Talk:Wauregan, Connecticut

Relationship of Wauregan to Wauregan Historic District

Orlady has differed with my wording a few times already on this point. Please discuss here. Wauregan is an unincorporated community or a village or a CDP or some such geographical place, and Wauregan Historic District is a NRHP HD. I think it is reasonable to assume there is some overlap, based on the name, but Orlady removes any accurate statement that Wauregan includes part or all of the NRHP HD, or vice versa. I believe she dislikes the imprecise nature of the statement. But, that is all that is known, there is some overlap, so one includes part or all of the other, and vice versa. That is factual!

And, Orlady actually agrees it is reasonable to assume there is some overlap, within edit summaries like "rv Doncram - the fact that your only source for the HD article is the NRIS database that doesn't have enuf info to base an article on, does not change the fact that this is the same Wauregan".

I think an accurate "some or all" statement is preferable to a disjointed statement, in the article, such as "Wauregan Historic District was listed on the National Register", without explaining any relationship. Putting a See also to the NRHP HD article is better than the latter in my view. Orlady has repeatedly been derisive of my editing, calling my vague-but-accurate wording an "embarrassment to wikipedia" and the like, in edit summaries here and/or other similar articles, but it is equally embarrassing then to have the disjointed statement about an NRHP HD that just appears out of place. doncram (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wauregan is reasonably well documented. It is a 19th century industrial village. Industrial villages exist in many places in New England. They are places where a factory (or "mill") was established on a river that supplied water power. Housing for workers was clustered around the mill. Usually the villages also included commercial areas, sometimes they included the more substantial homes of the mill owners or managers, and often they included some community facilities such as churches and schools. Often an entire village was in single ownership (by the person, partnership, or corporation that owned the mill), continuing for many years or decades.

Specifics of local government differ from state to state in New England, but there are major commonalities that are at the same time very different from the other U.S. states. In general, the town is the basic unit of local government that functions much like an incorporated municipality. The towns were established and functioning before the Industrial Revolution, so the new industrial villages were overlaid on the existing town structures and (with few exceptions) never acquired any local government function (outside of the control by the village's owner). In Connecticut, there is no such thing as an incorporated village, so "village" is a generic term that no knowledgable person would find legally significant. Many Connecticut villages are postal localities, thought, and in some instances (such as Wauregan), the federal bureaucracy designates a village as a CDP.

Many 19th century industrial villages, particularly in more densely populated areas, have largely lost their identities and evolved into neighborhoods or "sections" of cities or towns. In rural areas that have experienced little population growth since the 19th century or that have lost population, the industrial villages are still distinct places, and in many instances have been nominated for and listed on the National Register (as historic districts) due to their physical evocation of the past. Wauregan is in one of those rural areas that has experienced little or no growth.

The manager of the Wauregan mill endeavored to make the village a "model hamlet" for workers, and there's quite a lot of information about what was built in the village. Photos and sources indicate that the old mill is still intact and is occupied by C&M Corporation.

In contrast, the only information Wikipedia has about the historic district is the basic data recorded i the NRIS database. Writing an article on the basis of that database entry is only slightly more difficult than writing an article on the basis of a phonebook listing. However, it is clear from maps that the river and street names that are the boundaries of the historic district fully encompass the mill complex and the associated village streets. You may choose to believe that there are two separate and distinct places called "Wauregan" in the town of Plainfield, and that the historic district is different from the village of Wauregan, but there is no support for that theory and Wikipedia is not the proper place to publish that unsupported speculation.

