Talk:Jonesborough Historic District

name of district

There was discussion about the proper name for article on topic of the NRHP-listed Jonesboro Historic District somewhere, i think at wt:TENN. I moved the article just now to the current name "Jonesboro Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee)" which i believe properly reflects the actual NRHP listing name using "Jonesboro" (chosen by local nominators of the district) and also reflecting the current name "Jonesborough" of the town/village that is the current location. I believe that previous discussion focused on idea that the NRHP listing name must have been incorrect, i.e. like a typo, which it turned out was not the case. Or that the current name of the district in common usage reflects the "Jonesborough" spelling, which also turns out not to be the case (as official websites about the historic town carefully avoids giving any proper name for the historic district, actually supporting an interpretation that the actual proper noun name uses "Jonesboro", and the town's marketing staff is just choosing not to promote that in favor of their marketing goals to promote the entire town, inside and outside of the historic district). More discussion of what should be the name can be added here.

I just want to develop the article more now and am going to proceed to do so, at what I believe to be the correct name for the topic. --doncram 23:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So, in your typical self-righteous manner, and knowing nothing about this town other than a few tidbits you found on the web, you decided to move this article, even though you're only one who supports this particular spelling? Bms4880 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree with your characterization. For one thing i have far more than a few tidbits; i have collected the extensive NRHP nom documents for this (which you could see already by what i have added). And i opened the previous discussion at wt:TENN and considered what was said there.

I already alluded to the discussion about the name of this at wt:TENN which in fact still shows at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennessee#Jonesboro vs. Jonesborough. I opened it in a friendly, open enough way, and IMO got back a certain amount of hostility and wp:OWN type attitude, mixed in with some useful information provided by editors there including yourself. (An outsider might or might not pick up on the hostility in what is expressed there, but I have been on the receiving end of fairly nasty/negative comments from Orlady about various TN articles at other Talk pages, which informs my interpretation of her comments there, and I am also responding to the elsewhere-expressed hostility.) IMO, it was Orlady's previous move of this article, upon that discussion or upon her noticing me developing the article (i am not tracing it exactly right now) which more accurately could be characterized as incorrect and uninformed and arrogant and self-righteous and whatever other kind of negatives you are perhaps ascribing to me, if you want to make personalized comments.

Please don't go all critical about this, but I do feel somewhat entitled to move it as I am working to develop the article and have collected substantial info to add, including by getting the NRHP nom docs and by asking Tennessee editors for info on the name. I do generally defer to other editors doing substantial development of articles on matters that are subjective, and hope that you and Orlady, who previously moved the article, would too.

The discussion at wt:TENN, however, was unsatisfactory in my view and did not resolve that the name is other than the actual NRIS-reported name. The evidence for a different name suggested there was unconvincing to me (as tourist guidebook type sources using a different name seemed to me to be unreliable/uninformed, while the best likely source for a different name (i.e. the Historic Jonesborough official pages and documents) noticeably avoids stating any name. The last few statements in the discussion seemed to me to be misconstruing stuff. It didn't seem hugely productive to keep talking there, but if you or anyone wants to keep slogging it out i will be willing to do so. Frankly i was hoping that by my just boldly taking the article forward here, and fixing the article name, that the issue could be dropped. But I am willing to keep talking it out here if you wish, or to return to talking there at wt:TENN if you wish. --doncram 17:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Without comment here or at the other discussion, Orlady moved the article, i think using administrative tools because i saw an article deletion in the process. I think that is improper by Wikipedia policy and practices, for an admin to make a controversial move without a wp:RM discussion. I tried moving it back, in part to check to see if admin tools were required, and found that the move went through, so maybe she would not have had to use admin tools. Anyhow it is now back at "Jonesboro Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee)".

The article has been moved 4 times since I created it (twice by Orlady and twice back by me). One could argue that my moves back should have been by wp:RM, too, but I was restoring a status quo position. Please do discuss and/or open a wp:RM if this must be revisited. I think the right default is that the article should be at this name. I will certainly argue that the name of the historic district is the name of the historic district (Jonesboro Historic District), as it was and is listed on the National Register. And as supported by local documents. --doncram 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

So, you didn't like the way the discussion that you started went at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennessee#Jonesboro vs. Jonesborough (a discussion that you described as "weird and boring"), and now you want to start discussing the same topic all over again here? Why does this propensity for forum shopping not surprise me? (See Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut and its archives, Talk:Poquetanuck and its archives, Talk:Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut) and its archives, User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list, etc., etc.) I don't happen to want to waste my time dealing with another of your Walls of Words about yet another poorly developed article about a relatively trivial topic. Accordingly, I must insist that the entire discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennessee#Jonesboro vs. Jonesborough should be treated as incorporated by reference in this discussion.

