Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:57, 28 December 2010

Connecticut Project‑class

	Connecticut portal This page 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Shortcut

wt:CONN

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Biographies of Living People without references

According to this list generator, the following articles about people from Connecticut have no footnotes. There's a campaign on, supported by ArbCom, to delete all such articles in upcoming months. Please look over the list, and if you don't want to see the article deleted, add footnotes. This list was generated here [1] and I can't vouch for its accuracy.

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historic sites article drive choice

The list of NRHP-listed places in New Haven, Connecticut was recently the topic of an article improvement drive. The drive completed out starter articles for every item, added NRHP nomination documents, got one DYK for CT (for Goffe Street Special School for Colored Children, on May 8), and otherwise improved many articles. Which NRHP list in CT should be done next?

or

List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Connecticut ?

--doncram (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to help out on the Fairfield County and Bridgeport lists having lived in Fairfield County for most of my life and being familiar with a lot of the sites, especially around Norwalk-Stamford. I can also contribute to some degree on New Haven County, mostly for the Waterbury area. dtgriffith (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's go with that. Dtgriffith, i expect it will be mainly me, but perhaps others will also chime in and contribute. Even if it is just one or a few editors, all of the articles can be created and get good NRHP document references, and any that you can visit and photograph can get photos. There are about 50 redlinks in the Fairfield NRHP list (shortcut List of RHPs in Fairfield); I'll get a start on developing those and fixing up the articles already existing. --doncram (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to determine how best to get an article started in this scenario. I found a stub for my neighborhood which is listed on the NRHP, South Britain Historic District, which contains only location info and category links. Does this example fit what you will be doing to start an article? Regarding this article, time permitting I will begin developing it as I have been learning about the local history while living here. dtgriffith (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that South Britain Historic District is in New Haven County but that's fine. I added the NRHP nomination document to the stub article for it and began developing it somewhat, beginning a list of the contributing properties (which is not at all required but seems to work well in some HD articles). Note the statement of historic significance is a bit confused, starting on page 26 continuing onto page 24 of the scanned document. Historic district articles are harder than individual building ones to develop to a finished degree. Some good examples of HD articles are listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 38#Good historic district article examples. You could take photos of general views and of each contributing building in the district, and include all or selected ones into the article. All your photos, including ones not directly placed into the article can be uploaded to wikimedia commons with "South Britain Historic District" as an identifier and included in a commons gallery link. It would be great if you could specifically re-take some of the same views in the 1986 black and white photoset that accompanies the NRHP nomination, for comparison. It would also be great if you could find and consult the cited references (page 25) and/or add older or more recent ones. Have fun! --doncram (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doncram. Funny, I just wrote a note on Development to you on the article's Talk page referencing some of these same points. Wild seeing some pictures of my home in the nomination document. I will jump on this as soon as I can! dtgriffith (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to pics! Article development in the drive is continuing; i've started a bunch of stub articles with links to NRHP nomination documents. See also Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Fairfield County, Connecticut. --doncram (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spreading the word: GOCE backlog elimination drive

If anyone is interested, a new drive is being planned for September. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2010 to get involved! dtgriffith ^[talk] 02:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York metropolitan area composition

There is a dispute about the definition of the NY metro area that would benefit from additional input here: Talk:New York metropolitan area#New York metropolitan area composition. NYCRuss ☎ 17:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States federal courthouses in Connecticut

This list is largely complete, but has bits and pieces of information missing, and needs images filled in - any help in completing it would be much appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Hazardville merge discussion