As for my comments about "embarrassing" language, the issues with these articles were fairly mild, but saying "It includes part or all of an unincorporated community named Wauregan" is original research (you are guessing about the relationship between the HD and Wauregan) and possibly vaguely insulting to Wauregan (by using the indefinite article "an" to refer to it and by emphasizing that it is "named" rather than that it is). (What I have found truly embarrassing in your recent work has been WP:OR statements like "As in many other historic districts in villages and towns, it is likely that the history evoked does not cover older and newer history or history which is not embodied in architecture, and it is likely that the geographical area is not the same as a village or town entity.") I contend that when there is a little info about the HD as exists in this instance, Wikipedia should limit itself to verifiable statements like "the Wauregan Historic District was listed on the National Register in 1979" that do not include any speculation or spin. Last time I looked "no original research" was still a core policy of Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To say "some or all" is not guessing. The point is that I am not guessing. I am not asserting some possibly false overlap relationship, I am saying to the reader what is known and revealing what is not known, which is objective, scientific, and so on. In this and every other case, I believe you believe that the statement I make is true, that some or all of the one is included in the other. Sure, that one sentence would better be included in the Talk page, but you know it was written to give pause to those who were, and who are continuing now, to edit war to delete the NRHP HD article. About your "truly embarassing" accusation now, I am getting angry to read this. I asked, Orlady, at your talk page just now, for you to tone it down. That is personally insulting about my work in wikipedia and I am offended. doncram (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where best to put this, as I'd like to take part in this discussion but it seems to be spread across several pages. Anyway...

Even when historic districts cover the same area as a settlement or have the same boundaries as another area, I think each still merits its own article. While there is geographical overlap, there is much less time overlap. A settlement article should cover not just the history of the place but information on the economy, transport, education, geography, etc. Information about a historic district should be included in a summary style, but historic districts should have their own article to prevent the settlement article becoming too weighted towards the historic district. Articles on historic sites should have information about the history of the site, its relation to the surrounding area, possible interpretations of such sites to give context, and preservation amongst other things. While this could be summarised, for the settlement article stuff like providing context wouldn't be easy to add to the settlement article and it could be interpreted as digressing.

If there was no information that could not be included about an historic district in a settlement article then yes I would agree that it's fair to merge them. However, such information as I have listed above should always be available for each historic site. Unfortunately, most articles will remain redirects because there are so many of them, but at least having them flags to the reader that it needs expansion. The district should of course be mentioned in the history section of the settlement, but there should be scope for creation and expansion of an article on the district. I'm not sure of any articles that specifically fit these criteria, but I'm drawing on my experience of writing articles about settlements and listed buildings in England. There is usually a fair bit of information about such historic sites if you know where too look and if you add it too the settlement article it ends up clogging it up. Nev1 (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading Nev1's comments here and elsewhere, I feel a need to point out that there are some significant differences between England and the United States, mostly related to time. In most of the U.S., "history" doesn't span a particularly long period of time. For example, consider Wauregan. It was built pretty much all at once and its total history of existence spans about 155 years, during the first 100+ years of which it consisted of one textile mill and its surrounding village. Wauregan's history is far, far less complicated than the history of a typical English rural village (whose history is likely to span many centuries), and both its history and its present situation are far, far less complicated than the history and present situation of an English urban industrial district such as Ancoats. Just as Ancoats has one long article that covers its history and present situation (but is separate from the article about the ward of the city of Manchester in which Ancoats is located), I think it makes sense for Wauregan to be the subject of one much shorter article about its history and present situation (but is separate from the article about the Town of Plainfield in which Wauregan is located). --Orlady (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am of course aware that America has a much shorter history compared to Europe, but a settlement article and an article about a historic site is about more than just its history. A settlement needs to include so much more than just history and the article about a historic stie can include information that wouldn't be directly relevant to the settlement article. Admittedly, at the moment the situation of some historic district articles being redirects is less than ideal but there is much scope for expansion, as Orlday herself pointed out above, and so should be kept separate from settlement articles.