I honestly thought that the earlier discussion had thoroughly covered (and should have resolved) the topic.

It is important to remember that National Register listings are locally initiated, listings do not give the National Register folks control over the listed properties, and, while listings are seldom revised by the bureaucrats who run the National Register, listed properties are not preserved in amber at the time of the listing. This historic district is the heart of Jonesborough and a major source of local pride -- and it is a local historic district in addition to being listed on the National Register. The HD's centrality to the town is indicated by the fact that when it was listed on the National Register in 1969, it was given the name of the town, not the name of a subpart of the town. Since the state legislature approved the town's request for change in the spelling of the town's name in 1983 (28 years ago), all entities associated with the town transitioned to using the new spelling. Accordingly, for more than a generation, the WP:COMMONNAME of the historic district has been "Jonesborough Historic District", not "Jonesboro Historic District." It is absurd to suggest that the name memorialized 42 years ago on papers filed in Washington, DC, must forever take precedence over what people in Jonesborough call their historic district -- or that the historic district is the only thing in Jonesborough that doesn't use the current spelling of the name. --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I opened both discussions, am not shrinking from discussing facts at all. No one replied to my last comment at wt:TENN. No forum-shopping. Plenty of hostility apparent, i will grant that.

I beg to differ. The page history shows that my last comment in that discussion got no replies for 26 days -- until you posted there the day after you had started this discussion. If you're not engaged in forum shopping, you are engaged in an attempt to fragment the discussion (something I don't want to participate in) -- and in a bit of revisionist history with your assertion that no one replied to you. Do you not understand that 26 days without a reply tends to suggest silent acquiescence, if not consensus? --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

HUH???!!!??? The current version of wt:TENN page shows my comment there March 26, with reference to Talk here. There has been no reply by you or anyone else to my last comment there, that is a fact. I explained here, and there, why i opened discussion there, and why i moved to here. It is ridiculous for you to try to suggest anything nefarious about my bringing up discussion to Tennessee editors and bringing that info to here, too. If anything is nefarious, it is your twisting the truth in various assertions you have made about a name being used for the district. --doncram 16:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My last comment in that discussion was on 28 February. You started this discussion on 25 March, then went back to that other page to add a new comment on 26 March. There were no comments in that other discussion between 28 February and your initiation of this discussion. Your suggestion that the lack of response to your 26 March comment there demonstrates that you weren't forum-shopping when you started this new discussion here on 25 March is what I labeled revisionist history. --Orlady (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't forum-shopping because it wasn't forum-shopping. See wp:forum-shopping and consider, to what group of other editors did I appeal? The only other editor of this article had been you, Orlady, and you were certainly going to notice my move of the article and stuff here. And if anyone else did happen along here, they would already be pointed to the wt:TENN discussion. You've made lots of personal and other accusations against me, Orlady, and sometimes maybe you have scored, but this one is like many others which just doesn't make any sense. It is misconstruing facts to assert that it is "forum-shopping".

To be more clear than i have already, i sought to let the other conversation at wt:TENN drop, in part because it was embarrassing to see your too-strong, in-fact-seeming-to-be-false claims there about how a supposed term was being used, when the webpages you pointed to did not support your assertions, and I didn't want to have to slog that out if you would just drop it. There is NO WAY this is forum-shopping. What forum of other editors has been won over, or even reached? About the facts at stake, it could eventually turn out that Historic Jonesborough will take steps to change the historic district name, or even that "Jonesborough Historic District" is in fact already in reliable common usage, but that is not clear from any sources brought up so far. Take it down a few notches, is my suggestion to you. --doncram 00:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:Forum shopping, "Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages or with different wording is confusing and disruptive." Additionally, in this case, you started the discussion over again on a page where it was unlikely that there were as many "watchers" (and thus, there would be fewer participants). --Orlady (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

