Talk:Wyoming, Rhode Island

Village with post office

Wyoming, Rhode Island, is a village that is a post office city (zip code 02898). I think it needs to be treated primarily as a place, and only secondarily as a historic district. --Orlady (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

fine for you to have an article about the village, if you can find sources. However, don't destroy the NRHP HD article, which I am now restoring and adding more to, which is different. This is tedious! doncram (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I specifically added the NRIS source separately to this article to support its valid mention / description of the NRHP HD which presumably partly overlaps with part of this village. The NRHP infobox however would add the NRHP categories. This is not NRHP-listed, and I am removing that. The last time i removed it, i see someone else stripped out the NRIS source i had added separately, now causing a references error in the article. I don't want to damage this as a village article, but i added the reference once and will now let someone else repair that problem. doncram (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Basic facts of location of Wyoming, Rhode Island

I added fact tags to basic statements in the article, that "Wyoming is a village primarily in the town of Richmond, Rhode Island."[citation needed] and that "It is located just south of the Hopkinton town line."[citation needed].

From the editing pattern so far, and lack of any references besides the National Register database in the article, it appears there is no clear knowledge of the location of this village. Does it extend into two towns, as does the NRHP HD? What does "located just south of the Hopkinton town line" mean? That would imply it is solely in Richmond. But then, why state the village is "primarily" in Richmond, implying it is also in Hopkinton?

It seems ironic to be chastised, myself, now and again for pathetic articles. The NRHP redirects i create are pretty well sourced, as far as they go. doncram (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at a map. It's quite clear the village extends north of the Wood River. --Polaron | Talk 01:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem you read what i wrote: i was pointing out contradictory statements in the article, and you are plunging for one alternative reality, but the article still needs to be amended. It certainly would be highly relevant to provide a map in the article. If what you say is so clear, you should develop those facts in the article. doncram (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I should probably explain what I meant. The point location as defined in the GNIS is in Richmond. The village, however, definitely extends to Hopkinton per the RI Govt Owners Manual. Some RI government agencies also produce their own list of villages and bin them in one and only one town, i.e. the town where the geographic center is located. When referring to "just south of the town line", I'm referring to this point location. Yes, it could definitely be worded better but there is nothing contradictory with what was written. --Polaron | Talk 21:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I'm sorry, I think it is premature to discuss a merger. There are few facts available about both the Wyoming Village Historic District and about Wyoming, Rhode Island, to base a decision upon. In many other cases of NRHP HDs, it has been found that the HD is different from a village or town that includes part or all of the NRHP. doncram (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In which cases are they so different that they cannot be discussed as a whole? --Polaron | Talk 13:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly support merging Wyoming Village Historic District into the Wyoming, Rhode Island article. It's clear that Wyoming is a 19th-century industrial village that still exists as a community and has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places as an historic district. The two separate articles are pretty pathetic due to lack of information (for example, the Wyoming article mentions that there was an 19th century iron mill and the HD article says that the Brand Ironworks is part of the HD, but neither article indicates whether these are one and the same place; I'd wager that they are). If the two articles were combined, we might have the beginnings of one worthwhile redirect article about this historic village.

Since "Wyoming" has no legal existence as a place, it has no defined boundaries, so there is no basis for worrying that there might be small differences between its boundaries and the HD boundaries. Furthermore, because it is not credible that there are two different Wyoming Villages on the Richmond-Hopkinton town line, it is nonsense to suggest that these need to be separate articles because they might be two different places. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support merging of rural unincorporated communities in New England to historic districts with the same name as a general principle. See also how this discusses the village and historic district as if they were interchangeable. All evidence points to the fact that these are the same place, i.e. there is no evidence indicating they're different places. --Polaron | Talk 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral because I'm unclear about the boundaries. I drive by signs road signs for Wyoming, but I don't know enough about the boundaries of the historic district within it to make an informed vote. If the historic district 1) covers approximately the same territory within the confines of one town and; 2) has the same exact name as a small village, it probably make sense to merge into the village article. If this is not the case, I'd prefer to leave two distinct articles so the village articles remain uncluttered in the future. Swampyank (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• [1] shows a small scale map of the historic districts in Richmond. The Rhode Island Government Owner's Manual also confirms that Wyoming is in both Hopkinton and Richmond. There is additional information in [2]. See also the link in my comment above. --Polaron | Talk 17:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Here's one official list of villages: [3] --Orlady (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are huge assumptions/projections in arguments here about how the NRHP HD must be the same as the village/hamlet/whatever, in the absence of sources and information. Please don't take offense, but similar assumptions/projections by the same persons making them here, have not borne out in many other cases.

