Jump to content

Talk:Quinebaug Mill–Quebec Square Historic District

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

towns involved

[edit]

The article links to "Brookland-Killingly, Connecticut" which may not be a town. I wonder if that is just a conjunction of Brookland, Connecticut (or Brooklyn, Connecticut? or East Brooklyn, Connecticut?) and Killingly, Connecticut in the NRHP name for the district. It is also possible that there is a typo in the NRIS data entry of the name. Has anyone collected the NRHP application for this district? That would be conclusive. doncram (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you map the bounds of the district, it is entirely in the town of Brooklyn, in the section known as East Brooklyn, which borders the borough of Danielson (which is in the town of Killingly). --Polaron | Talk 02:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "if you map the bounds of the district"? Do you have a map or other complete description of the district. That would be very relevant.
By the way, Polaron, your edit summary approximately "already covered in another article" to redirect this article, is seemingly deliberately misleading. You just beforehand or afterwards added the NRHP infobox to the redirect target article East Brooklyn, Connecticut. It was not there before. And, I don't yet really believe that the target redirect really is appropriate, as I believe the NRHP-given town location suggests that the district spans town lines.
Please discuss and provide evidence here. doncram (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the description of the boundaries in the NRIS database. Compare that to a town map of the state. And it is already discussed in the text of the East Brooklyn village article. --Polaron | Talk 04:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "it wasn't there before" and it was "just added", do you mean that because I only added it four months ago instead of when the East Brooklyn article was created then that makes it an invalid redirect target? --Polaron | Talk 04:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, i misspoke slightly here. Your edit description in this edit of Branford Point Historic District was the one I had noticed having an edge to it which seemed misleading to me. You redirected that to Branford Center article, just before or after putting its infobox into that target article, while your comment was "already discussed in another article".
About the description of boundaries in the NRIS database, what is that description exactly? The infobox you put into the target article, relative to a fresh Elkman generator infobox, has stripped out the location description. The version I put into this article would have had that, but you deleted it. The descriptive phrase is "Roughly bounded by Quinebaug River, Quebec Square, Elm & S. Main Sts., Brookland-Killingly, Connecticut". As with other descriptions of historic districts, this is approximate and not definitive. But, sure, can you point me to the town map that you are referring to, or do you only have an off-line version? I currently do not yet believe your assertion that, contrary to the apparently deliberate naming by the National Register, that the district does not extend into Killingly, but you might convince me by showing me something more here.
Also, the current version of East Brooklyn article now includes the infobox, while the infobox itself states the historic district is in Brooklyn, instead, which seems odd. I understand that Brooklyn includes East Brooklyn CDP. But I am not seeing what is overall logic of where to cover the historic district and where not to. I am going to leave this for a day now, so if you would like to fix things up or consider discussing what are the options more generally, you have time. doncram (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The boundary description says the Quinebaug River, which is the town line. The location information you are talking about is in the text of the article. I have an offline atlas but I think you can use the topographic layer at ACME Mapper, which has municipal boundaries. Unless the districy extends over the river, it would be completely in Brooklyn. I don't know why it's odd to say the district is in Brooklyn as it is in Brooklyn (East Brooklyn is a CDP in Brooklyn). The entire district is in the East Brooklyn CDP. My speculation for the reason for the mention of Killingly in the NRIS database is that East Brooklyn used to be part of the borough of Danielson. At that time, Danielson did indeed encompass the two towns. The Brooklyn portion was later removed from the borough and now Danielson only exists in Killingly. The Brooklyn portion is what largely became the East Brooklyn CDP. --Polaron | Talk 05:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining that, Polaron. I see that from the description and google map, that it does seem like the district is just on one side of the river, and given your statement that the town border is the river, then it would be in just the one town i guess. The Acme Mapper link didn't show town boundaries for me, though. I'd appreciate further hints on how to use that, it sounds like a good tool.
Also, it sounds like the NRIS listing has a typo in "Brookland" vs. "Brooklyn". I've put in a request for a copy of the NRHP application document, which should have plenty of material to make this a separate article, and may also provide basis for putting in a correction request about the NRIS entry. doncram (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to use the "Topo" layer, which loads USGS topographic maps. You may need to be at the right zoom level to see town lines. And yes, Brookland is obviously a typo for Brooklyn. A copy of the NRHP document would indeed be useful and may provide sufficient material so we can split this off as its own article. I'll try to add some tidbits I can find from the town historical society. --Polaron | Talk 20:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. About why it's odd to say in the East Brooklyn article that the district is in Brooklyn: it gives the appearance that there is a mistake, that the district should be covered in the Brooklyn article instead. Without explicit discussion that the district is entirely within East Brooklyn (about which you would be hard pressed to find a source to quote), it would appear to the reader that it should not be covered in the East Brooklyn article. Putting the historic district in a separate article about the district avoids that. I'm often not opposed to merging historic districts with town or other community articles. But if you want to do that, in my opinion you have to go further in documenting the historic district is wholly within that community or otherwise characterizing its location fully accurately. doncram (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not completely averse to a separate article. I would actually prefer to get rid of the CDP article as "East Brooklyn" is actually an artificial place and is not used locally. As I said, I'll try and dig up some more information so that at least we can say why this is a historic district. If you wish to split, go ahead, I'll add some stuff later. Also, I believe there is a MOS guideline for article titles such that in this case, we need to use an en dash in the title. --Polaron | Talk 20:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

source repository

[edit]

[1] [2] [3]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quinebaug Mill – Quebec Square Historic District. 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) 15:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quinebaug_Mill–Quebec_Square_Historic_District&oldid=1209931198"