About name, salient fact: there are no reliable sources at all identified which show the name of the historic district was changed. It has been the assumption of several editors that the name of the district must be different than it in fact is, because the town is currently named differently, e.g. editor Nyttend commenting at wp:NRIS info issues TN that the "Jonesboro Historic District" name must be wrong because the town is named Jonesborough (assuming, reasonably, that there had been a typo, when in fact it has been verified that there was no typo). Also, there is a biking guidebook editor and one or two others who also were stuck with a problem of how to identify the name, and made similar assumption. There is not adequate common usage of any name for the district to override the actual, offical name of the district. It is quite clear that the locals do not name the district at all. Note, it would be completely within the ability and means of Historic Jonesborough organization to get the name of their historic district changed, by filing a form or two. They have not done that. They have not asserted the name of the district is different than its official name, in any public way that we know of. In fact they appear to avoid mention of the historic district, which I have speculated is because they want to promote a larger area than just the historic district. Wikipedia editors should not change names and facts to fit what they think would be the wishes of locals. This would be fabrication, worse than original research. The facts are what they are. --doncram 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Before continuing this discussion, please read WP:Article titles and WP:Official names. In reading those pages, note that the official name of an entity is not necessarily the best name for an article; the article name should be "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Furthermore, consider that historic districts have an existence in the real world, not just in the filing cabinets and databases of the National Register of Historic Places, and consider that this particular historic district is not just a National Register historic district, but also is a local historic district (possibly with slightly different boundaries, but boundaries are just a detail) administered by the Town of Jonesborough. Additionally, please recall that the NRHP seldom (if ever) changes the name of a listing, and be advised that people and organizations in Tennessee (and possibly other places) consider the bureaucratic process of getting sites listed in the National Register to be a a deterrent to seeking listings. It does appear that the National Register folks have not changed the spelling of the name of this historic district in their records, but everybody else in the world has been spelling the name of the town as "Jonesborough" for 28 years. You've been shown references that indicate that -- and that indicate that the current spelling is used in connection with the historic district. Particularly if you consider that the town's local historic district must necessarily use the official spelling of the town name, it should be clear that the WP:COMMONNAME for this district includes the "Jonesborough" spelling, not the spelling that was preserved in the National Register records 42 years ago. --Orlady (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the local Jonesborough and the Tennessee state officials have not lifted a finger to change the name of the historic district, which they could do easily I believe. As you know from long experience, Orlady, I do not insist upon NRHP official names being used for article titles, where other names better meet article title criteria. Your language here smacks of double-speak: by your referring to sources where "current spelling is used in connection with the historic district" to mean merely articles mentioning Historic Jonesborough which has a historic district on its Main Street? That is not documentation of the name of the historic district being other than "Jonesboro Historic District", which is documented in many places. About the local historic district, which I noticed you also mentioned at the wt:TENN discussion, please do tell more. I haven't looked specifically for it, but have not seen mention of such a local historic district. It could well be relevant to describe. What is its name, by the way? Is there no reliable information about its name, I wonder? --doncram 04:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please try to focus on identifying the appropriate name for the article, which is not necessarily the same as the "official" name that was entered on a typewritten form in 1969. Based on the usage on the town website, the town tourism brochure, the state's tourism website, the town's page on the Preserve America website, the county Economic Development Board website, the Reader's Digest tourism website, this B&B guide, this B&B advertisement, this other B&B advertisement, this third B&B ad, this restaurant website, this website for another eatery, this campground website, the Storytelling Center website, this ghostwalk website, and this article about a cupcake store, and this real estate ad, I'm tempted to conclude that the WP:COMMONNAME for this HD is "Jonesborough's historic district" or possibly just "Jonesborough historic district." However, this published map is one of a few sources that call it "Jonesborough Historic District," so that name is also good. The only sources that use the "Jonesboro" spelling in connection with "historic district" are (1) websites that clearly scrape their data from NRIS and (2) sources published before 1983. "Jonesboro Historic District" is an obsolete spelling. The article should not use that name. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay, if you want to stop making personal accusations now, great. I am glad to stop defending myself from your personalized attacks. But, do you want to apologize, first? I would appreciate if you would withdraw your accusations where I have now pretty much shown them to be off-base.

I don't know what you are talking about. --Orlady (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, could you please take it down a few more notches about your repeated suggestions I am hewing to a 1969 typewritten form. The 2011 version of the National Register of Historic Places' database and other current online sources show "Jonesboro Historic District" as the name for the district. There are no reliable sources showing a different proper noun name which have been put forward, as far as i am aware. This is not a case as Orlady suggests. Instead, Orlady knows full well that I do not insist upon NRHP names being used, when other common names exist and better meet criteria. In years of following my edits, Orlady will have seen my consistent positions that the NRHP name need not be used as article title, for multiple articles about lighthouses, courthouses, and many other topics. Orlady, would you please publicly acknowledge that?