The merger discussion at Talk:Hazardville, Connecticut has been open for over 60 days. Based on the discussion and on the preference of the principal contributor to that article (User:Orlady), I think this should be closed in favor of merging. Is this a reasonable conclusion? --Polaron | Talk 01:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support : I agree, as I posted on 1 June in talk... this HD article is a stub and the HD area vs. the town of Hazardville is quite small. (That and Hazardville itself is quite small too). The HD article has not and (IMO) is unlikely to ever get much more detail or development. Markvs88 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the merger proposal is at Talk:Hazardville, Connecticut#merger proposal. There's been more devleopment there since above was posted, including Markvs88 seemingly supporting closing in favor of "keep split". It's okay to call for renewed attention there, by posting an unbiased notice, but the above is outright wp:canvas canvassing in favor of one position. It coulda been worse, but I think that the presentation here just inflames matters. Anyhow, others' comments would be welcome at the merger proposal discussion. Please continue there. --doncram (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield County and Bridgeport NRHP list development

Hey, the development of the National Register of Historic Places listings in Fairfield County, Connecticut list-article has proceeded along pretty well i think. There are now articles for all NRHPs in the county, and all of the new ones plus most of the old ones now have the good NRHP nomination document references included in them, and some development of material. Also there is sourced summary discussion of many of the places now in the list-article. Can editors pay some attention, perhaps visit and add photos, or help develop the articles and list-article? The improvement drive has been running for a while so it is nearly time to close up. I provided an update about this co-sponsored drive at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Fairfield article improvement drive update too.

On some technical matters of ideal formatting for NRHP list-tables, there are open discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#same name same county, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#extends into another county, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#boundary increases. The issues come up in the Fairfield list-article. Connecticut editors' comments would be welcome!

Also, I note with interest that editor AbbyKelleyite has been developing Bridgeport articles and adding pics to them and to the National Register of Historic Places listings in Bridgeport, Connecticut list-article. It's great to see that going on! --doncram (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the shout out. I am enjoying the work of helping to bring some of Bridgeport's history into the light. I see that sourced summaries for the Bridgeport list article, too, wouldn't be a bad idea, now that I've taken a closer look at the Fairfield County list. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, glad you like it! And you put it well, that this kind of work is bringing local history "into the light". --doncram (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HDs vs. neighborhood/hamlets in Fairfield County

Development of NRHP articles in the county and state-wide was previously hampered by contention during 2009. It was contended, mostly by one active editor, that NRHP historic district (HD) articles should not exist, and their topics should be developed only within neighborhood/hamlet/village/town articles. This perspective was enforced by the one editor through setting up redirects and watching them closely to prevent separate articles from being started. I have been the editor most actively contending in the other direction, both creating separate articles and asserting that NRHP HD articles should almost always be permitted. I've argued that the nature of good NRHP historic district articles is to provide detail on how individual contributing properties are artifacts of architectural and other history, and this detail is not usually appropriate for neighborhood/hamlet/village/town articles. I contend that forced mergers tend to give the wrong message to locals, when in fact Wikipedia would/should welcome detailed development and addition of photos etc. where appropriate (in separate articles, although not usually in merged town/village articles). With involvement of many others through an RFC and otherwise, a mediated process was set up to review all NRHP HD cases in CT. The outcome for Fairfield county, regarding its 46 historic districts, was that separate NRHP articles would be created in all but four cases. In the current drive, I have now come across these and wish to revisit them as follows:

Aspetuck Historic District: currently merged to Aspetuck, Connecticut, I plan to split out, pursuant to mediated process agreement for how later adjustments would be made (mainly that if an editor is actually developing serious material >DYK-length, and judges it appropriate to split, she/he can go ahead)
Hattertown Historic District: currently merged to Hattertown, Connecticut, I plan to split out
Newtown Borough Historic District: I already split this article out of Newtown (borough), Connecticut with apparent agreement of the other editor already, and am developing to DYK+ length
Silvermine Center Historic District: currently merged in Silvermine, Connecticut article, it will probably make sense to split out when either of 2 other proposed historic districts in Silvermine become NRHP-listed, no change intended by me for now

There is also one other case where the mediation process / consensus decision was for there to be separate articles, but the other editor now seems to dispute that. The other editor duplicated the NRHP HD material and partly implemented a merger, avoiding notice by leaving the HD article untouched and duplicative. This was for South End Historic District (Stamford, Connecticut) vs. South End of Stamford. There is some discussion about this at Talk:South End of Stamford. Offhand I feel that the separate HD article should be permitted, as it has been repeatedly shown that separate is usually best, and I also object to the apparent attempt to sneak around the mediated/consensus decision, so I currently simply want to reverse the half-merger.