I'm not really sure I see the relevance of Ancoats here as it's not part of a historic district comparable to NRHPs in America (although it has been proposed as part of a new World Heritage Site (WHS) the proposal has stalled). A better parallel here would be Cromford. It existed as a very small and inconsequential settlement until the late 18th century now part of the Derwent Valley Mills WHS. There, Richard Arkwright pioneered the factory system and workers' housing, and the settlement grew essentially as a community associated with Cromford Mill. That is by for the most important aspect of the village's history, and it should of course be detailed in the article, but there is stuff that should not be in the Cromford article that obviously belongs in the WHS article; stuff such as its preservation, its global impact and context, the movement towards preservation etc. Nev1 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree more with Nev1. I have repeatedly said that I dislike merging historic district articles into place articles that may include lots of info about current population, etc that doesn't belong in an historic district article (in my view), and potentially introducing much more detail about the historic district than is appropriate into the place article. Lvklock (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Area of historic district

I have removed from the article the statement that the historic district has an area of 900 acres, because it "ain't right." The street boundaries of the historic district are clearly visible in online maps. I made a quick measurement on Google Maps and determined that a rectangle roughly defined by the northernmost (North Chestnut St), southernmost (3rd St), easternmost (Rte 12), and westernmost (Quinebaug River) boundaries of the HD (and thus including a lot of area that is not in the HD) has an area of about 180 acres. The actual HD area would be a good bit less than that. I suspect that the NRIS entry for this HD (and possibly other Connecticut HDs) suffers from the same "extra zero" problem that has been identified in the entries for a bunch of Tennessee HDs (including Norris District) -- and the actual HD area is 90 acres. Since the acreage value in NRIS is clearly wrong and we don't have a good source of valid data, I removed it from the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

90 acres is confirmed in the NRHP nomination form. How widespread is this "extra zero" phenomenon? --Polaron | Talk 20:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool... Can you cite the NRHP nom form in the article(s)?

The "extra zero" phenomenon is a new discovery (just a day or two ago). It was precipitated by Doncram's comparison of the NRIS-reported 40,000-acre size of Norris District with the much smaller size of the city of Norris, Tennessee. Seeing the numbers in that fashion, I realized that the 40,000 acres couldn't be right. Elsewhere in Tennessee, I compared the NRIS listings for Cades Cove and several other districts with the nom forms, and in all cases the NRIS number turned out to be too high by a factor of 10. Elkman has now found another federal data source that gives 4,000 acres as the size of the Norris District, confirming that the 40,000 figure was 10x too high. The only other Connecticut historic district that I've questioned is Willington Common Historic District (see its talk page), but I would expect to find others with extra zeros in their acreages. --Orlady (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This off by a factor of 10 thing seems to be very widespread in Connecticut. I sampled various historic places that I know the approximate boundaries and all of the places I looked at were off by a factor of 10. This leads me to believe this is true for the entire state. --Polaron | Talk 02:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This topic seems important to discuss more broadly, opening Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Factor of 10 issue in NHRP HD areas. doncram (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

no merger proposal

I believe there previously were merger tags proposing a merger of this article with Wauregan Historic District. Where was the previous discussion, or is the above discussion it? Anyhow, I do not believe that any previous discussion was concluded. Among other things, did anyone obtain dcoumentation of what is the historic district? doncram (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I see above that Polaron mentions the NRHP application document. Polaron, could you scan and share it? Or, is this one, as with some others, that you were only able to consult and not copy? doncram (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Doncram here, the Historic District in this case is only about 15% of the village but IMO has enough notability to a merit a seperate article. Markvs88 (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember that the CDP is an artificial entity whose boundaries have to follow visible lines or civil boundaries, and this is the reason why it is a bit large compared to the populated area of the village. The historic district excludes open, undeveloped land owned by the Wauregan Mill Company located north of the district but part of the CDP. Newer developments to the south and off of Route 12 were also excluded. But in terms of history, these two are identical. Let's wait a couple more months to see if someone can develop the historic district article to have content that is not relevant to the village. We can revisit merging again if the article is undeveloped or if it ends up merely describing what's in the village of Wauregan. --Polaron | Talk 15:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I think it would be best to remove the merger proposal tags now, and take this off the table for now. Anything in wikipedia can always be revisited, but there is no current proposal by anyone to develop these articles differently, and there seems to be consensus that the topics are separate.

