Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Connecticut (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

article name[edit]

Could this be moved to "National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut". I believe that Hartford, Connecticut is understood to refer to the city. I think it would introduce no confusion, even for the few wikipedia readers who know that there is a Hartford County. This would replace current name which is "National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford (city), Connecticut". doncram (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a National Register of Historic Places listings in Lancaster (city), Pennsylvania or a National Register of Historic Places listings in Providence (city), Rhode Island — they're National Register of Historic Places listings in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and National Register of Historic Places listings in Providence, Rhode Island; the only city that I know of that works this way [I must say that I've not yet worked through Missouri, so I don't know the situation with St. Louis] is Baltimore, which isn't a part of Baltimore County. Even in that case, I don't see the benefits of naming in that way, but here, when it really is a part of the county, I really think that we shouldn't have this unusual name format. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

duplications[edit]

Splitting this Hartford city list out from the Hartford county NRHP list-article is fine, but wherever there are properties or districts that span the border, there should be explicit treatment in both NRHP list-articles.

I suspect that West End North Historic District (Hartford, Connecticut) may be the same as West End North Historic District (West Hartford, Connecticut), suggesting that one article should be created, but that the HD needs to be listed as a row in both the county and the city list-articles. And, in the statewide list-article, it needs to be noted as a duplication and subtracted. Hmm, i see that the similar "West End South Historic District" is already noted as a duplication there, am not checking yet to see if it has the needed row in both list-articles. Both North and South ones do not have articles yet. doncram (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this a city-wide list, or is it just downtown?[edit]

Another user wants to include a passage in the list intro that discusses a few aspects of Hartford's downtown, as follows:

By defined neighborhood area, the downtown area has the most with more than 40 separate NRHP listings, including the Connecticut State Capitol building and Bushnell Park which it overlooks. Also included in the downtown area are eight historic districts which each comprise numerous properties.

I see this as undue attention to downtown, since this is an article about the whole city, but only this one section of town is discussed. Do others feel that this is necessary (or at least appropriate)?

Also, I question some specifics in this passage. There are 42 separately listed properties (including HDs) in Downtown (not just "more than 40"), it is not true that the HDs "each comprise numerous properties" because High Street Historic District includes just three properties, and the antecedent of "it" in "including the Connecticut State Capitol building and Bushnell Park which it overlooks" is not clear. --Orlady (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Orlady, it is appropriate to develop descriptive information about the list as a whole as part of an intro, overview, section. Commenting on the largest and smallest official neighborhoods in terms of count of RHPs would be fine and natural, or commenting on just the largest is okay too. I would have commented on which of several neighborhoods is the smallest, and towards that I noted there are a couple that have just 2, but then I realized that I hadn't checked whether there are some neighborhoods with 0. 42 is more than 40, and saying "more than 40 "is more likely to stay accurate as new NRHP listings get added occasionally by other editors who won't necessarily check the intro text. Feel free to change it to say 42 now tho if you wish. I think 3 is more numerous than 1 or 2, say. Feel free to reword it to use some other word than "numerous" if you wish.
I know that you have good and precise writing skills. Your editing and comments here seem kind of unnecessarily negative, though, and seem to relate to issues about the Downtown Hartford article not being a better article about the neighborhood than it is, as has been discussed at Talk:Downtown Hartford. It seems inappropriate to harsh on any discussion of the downtown area in this NRHP list-article, in order to somehow make the neighborhood article seem relatively better. You can't prohibit mention of the downtown neighborhood in this list-article. doncram (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is appropriate to preface a list with descriptive information, but it is not appropriate to make things up just to be able to put something in the introduction. Now that I understand the purpose of that intro, I will add sourced material that I think is highly relevant. --Orlady (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)