Overall I feel that development of the 42 other Fairfield separate historic district articles in the current drive and otherwise shows the value of allowing them. Some of the HD articles are getting to be pretty good; others are works-in-process but are on their way. A good pairing in the county is Cannondale, Connecticut vs. Cannondale Historic District, the latter split out by me and nicely developed further by User:JohnWBarber. Here at WikiProject Connecticut, i wonder if others could offer general or specific comments. Do CT editors like or dislike the detailed NRHP HD articles? --doncram (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Districts should in most cases be included in the articles about the community in which they are located. This can often be one of the more notable things about the community and there's no reason to make a reader click on a secondary article to get relevant information -- even if it's not merely a stub or redundant -- since most readers will be searching for the town name, even if "Historic District" is just an add-on to the name; in cases where the HD name differs from the community name (e.g., Main Street HD) it's even less likely readers will search for it under that name. Exceptions would be districts in larger cities when there's more than a few sentences to say about the district, and/or there are several districts in the city so that the main article would become too long or the districts would receive undue weight. In all cases, the relevant guidance would be at WP:CFORK. Station1 (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue on which I see the points of both sides. Where a fairly detailed property listing like the Cannondale Historic District is the end result, it may be helpful not to "clutter up" the Cannondale, Connecticut article with such detailed information of interest to only some. On the other hand, with a tiny village like Hattertown, Connecticut, I'm not sure there really is much to say about it beyond the historic district information (it really doesn't function in any meaningful way now as a separate entity from Newtown, Connecticut). Might it be best to develop historic district information within the context of neighborhood/hamlet articles to the point where section size would argue for forking off an HD article? I think my main concern is just that if anything gets merged, no information is lost. On the other hand, as long as neighborhood/hamlet articles have "further" and "see also" links to historic district articles, readers who want more historic information will easily see where to look for more, so I don't see it as any great hardship to have separate articles. My thoughts on this are a muddle. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for small villages like Hattertown and Aspetuck, there is nothing outside the designated historic districts that is significant to warrant a separate stand-alone article about the village. Once you describe the historic district, you've basically described everything that's significant within the village. The same is true for historic districts that are substantially similar to city neighborhoods. Everything of interest in the neighborhood will have been described in the historic district. In these cases, a single article helps the reader better understand the historical context. Since NRHP nomination forms are available, the best option would be to simply look at the historical significance section of each historic district document and see if the nomination is talking about the village/neighborhood as a whole. That's a good indication of the suitability of merging. Now for town center historic districts, these should definitely be separated from the town articles. --Polaron | Talk 20:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I hate to see is confusion between the bounded geographic area of a historic district, which might or might not overlap a lot vs. a hamlet or neighborhood, vs. what a historic district is. What it is is a museum, a set of observable preserved artifacts from a certain era, that successfully evoke events that happened or that illustrate architectural styles, etc. The topic of a hamlet includes both very old stuff and current stuff, and also the fact that the hamlet includes a museum. The topic of the museum is different, mostly limited to what its artifacts speak to, which in part could be the history of the hamlet but could also be broader American trends of architecture or industrial development or whatever, not particularly tied to the hamlet. The history of the museum itself would be relatively recent, about who set it up and what they hoped to accomplish, and what has happened since, e.g. that some of the artifacts have been destroyed or fixed up. The topics of a hamlet and a geographically-overlapping historic district are basically completely different. And, that's pessimistic to say there's nothing else to say about a hamlet. Any one of the hamlets has tons of history and has schools and fire departments and lots more to talk about, I am sure. I would rather see a one- or two- or three-sentence article on the hamlet until there is more hamlet-type information coming forward, and a well-developed proper historic district article to handle the museum type information, than see an awkward merge. --doncram (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There's a similar merger vs. split issue for Greenwich Avenue Historic District vs. Greenwich Municipal Center Historic District also in Fairfield County, under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Greenwich Municipal Center district. --doncram (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Connecticut state parks