I suggest that instead of arguing uselessly in the air, that those who want a merger should develop the Wyoming place article. There is nothing there, not a single source besides the National Register database about the HD! Whatever knowledge you are claiming here, is nonsense, effectively "not admissable" to any argument. If there are such wonderful sources, use them and add to the wikipedia article about the village. Neither you nor I know exactly where the facts will take you.

It is already possible to have a properly sourced NRHP HD article, and it is wikipedia notable, and so on. And even if there were any information about Wyoming the town, why must the HD article be stopped? The intensity here seems like some anti-NRHP, control freakish wish to prevent NRHP articles. I am not saying you don't have some good motivations, but I am simply not seeing them here. If your motivation is to build good town/village articles, you are free to do so. In those articles, you can summarize the NRHP HD information, even include virtually the same information, copying over from the separately developing NRHP HD article. Note, Orlady has repeatedly stated how she dislikes "metes and bounds" and other detailed information that is highly appropriate in the NRHP HD article. So, let it grow there in the NRHP article, and extract what you want into the village article. Note, I believe it is almost inevitable that the NRHP HD article can grow to be longer/different than any material suitably summarize in a town article. So for this and many other reasons, it does not make sense to enforce a merger. doncram (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, Doncram makes some good points I haven't considered in depth. I agree "it is almost inevitable that the NRHP HD article can grow to be longer/different than any material suitably summarize in a town article." Let's see where further wiki editors develop this article For a good example of what to strive for, see New Bedford Historic District, clearly much different than the "New Bedford" article. I understand a HD doesn't always comprise the whole town/city necessarily, but NRHP articles are prima facie notable and worthy of their own articles. I'll rescind my previous neutral vote.Swampyank (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the New Bedford case should be separate as that particular district is about a distinct section of the city. That does not apply in this case. This is not a town article but an unincorporated community whose significance is the same as why it was listed as a historic district. How different really is what is considered Wyoming from the historic district? Where does what is locally considered Wyoming end? --Polaron | Talk 20:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Polaron. New Bedford's a big place -- much larger than its historic district. The analogy doesn't apply. --Orlady (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• [EDIT CONFLICT] Admittedly, the source citation has not yet been added to the article, but am I the only one who noticed that Polaron supplied a reference (about Hopkinton) in which the Rhode Island State Historical Commission states "Wyoming Village, listed in the National Register of Historic Places, is situated along both sides of the Wood River, with part of the settlement in Richmond"? That document, by the very same people who submit nominations to the National Register, says the village is listed in the National Register (not some fraction of the village or some other place that might be confused with the village) -- and it says the village is on both sides of the river. That makes it pretty clear that the village and the HD are one and the same place. --Orlady (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Here goes another try...somehow the darn edit conflicts lost all the text I spent time creating the first time. In my experience, the info in a historic district article is very often different than the info in a town/village article. I usually develop historic district articles by enumerating or even tableizing some or all of the contributing structures. I usually work in New York, where NRHP nomination documents are readily available online. I have never encountered a historic district article that did not specifically enumerate what structures are contributing and what are not. I have also never encountered one whose boundaries were exactly the same as the town/village it was in. One example of one where I added info about some of the specific structures is the Aurora Village-Wells College Historic District as opposed to the Aurora, Cayuga County, New York article. An example of one where I tableized all of the structures in a district is Hanover Square Historic District (Syracuse, New York). Both of these historic district articles contain details that would, in my view, be too specific for a town/village article. In addition, having done quite a bit of work recently on tableizing NRHP list articles, I believe that there is huge benefit to future editors in having a properly disambiguated name as a redlink as opposed to redirecting to a town article that may not be appropriate. There are many, many names used more that once in the NRHP, and figuring out the proper name to use could be daunting to a newbie, as could having a redirect present on for an article you'd like to develop. I am in favor of separate historic district articles in most situations. If this seems out of place in the conversation, I apologize. It fit when I started some time ago, but this conversation is moving rapidly. Lvklock (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lvklock, have you dealt previously with the situation of a rural industrial village in New England? These are villages that have no legal existence, that grew up (usually in the 19th century) around a damsite and factory (sometimes multiple dams and factories), often were under a single ownership, and were isolated from other settlements. Unlike similar villages in New York state, these are not villages that are incorporated as municipalities (or were incorporated in the past), so there are no issues of confusion with municipal boundaries. --Orlady (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I have not. I said I have worked mostly in New York. However, in the greater scheme of NRHP articles, that does not change my opinion. If the village doesn't exist legally, and the historic district does, then why is there a question about which article there should be, assuming there must only be one? Basically, you're saying that the village doesn't exist except as the historic district, so why would the village need an article? Since I am not local, I cannot request the nomination documents and physically visit the place to compare what is there with what is listed in the nomination document. This would definitively answer the question about whether they are indeed one and the same. Polaron seems to be local to the Connecticut ones, and has stated that he has glanced at the nomination documents, but does not share specifics about the info. I could/would request the nomination document, but that wouldn't help as I cannot see the place. In the absence of such information, I use my experience with nomination documents for historic districts to form my opinion. And, especially if that document is all the documentation available, then I strongly believe there should be an article about the NRHP historic district. I have no opinion one way or the other about whether there should also exist a town/village article.Lvklock (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I think the legal and cultural idiosyncrasies of different U.S. states and regions need to be taken into account when deciding how to package articles about places (both current and historical) within those states and regions. Although I list my adopted state of Tennessee as my primary interest on the NRHP Wikiproject page, Tennessee is not my home state, and I take an interest in geographic articles about the numerous places where I've lived, have had close relatives, have ancestral (genealogical) connections, or have worked professionally on projects that involved research on the place. I do not have such experience or interest in every U.S. state (for example, I have no particular interest or experience in any part of New Jersey, Delaware, Kansas, or Oklahoma), but it happens that I am personally familiar with several of the Rhode Island historic districts (although not Wyoming).