I believe, also, there is plenty of material in the NRHP nomination document to identify and describe more of the contributing buildings in the historic district article, and to call for and allow local editors or visitors to add photos and otherwise develop the article. I believe there is already enough material in the historic district article to justify keeping it separate, and the case for keeping it separate only becomes clearer as more specific material is added, specific material that is not really appropriate for a short, general article about the village/CDP. I believe, also, that in general in split/merge decisions as here, it is appropriate to defer somewhat to the judgment of those who have developed useful material. I don't want to make too much of this--it is not all that important--but in this case, i believe that it is i who developed most of the specific material about the historic district, drawing mostly from the NRHP document, which appears in both articles (note some material i wrote was copy/pasted into the other article). So I think there is at least a temporary consensus of no merger for now, and mostly the view that no merger later will be needed. I'll pause for any more comments, and otherwise expect to remove the merger proposal tags soon, if no one else does. --doncram (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That should be fine. But in a few months, I will begin development of this topic and will merge if I deem it beneficial to discuss all aspects of Wauregan in a single article. --Polaron | Talk 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you have made some edits, including building a "Notable buildings" section. I wish you well in terms of developing this article. It currently seems a bit disjointed, going back and forth from talking about the historic district to something else and then on to the Notable buildings section, but I expect you will improve the flow.

However, I just restored a link from this article to the Wauregan Historic District article, and I think that should remain linked. There is not even a proposal to merge the articles, again. Note, I think the historic district one could be developed to include many photos and a complete list of all the buildings included in the district, in far more detail than is appropriate for a village/hamlet/CDP/neighborhood article. Given that the HD article is separate and probably will remain separate permanently, it should be linked from this article. --doncram (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am in the process of developing the article as I mentioned I would a few months ago and I have judged that a merged article works better. --Polaron | Talk 22:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i see you argumentatively redirected the HD article, contrary to the spirit of the (now-date-expired) edit restriction on P's edits of this type. I restored the HD article. Make a proper merger proposal, i suggest in a new section. I for one will want consider whether you have developed a DYK-worth or not of material on each of the two topics, the village and the HD (that would not necessarily be deciding for me, but it would be supporting if you have accomplished that). --doncram (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In the past, there was a merger proposal, but somebody named Doncram deleted the merge templates from both articles. I believe the deletions were done on or about May 20, 2010. --Orlady (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, it looks like you did not read the discussion section to which you are adding. Please read the above. --doncram (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I read the full discussion, and determined that everyone involved was disingenuously pretending not to know/remember what had happened before. That is, Polaron is pretending that Markvs88 never agreed with you, you are pretending that there never was a previous discussion of merger proposal, and your buddy Lvklock is responding to a 14-month-old comment as if it had been made 14 minutes earlier. (Who am I forgetting?) I confess to being a participant in this collective lack of awareness -- I had not realized that Wauregan Historic District (which was no longer linked from this article) still existed as a separate article. --Orlady (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram says he will defer to whoever is developing the article. I am in the process of developing the article and based on the sources, there is no need to separate this. Doncram, were you just being glib when you said you would defer to whoever is developing the article? I said in a comment above from a few months ago that I would develop. I'm just following through. --Polaron | Talk 04:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What statement by me, specifically, are you referring to? Please stop redirecting the HD article until something is resolved here. I reverted P's 2nd or 3rd redirect there. You don't have to delete/redirect that in order for you to work on drafting a merged version.

I agree that there should be some place, some way, Polaron could try to develop a decent merged article, but I am not now impressed with the current article. I think P should perhaps try in User space draft or in a subpage of this Talk page. But, I have not been reverting edits in this Wauregan article, besides re-linking to the separate HD article.