Hey, is there a definitive list somewhere for CT's state parks? The List of Connecticut state parks list-article is labelled as being incomplete, and i've come across a good number of parks with no articles while working on NRHP articles. There's a featured list which provides a good model, List of Pennsylvania state parks, by the way. Maybe this list should be the subject of a future article development drive? --doncram (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure that it's complete but this DEP page has a drop-down menu of state parks and forests. DEP also has a map and menu. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's something to start with. Certainly all the dropdown ones should be included, although there might be other state parks not featured there. --doncram (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Preston Hill Historic District

Next up on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut#Articles pending merge list is a proposed merger for a NRHP historic district, the New Preston Hill Historic District, into a town/village/hamlet/neighborhood article. I'd like to resolve this by developing the NRHP article to cover available detail about the properties in the district, and to explain its significance, so that it stands like many other pretty good NRHP HD articles. These provide specifics about places that is more detailed than is appropriate in town/village/hamlet articles, and is worthwhile for bringing light to the local history embodied in the preserved artifacts of houses, etc. Help would be appreciated! --doncram (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Connecticut articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Green Historic District

Could anyone help improve this new article a little? Thanks, Chzz ► 10:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can try and do some expansion later today. However, wouldn't it be better to discuss the topics as part of the Clinton Village Historic District, which is just an expanded version of the Liberty Green district? --Polaron | Talk 14:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Chzz: Nice job with developing the article so far.

Let's not saddle this article and this editor with contention. (There's been long-running contention about mergers/splits of Connecticut NRHP historic districts; much covered in mediated review during 2009-2010 of all CT NRHP historic districts that were disputed. This one didn't come up in that review as this is a local historic district and is not NRHP-listed.) One of the results of that mediated process, and other editing decisions and discussions, is that for several town greens in Connecticut, there is one merged article for pairings where a green is included in a historic district named after the green, i.e. having article placed at Name Green Historic District and having Name Green redirect to that. In fact I recall cases where editor Polaron wished for that, and I believe that kind of treatment prevailed in every such pairing case. That treatment sounds appropriate here. Could we please presume this editor's independent judgment of need/usefulness of an article at Liberty Green Historic District is good, and just help with the request? It will provide a good place for coverage of the green which I am presuming is fully included in the local historic district.

For a start, i'll create Liberty Green disambiguation page to cover the many places of this name, and set up Liberty Green (Clinton, Connecticut) as a redirect to Liberty Green Historic District. I'll also edit some in the LGHD article.

To Polaron: Hey, I think your redirecting the article, after just that casual remark above and no agreement, was really pretty drastic! In fact, rude, especially in the way done, where Chzz's contribution history was entirely separated, without even a credit in Chzz's direction in an edit summary. (The edit summary for move of material to the Clinton Village HD article was just recorded as "add".) I am glad Chzz restored the article. --doncram (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to help with WikiProject United States

Hello, WikiProject Connecticut! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject United States, an outreach effort which aims to support development of United States related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Pond, Connecticut

I've just split this article about a pond in Ridgefield, Connecticut from teh article about the pond in London and tagged it as part of your project. You may want to maerge it with the article about the settlement, but if you do please move/update the {{copied}} templates on the talk pages of talk:Round Pond, Connecticut and talk:Round Pond. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates

I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article drive on NRHP articles

