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock Village Historic District

Polaron has repeatedly redirected Woodstock Village Historic District to Woodstock (village), Vermont. This loses information, including the rather important contraposition of facts that the village has 1.0 square miles of area (per its wikipedia article), while the historic district has more than 4 square miles. I think this low-grade edit warring is wp:disruptive and worse.

Anyhow, does anyone want to argue the two are the same? doncram (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]