The Wauregan vs. HD split/merger was resolved previously within the big mediated discussion, unhappily for some perhaps, but by at least silent agreement, in favor of having separate articles. Specifically, I followed the Poquetanuck agreement terms and developed a DYK+ article about the HD. See the mediated discussion at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list#Windham County HDs. It was clear enough then that I complied with the big agreement's terms, because you can verify that i did a DYK length. And you can observe that it was a coherent, decent article of a certain pretty good (not great) quality. Now, for Polaron trying to go in the other direction, it is not clear what suffices. There were not formally agreed terms about how to handle mergers. And this is a case where the formally agreed upon process for a split was done.

I do think that developing a new DYK's worth on each of the 2 topics should be part of any merger in these already-much-contended cases. If a merged article has less than that, or if the attempt to draft a merged article is simply worse than the previous split articles (which I think could be the case now), then I think the merger should be undone. P has to do better than this. The current article is a bit of a mess, while separate clear articles focused on just one topic each, did and would again stand better.

Also, other editors should be consulted, in a proper merger proposal with appropriate notice. There has not been a proper process here yet. The previous merger tags were deleted, by agreement, in favor of keeping the separate articles (which was entirely clear, and, to Orlady, i was never confused or forgetful or disingenuous about any of this here). If P wants to keep pushing for merger, it should be his job to set up a new pair of merger proposal tags, with pointers to a new discussion. The discussion would decide whether a new merged draft should be accepted, or whether previous or new split articles should be accepted. At this point I think P should do his best work to create a better merger article draft, first, and then make that proposal. And then neutral notices should be posted elsewhere. --doncram (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, you stated previously that I believe, also, that in general in split/merge decisions as here, it is appropriate to defer somewhat to the judgment of those who have developed useful material. I have read through the nomination form and supplemental sources in order to develop the topic, which I am in the process of doing. In doing so, it is clear that a merged article works best. You're moving the goalposts and weaseling your way out as usual. As I said somewhere above a few months ago, That should be fine. But in a few months, I will begin development of this topic and will merge if I deem it beneficial to discuss all aspects of Wauregan in a single article. So you see, I agreed the split as fine at the time when there was less development. Now that there is more, it is quite clear the topics are identical. --Polaron | Talk 16:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And, I will take full responsibility for having been the one here who was actually unaware.....I sorted out the dates a bunch of places, but apparently not in the place where I felt strongly enough to jump in. And, as you notice, it was the ONLY place I did jump in, as this whole thing is just stupid and boring, IMO. Yes, I think there should be a separate HD article. No, I am not willing to expend any energy on the fight. Yes, I missed the dates in that particular place, where I must have been overcome by excitement that there was actually someone besides the three of you involved in this old argument, and the smallest possible chance that some reason might prevail. Regardless of what anyone may think, I do not mindlessly support Doncram or anyone else. Nor do I mindlessly battle anyone. I do apologize for the fact that I genuinely mixed up the dates on a controversy that's been going on for OVER A YEAR when I inserted a brief comment of my views on the subject into yet another venue. Doesn't seem to bother Orlady or Doncram to repeat themselves, apparently my only sin was inattention to detail. I do not believe the snideness toward me that I read in that "your buddy lvklock" was warranted. Lvklock (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

notable buildings section

An editor developed a section titled Notable buildings which i copy to here, as follows:

	Wauregan Mills	The main mill building, now occupied by C&M Corporation, is H-shaped, with the first section (northern half of front mill) first constructed in 1853. This section has four stories and is about 250 by 50 feet with a hoist tower topped with an Italianate belfry. In 1858, the southern half of the front mill was built with an identical tower. The rear or western mill was built after the Civil War in 1867-68. The two buildings are connected by a center section spanning the wheel pits in the power canal. The rear mill has five stories and also has two towers on its eastern facade but without belfries. One the ends of each building are smaller structures originally used as picker houses, where raw cotton bales are first opened.
	Company Store	The former company store, now occupied by the Connecticut Mop Manufacturing Company, was built in 1875. The 2½-story building was designed with a combination of Italianate and Greek Revival styles and has a clapboard-covered, asphalt-shingled roof. The Greek revival style is highlighted by the paneled corner pilasters while the Italianate detailing is shown by the cornice brackets and bracketed door hoods. The company store enabled workers to buy fresh food and milk that were produced in the company farm north of the village.
	Former Congregational Church	The Wauregan Congregational Church was built in 1873 in the High Victorian Gothic style with its wooden trim worked to look like stone buttresses and corbelling. The church has since been demolished. The main facade had double entry doors under an arched portico. Above the portico was a stained glass window. A bell tower also stood on the east of the main facade.
	Former firehouse and clubhouse	The former Wauregan firehouse and clubhouse on Front Street is a two-story structure that was originally used by the Atwood Hose Company, which was organized in 1898. The upper floor was used as a reading room and the village jail was attached to this building. The building is now used as a coffee shop.
	Atwood Hose Fire Company	The modern fire house now used by the Atwood Hose Company was built in 1961 and is located on Route 205 further east from the original fire house. It is a two-bay cement block structure with brick front facade.
	Wauregan Post Office
	Mill workers' housing
	Supervisors' houses	There are eight extant duplex supervisors' houses in the village that are located further uphill from the mill from the workers' houses. These supervisors' houses were built in three distinct time periods. The earliest houses were built with Greek revival elements with three of the surviving supervisor's houses exhibiting this style. The later houses (five surviving structures) are plainer-looking with some Victorian detailing. These houses have fieldstone foundations and gable roofs. The main facade has a central double entrance under a wide, flat-roofed portico and is six bays wide.
	Boarding houses
	J.W. Atwood residence (Putnam Road)
	J.S. Atwood residence (Brooklyn Road)

I think this table could be developed to include sources, or otherwise improved, but i remove it because it is incomplete and is unsourced and has otherwise remained tagged and unimproved for some time. The same editor has repeatedly redirected the separate Wauregan Historic District article to here. If the HD article exists separately, i think (but am not sure) this table would better be included there. I think a proposal plus appropriate notices about the merger that this editor wishes for, might be appropriate. --doncram (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is all distilled from the NRHP nomination, which describes both contributing and non-contributing buildings. I've added the reference. --Polaron | Talk 19:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you keep your word and "defer split/merge decisions to those who develop useful material", I will continue with the expansion of the article, which was halted because you went back on your word. --Polaron | Talk 19:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Polaron, i have repeatedly stated that I will tend to want to defer to editors who actually do productive work. That is not a blanket promise to agree to anything you choose, once you do some work. If there are policy reasons or strong practice-based reasons, or factual reasons to disagree, i will still disagree. In practice, many issues in editing come down to editorial judgment; in these i will tend to want to defer to one who has earned some right to make the judgment. I will not be stupid about this though. If you never are willing to defer to my editorial judgment where there are no other good way to make a decision, then why should i ever defer to you? I have often deferred to your wishes, anyhow, but you remind me that maybe i shouldn't, i dunno. Also, I made some specific offers to you within the big mediated discussion, about your proceeding with development of some specific articles within New Haven i think, which you pointedly did not accept, because you wanted more blanket agreement that you would develop all the New Haven HD articles or none at all. I have not ever gone back on my word, I think, if you read what I actually wrote. I have in fact gone exceptionally out of my way to make some prior agreements (e.g. the 6 month editing restriction on you) work fairly, when it seemed the terms were having unfair/unintended consequences against you. But go ahead, provide diffs. It seems important to clear up any misunderstandings you have.

About this section in the article: okay, thanks for adding a reference for each of the descriptions. Looking at this table though, it seems inappropriately detailed for the Wauregan article. This is me saying yes i considered that you did some work, and I do tend to want to give you some consideration for it, but looking at the work i don't think it is very good stuff. There is nothing remarkable about "Atwood Hose Fire Company" as a 2 bay cinder block building or whatever it is, for example. I don't think that articles about towns/villages/neighborhoods should be blown up with such trivial information. For an article about the historic district, a tabular format can sometimes make for a good presentation about the contributing buildings, but i would not include so much coverage of a non-remarkable NC building. --doncram (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)