I have a semi-automated process working fairly well now, which could create pretty good starter articles for any set of NRHP-listed places. It uses the same NRIS database that is behind what's known as the Elkman NRHP infobox/article generator (described at wp:NRHPhelp, but this new process does a bit more, including drafting an article text and drafting inline references to the NRHP nomination documents (and to MPS/MRA documents where applicable). If there are one or two editors who would be willing to follow on, who would check and refine the started articles a bit, i'd like to use it to fill out the NRHP entries in the Hartford County list-article, or in a city like Bridgeport, or in "18th and 19th Century Brick Architecture of Windsor TR" (one of CT's 22 multiple resource area studies), or churches, or in any other defined set.

This version of Canton Center Historic District and this version of Makens Bemont House are examples of its output plus a tiny bit of manual tidying. These articles need further development.

Any takers? It could help you get prepared for the first CT photo drive of 2011.... :) Or should i just do all the Connecticut NRHP articles this way? --doncram (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While testing the semi-automated process, i started up new articles for the following Tolland County places:

The articles are pretty raw so far. It would be great if anyone would help fix up one or more, now that what can be done in semi-automated style is done. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New contest

I have an idea for a new (non-photographic) "contest for barnstars", regarding improving CT articles and would like everyone's opinion on:
1) Do you want/will you participate in another contest?
2) Should it last from (say) next week until the end of February? Some other time period?
3) Anything else to consider?
Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could the drive be focused upon, or give points for, bringing stub NRHP articles in CT up to Start quality? I could provide stub articles in a WikiProject Connecticut workpage for some or all of the remaining NRHP-listed places in Connecticut. It would be great if editors would adopt the ones in their area, or of interest to them, and use the linked NRHP nomination document plus additional websearching to develop them up to Start. Also many NRHP articles already created that are still rated Stub, which might now be rated Start upon review, or which could be brought up to Start with work. In a contest, editors could get separate credit for either bringing an article up to Start quality (say 8 points), or for doing the rating to Start on other editors' work (say 2 points).

Related to what i mention above in another section, I'm involved in a big discussion (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#2nd break) about creating stub NRHP articles, about which some other editors have concerns and wish to impose a Start level quality requirement. It would be a big help to me to test out my providing stubs for CT editors to bring up to Start. The kind of stub i can provide ready would be like this version of one in Tolland County, which doesn't adequately explain why the place is significant, but it consists of all coherent sentences and includes the NRHP nomination document to work from. --doncram (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Logistically, the contest could use a temporary template that editors could put in their "submission" articles, which would put in a temporary category for them all as a group or a temporary category for each editor. The number of articles in any category can be displayed on the project page, with code like this: 5,285 for # of Start articles in WikiProject CT. --doncram (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doncram,

If you want to run that as a contest sometime, feel free! :-) The NHRP articles aren't any more important than (say) Aviation articles as far as Connecticut is concerned, so I really have no desire to do that. Now, if the articles you choose for my contest just happen to be NHRP also, that's fine. The contest I'm planning will actually allow for multiple CT barnstars, not just a special barnstar for having the most posts/edits like the CT Photo contest has. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the NRHP articles often provide very good info for further development of town / village and other CT articles, because the NRHP nomination documents provide a lot of useful background history on people and places. So, doing the NRHP articles early might help develop a lot more about CT's history everywhere, at least regarding events > 50 years ago. It would be crazy to edit a CT town article without checking out the NRHP docs for any historic districts or other NRHP-listed places within the town, IMHO. :)

But I'm just asking if the contest rules could recognize/reward editors' work of this type, which it sounds like it might. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more to Connecticut than history, but I understand your point. Yes, as long as the article has a CT tag it will be acceptable. I'll post the rules when we have a few comments as to timing. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without full details on the proposed contest it's difficult to comment, but I'd recommend starting it January 1st so that we don't have to worry about any coordination during the holiday season. The length of the contest will naturally depend on the nature of it. Tentatively I would be interested in participating; I feel bad that I completely whiffed on the last contest! –Grondemar 14:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'll just post the contest today with an end date of 31 March 2011. That way everyone will have plenty of time to work and maybe people can earn those multiple stars. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut communities topics