Back to Wyoming... The village may not be an official municipality, but it has been a real place for about two centuries, and it's a post office locale where people live and work. I think it would be backwards to say that all information about the place must be incorporated into an article about the historic district that was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1974. Wyoming is primarily a community and secondarily the location of a historic district -- not the other way around. Given that the focus of the Wyoming historic district is on an industrial village (and not, for example, a collection of multiple buildings of special architectural interest, as is the case of some HDs), it seems particularly appropriate to cover the topic of the HD in the article about the village instead of separating it out. --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I resent the apparent attempt by Polaron to close the ongoing split discussion, by this edit. There is no consensus that a split discussion is closed. Polaron is not an uninvolved party. It seems most likely to me that this is an attempt to slip by an inappropriate resolution, rather than discussing to a consensus. Polaron has available the opportunity to finish developing a proposal that might resolve many similar CT cases, at Talk:Poquetanuck. Possibly such a proposal, if accepted, could eventually be extended explicitly or interpreted to apply here. This current attempt seems outside the framework of discussion, though, and I resent it. doncram (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems an obvious case. Anyway, this is a reaction to your reverting of my undoing of your creation of the Poquetanuck historic district article. I think it is appropriate that we both refrain from any new mergers or splits while discussion is ongoing. Assuming the existing state of affairs is restored, then I shall stop as well. --Polaron | Talk 04:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Split declined. Wyoming Village Historic District is a part of Wyoming, Rhode Island, as such it is appropriate to discuss Wyoming Village Historic District in context in this article. When there is sufficient material then a standalone article can be created, linked to from here, leaving behind a summary, as per WP:Summary style. It's not a case of No, it's a case of Not yet. SilkTork *^YES! 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)