Talk:Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut)

development of this HD article

About the list of properties that I pasted into the article, Polaron will have recognized that as what he posted at Talk:Georgetown, Connecticut#List of properties in the NRHP district a while back. I asked there, and would like to ask again, how'd you get that list? I didn't check but I assume it is an accurate list of properties for the district. My intention is to edit it down, but it saves time to have the complete list to start with. Thanks!

Orlady commented elsewhere on yesterday's version of this HD article:

I don't know how to say this nicely, so I'll put it bluntly: Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut) looks like a page from a phone book. There is nothing notable about a list of street addresses of buildings that were inventoried and listed on a National Register nom form almost 24 years ago. These are not individually significant buildings, but rather are cheaply built houses for factory workers. The district is listed on the National Register for its significance as a company town. Furthermore, as noted in the article, parts of the HD have been torn down to make way for some sort of redevelopment. The fact that individual structures were inventoried and listed on the nom form indicates that the compilers of the form did a thorough job -- it does not mean that the entire list deserves to be replicated in an encyclopedia article. After seeing this developing article and the nom form, I am now thoroughly convinced that the HD article should be merged back into the article about the village of Georgetown. The nom form is primarily about the industrial village and its history, not about the individual small wood-frame houses and tenements found there (as of 1986). Meanwhile, the village article is rather pathetic in the absence of content about the village's history. A single article about the village, including its location, demographics, interesting history, and movies filmed there, could be so much better than either of the articles that exist right now

I don't agree with her overall conclusion, and I don't like the emphasis on negativity, but I agree with some components of what she says. My thots in response:

• the list should be improved to describe the significant buildings, and not be merely an address list (however, having addresses is useful in referring precisely to specific buildings, so basically most of the addresses should be retained)
• the reasons for the NRHP listing should be made clear in this article about the NRHP listing, yes
• the story that parts of the HD have been torn down should indeed be told. This is highly appropriate stuff for an NRHP HD article. Readers want to know if NRHP listing protects stuff, and stories about how it worked out, where protection was misguided originally or ineffective or whatever, should be told. Part of that is documenting the extent of former structures that were originally listed but then have been demolished. This story cannot be fully told from just the NRHP application document, of course, as it played out in following years. Hopefully newspaper accounts can be found.
• the fact that the NRHP application document has a lot about the village history is fine, and is to be expected. Many NRHP application documents about a house listed because of its association with a locally- or nationally-significant person have a good bio about the person, often with useful facts to include in the Wikipedia article about the person. Here, it's great that the NRHP doc has info that is useful to include in the Georgetown, Connecticut article. We can and will have separate articles though, one about the historic and current "village", and one about the NRHP historic district.
• Yes, the village article should indeed be improved
• By putting out a stub article about the HD, that is a good thing, advertising in effect that this is an acceptable article topic, allowing locals to notice and to come forward, eventually, with photos and other contributions
• Orlady, I get the feeling you are just anti-NRHP. That's simplistic of me to say that, I know. But you argue here and you edit and argue elsewhere to remove stuff about the NRHP listing process, the reasons for NRHP listing, and other aspects of the award (I am thinking about Norwichtown Historic District where there is an interesting story yet to be told properly in the article, about the hamburger chain battle). Articles about NRHPs can and should be about the award itself, as well as about the place, and about the intentions of nominators and how those were realized or not. In an article about Obama getting the Nobel Peace prize, there should be a lot about the decision process and about the judges, and perhaps about what the judges hoped to accomplish by giving the award to Obama; it should not just be a bio of Obama. If you don't like articles about Nobel Prizes or about lesser, more place-oriented awards like NRHPs, then you shouldn't dwell on them, IMHO, honestly no offense intended. I assume you will stay focussed on NRHP HDs in CT articles indefinitely, however, for whatever other reasons you have, so please don't interpret my comment as any attempt to dissuade you from doing so. I just am sharing my thot that you do not seem to show a very pro-development attitude. I think your good skills in editing are more useful later in the process of article development, when there actually has been good development of an article already, which hasn't yet happened here. We are just starting.

doncram (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to convert this to a personal discussion on what's wrong with me, Doncram. --Orlady (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems glib. I was giving you the courtesy of a detailed, thought-out response to your comments. doncram (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I got into editing in Wikipedia because of an interest in knowing something about the local history wherever I went, and because of the dearth of information available, for many places, in tour books and online. I completely disagree with Orlady's assessment that the entire list of contributing properties should not be replicated in an encyclopedia article. If the list is not available, many people might wonder, if they read the article, exactly which buildings were those original factory houses. In addition, information from locals about which of the contributing properties have been demolished is much more likely to surface if the list exists in the first place. This is EXACTLY the type of information I would WANT to see, if I were going to visit Georgetown, Connecticut, and I were referring to Wikipedia to get local history info before I went or while I was there. It also helps local photographers to know exactly what to take pics of. I have often been somewhere and looked up a historic district, taken pics of what I thought might be significant and later referred to the nomination document to find that I was quite wrong. Lvklock (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to learn that some NRHP Wikiproject members find encyclopedic value in what was described on the nom form as "a complete inventory of buildings and sites in the district" (it's a list of 144 street addresses, including noncontributing properties as well as contributing properties), but to me it looks like a phone book. I would find far more value in a summary description of the properties than in a list of street addresses. --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem not have read what i wrote, or what Lvklock wrote. If i were Fez, i would say something brief! :) doncram (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I developed the article a bit more to include a description of its significance. I also edited the list of properties to format it differently, and to link to some of the available photos that accompanied the NRHP application document (I linked to 8 out of 25 photos available). There are no telephone numbers and there are just a few names of historic or current people who owned properties included in the list. The article exceeds DYK length, by the way. I may stop developing it now myself. What is most needed, IMO, is for some local or visitor to take photos of properties in the district, and perhaps also to check locally for other documentation of the history of the area. Perhaps a local historical society would have many resources. The article could be further developed with descriptions and other info on the significant contributing properties. doncram (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rough map [1]