There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Connecticut former or current commmunities, villages, town centers or other locations/areas which lack articles. These are listed here in this Connecticut's Principal Communities list, this list of Post Office locations, or this list of Old towns, villages, and districts with no post office, and perhaps even some in this list of Towns and Boroughs having elections

An editor has redirected many of these titles to NRHP-listed historic district (HD) articles, which seems inappropriate to me. The NRHP HD articles sometimes do not at all mention or describe these past or current communities. The usual purpose of the NRHP historic district article is to describe the large-scale historic museum, so to speak, that a collection of houses and barns and other large-scale artifacts make. Not to describe the older history of a village which predated all of the 1800s buildings now in the district. Not to describe current residents or high schools or fire stations or other matters of current importance.

Sometimes these communities are listed in a "Neighborhoods" section of a town article, and they all could be named in such sections. It seems better to me either to create an article on the community, or temporarily redirect to such a section (to show them in a list of districts, and to convey this is a community within X town, and it doesn't yet have an article). Rather than to redirect to a NRHP historic district, as if argumentatively asserting that the NRHP HD article could/should be changed to be about the past or present community.

Disclosure: I was involved in a long mediated process with that editor, involving hundreds of NRHP historic districts, stemming from his edit warring towards forcing mergers of NRHP HDs to communities. It was painfully established that the NRHP historic districts are not the same as the villages/communities. The result of the mediation was that NRHP HDs were upheld as separate topics, and the editor was stopped from redirecting NRHP HDs to the villages/communities. About a year has gone by, and happily many/most of the NRHP HD articles are now well-established. This now is about the flip side, where he has proceeded to redirect villages/communities to NRHP HDs, and signs are that he will edit war to force those redirects rather than allowing them to be redirected to town lists of neighborhoods/districts.

I wonder, can editors here comment about whether they would like to allow for Connecticut principal communities articles to be created, or can those topics only be discussed within a NRHP HD articles (where, frankly, they will not be discussed, because the NRHP HD article is about something else)? Help framing a question suited for a wikipedia-wide RFC would also be appreciated. --doncram (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This relates, currently, to newly created redirects Somers Center and Downtown Waterbury ~~in CT and to North Dennis, Massachusetts~~. It relates to dozens if not hundreds of other inappropriate-in-my-view redirects in Connecticut. --doncram (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to:

where i started stub articles to replace redirects. The editor, who i asked to discuss here, has instead redirected them all, in edit warring mode. I am just documenting this at the moment, and expect that, given the editor's history, that addressing the behavioral issue will require higher level interventions. This editor traditionally provides no evidence and prefers to communicate by redirects and dismissive edit summaries, rather than discussing. Perhaps he will deign to comment briskly here, or maybe not.

There remains the general question of whether community articles or redirects to lists of communities will be allowed, if there exists an NRHP HD article covering anything in the area. Also there remains general need to start articles for any missing CT principal communities. --doncram (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before this turns into the usual "revert fest", how about we agree to leave EVERYTHING status quo regarding this point for now? No new articles, no redirects et al until we have a consenus or at least talking points?

Also, please provide a link so that we can all read about this mediation. No need to reinvent the wheel! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the "Mediation" that Doncram refers to includes the discussions at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list, Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut/Archive 3, Talk:Poquetanuck (including Talk:Poquetanuck/Archive 1), and several other talk pages. I don't necessarily recall that these discussions led to the conclusion that Doncram describes above, but my memory may be flawed. Regardless, considering the age, complexity, length, and acrimony of the earlier discussions, I think it would be unproductive at this point to attempt to use the earlier discussions as a basis for new discussion. Instead, I suggest beginning de novo discussion of the above items, . --Orlady (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: Let's keep the subdivisions of Dennis, Massachusetts out of this discussion. Not only is it a different state, but the "source" for the existence of North Dennis as a village separate from Dennis seems to have been original research by a user who has strong views on Cape Cod geography. --Orlady (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for any special mediation links to be provided before commenting fully, but at first glance it would make the most sense to me to have the Connecticut villages articles redirect to the article on the appropriate town, except for particularly notable villages such as Mystic, Connecticut. It doesn't sound like the historic districts are the best redirect targets. –Grondemar 14:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the issue with the redirects. If one reads the nomination forms for the historic districts, it is quite clear it is talking about the settlements in question. If one were to fully develop the historic district article, that would essentially be all the encyclopedic information about most of these localities. Is there sufficient distinct encyclopedic information to make a stand-alone village article for these? If someone makes a sufficiently distinct article with substantial information different from what the historic district scope is, then we can split off. Until then, there will likely be more useful information in the historic district article. Remember that the historic district exists only because the village/neighborhood developed. Develope the non-overlapping content first to a sufficient degree before you split them off. As of now, there is not sufficient distinct content to warrant a split. --Polaron | Talk 16:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna disagree with almost everything Polaron claims.

On a point of order, the request to keep some status quo and not to edit war should clearly apply to Polaron as well. In recent edits since those requests were made, Polaron edited at relatively new dab page Spring Hill, Connecticut and at new article Spring Hill, Mansfield, Connecticut, where he had not previously edited, to implement his view. I have not returned to undo Polaron's argumentative redirects that i first mentioned in this discussion. He should not proceed to edit war by reverting/attacking in these other articles. I am now reverting those changes he made on those 2 articles, to return to a kind of status quo.

I will agree that it is not necessary to have stub articles about the villages/communities, if the redirect from their names is deleted. Or if the redirect is switched to point to the Town article which has a Neighborhoods/Communities section that lists the names in context.

A charitable interpretation of a lot of Polaron's past redirects, is that he has "misunderstood" the role of redlinks in Wikipedia articles. He went on a campaign to convert redlinks for NRHP HDs listed in the NRHP county list-articles of CT, to convert them to redirects to towns or village articles. In about 8 big RFDs on batches of these, most of them were dropped, because redlinks are in fact wanted in Wikipedia, are part of how it grows. In a the long mediated process which Orlady provides some links for, ALL the NRHP HDs in Connecticut were discussed specifically, and decision to create merged articles was agreed to in relatively few cases. For the majority of cases, Polaron and Orlady and I agreed to the validity of the NRHP HD topic being a separate topic.

This is about the flip side, where Polaron now sets up and defends redirects from village/community topics to NRHP HDs. I don't see why. Polaron's blanket assertion above that they are always the same, is bunk, which has been proven many times over in Connecticut already. I think in fact it has already been agreed by Polaron and Orlady in these specific cases that these are different. The topics should be redirects to town articles' neighborhood lists. Or better they should be deleted, allowing for the NRHP HD articles and for the town articles to properly show redlinks, indicating that there is a probably Wikipedia-notable topic lacking an article.

It is inappropriate to make redirects from valid wikipedia topics to NRHP HD articles not on the topic, which themselves need to link to those other topics. It is especially wrong to create hundreds of such redirects, and to camp out on them with extreme wp:OWN ownership. --doncram (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some others are:

I noticed these while reviewing Category:Neighborhoods in Connecticut just now. Each is about an NRHP-listed historic district, not a neighborhood, and i removed the neighborhood category. The presence of a neighborhood category probably indicated someone wanted it to be about a larger or smaller neighborhood, and there are probably redirects from the neighborhood names. --Doncram (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut naming "convention" for neighborhoods

In some recent edits Polaron has asserted there is a "convention" for formatting of names for Connecticut neighborhoods articles, and editor Born2cycle has joined in making some page moves.

Disclosure: I disagree with these moves, and I reverted some of P's moves previously (which he has all reverted to his position i think), and I today reverted one out of about 5 or 6 of B's moves with request to B at his Talk page to stop with any further moves. B has the decency to open a requested move about it, rather than just edit warring.

Now a Requested move is opened at Talk:Marion, Connecticut#Requested move. Please consider commenting there. --Doncram (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until a few minutes ago, I had no idea about any of this discussion here. What happened today was that I noticed an edit summary in Polaron's history that said he was moving an article to make it consistent with the CT convention for neighborhoods. So I looked at that article, found that it belong to a category of CT neighborhoods, looked at that category, and found three (not 5 or 6) more that were out of compliance, and moved them to be in compliance. Then Don appeared with comments on my talk page and at an unrelated discussion at WT:PLACES (which is about U.S. city naming - not neighborhood naming). Don's strong reaction makes a little bit more sense now that I see the discussion above, but even then I'm having trouble following much of the reasoning expressed here. There is very little reference to naming policy or guidelines, so it seems to mostly amount to a WP:JDLI rationalization... not very helpful. Anyway, as Don noted, I've initiated a WP:RM discussion for the one neighborhood article which Don reverted at Talk:Marion, Connecticut#Requested move. I too encourage everyone to participate, but please don't just express your personal preference; please provide arguments based in naming policy, guidelines and conventions. Thanks. All controversial moves should go through that process. Please do not move war. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it looked like more than 3 articles moved by Born2cycle at first glance, but i guess it was just 3. There were 8 page-moves of CT articles in Born2cycle's immediate contribution history, but some were Talk pages and one article apparently moved twice. There woulda been more, i expect, if I hadn't objected and Born2cycle hadn't then stopped.

The wikipedia formal "convention" about city naming in the U.S., a consensus which looks a lot like a formal guideline or policy page, is very relevant, because I and (i think) most others think the U.S. neighborhood naming should be consistent with that.

Recent moves by Polaron include:

Fairfield Beach, Connecticut moved to Fairfield Beach (Fairfield)
The Flats, Woodbridge moved to The Flats (Woodbridge)
Hattertown, Connecticut moved to Hattertown

Born2cycle moved The Flats one, and Marion, and Blue Hills (Bloomfield).

Yes about using Requested move service and about avoiding move wars.

I'll open a Requested move now about the Blue Hills one which should be at Blue Hills, Connecticut. It is a CDP and is explicitly covered in the city neighborhood convention, which applies to CDPs. Please see Talk:Blue Hills (Bloomfield)#Requested move. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That request is being expanded to be about a total of 17 Connecticut CDPs which should be renamed to Name, Connecticut format from various other formats. --Doncram (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 271: / Line 271: @@
 :It is inappropriate to make redirects from valid wikipedia topics to NRHP HD articles not on the topic, which themselves need to link to those other topics.  It is especially wrong to create hundreds of such redirects, and to camp out on them with extreme [[wp:OWN]] ownership. --[[User:Doncram|doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 04:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
+::Some others are:
+#[[East Windsor Hill Historic District]]
+#[[Greenwich Avenue Historic District]]
+#[[Groton Bank Historic District]]
+#[[Hazardville Historic District]] (note this is separate from [[Hazardville, Connecticut]])
+#[[Highland Historic District (Middletown, Connecticut)]]
+#[[Huntington Center Historic District]]
+#[[South Glastonbury Historic District]]
+#[[Torringford Street Historic District]]
+#[[West Granby Historic District]]
+::I noticed these while reviewing [[:Category:Neighborhoods in Connecticut]] just now.  Each is about an NRHP-listed historic district, not a neighborhood, and i removed the neighborhood category.  The presence of a neighborhood category probably indicated someone wanted it to be about a larger or smaller neighborhood, and there are probably redirects from the neighborhood names. --[[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 16:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 == Connecticut naming "convention" for neighborhoods ==