I stand by my assertion regarding the 1969 typewritten form. My observations of NRIS lead me to conclude that, with rare exceptions, the entries in NRIS (regardless of the year of the database) are based on the information that was entered on the original nomination form, which in 1969 would have been a typewritten form. I guess I should have acknowledged, though, that sometimes the typewritten name on the form is crossed out by hand and replaced with a handwritten name. The fact that someone created an electronic record based on the information on the form does not somehow improve the quality of the information (indeed, I know that you have found and reported numerous misspellings and other errors in the electronic records).
Regarding your assertion that you do not insist on using official names, I am aware that in a few cases you have supported the use of alternate names for NRHP listings, but in your comments here you have consistently asserted that the name cannot be changed in the absence of evidence that the local community took specific action (such as petitioning the National Register people to change the name in NRIS) to change the name of the HD. This is hardly the first time I have seen you assert that the NRIS-listed name must prevail; another example I recall is William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures. And considering that it apparently took Jonesborough 20 years to get the state legislature to enact a law changing the spelling of the town name, I would imagine that they thought the law would take care of other less official spellings. --Orlady (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

About the links you provide, thanks for providing them. I had seen many of those already in my own browsing, but I'll make sure to address them all when developing the article. I haven't studied them all yet, but have browsed them. Not unexpectedly, I come to a different conclusion from them than you do. Thank you for not misrepresenting what they say now, unlike in some of your previous comments here and/or in the wt:TENN discussion. As you recognize, they show avoidance of giving any proper name for the district. This is consistent with locals such as Historic Jonesborough seeking to promote a larger area and not focus upon the historic district. The "map" one you mention last as your apparently best evidence, _Touring the East Tennessee Backroads_, starts off on page 105 with "The historic district in Downtown Jonesborough is explored....", also consistent with Historic Jonesborough not giving a different proper name for the district. I don't see a map in that though, so maybe you meant to point to a different document. (It shows a map labelled "Greeneville Historic District" on page 122, but no corresponding map for Jonesborough. Did you misread the Greenville one?) Or is there a specific page number where you assert the other name is used? The proper name for the district is, by all sources available, Jonesboro Historic District. The article should use that name.

My profound apologies for copying the wrong URL. The map is on page 92, entitled "Jonesborough Historic District". For future reference in relation to Google Book URLs, you can find the map, and other references to the HD by searching in the book for "jonesborough historic district". Don't bother searching for "jonesboro historic district," though -- there are no hits on that because it isn't the name of the town or the HD.
As for the "proper name of the district," do note that it is also a local historic district subject to local regulations, and you can be sure that the town does not use the old spelling of the town name when referring to its historic district. Are you suggesting that the article about the dual-status historic district cannot use the spelling that is used on a daily basis in the community, or do you think that the local HD should be covered in a separate article so that your article can be limited to describing the condition of the HD as it was listed in 1969? --Orlady (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There you go again, with claims that a given name "is used on a daily basis in the community", when you and i both looked for that and did not find it. Historic Jonesborough (the main community representative relevant) seems to bend over backward not to refer to the district by name.

It happens I cannot see that Google book page; i get message from Google "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book". I have searched/browsed for hits on that alternative name already.

Shucks! I've emailed you the image of the page with the map. I hope it's legible. --Orlady (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There you go again with wp:OWN behavior, seeming to stop any non-local-Tennessee editor, and in particular me, from developing Wikipedia in this area. Which you were definitely not going to get around to doing on your own. --doncram 17:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is a terrible thing for Wikipedia to clearly state the name of the district and describe its boundaries and so on, I am sure that Historic Jonesborough or others could take steps towards having the district renamed and/or to have it extended. --doncram 08:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You and I will continue to disagree regarding the encyclopedic relevance of detailed descriptions of the metes and bounds of historic districts, but that has nothing to do with the name of this one. --Orlady (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Orlady, you did not respond to my question about your 2 or more assertions that there is a locally designated historic district, in which i think your implication there is formal usage of a different proper noun name. Are you withdrawing your assertion that there is such a local historic district? (To others who might review this, Orlady and I are fully aware of multiple cases of formal local historic districts declared for village areas in Connecticut and elsewhere, where the local HD differs from an earlier or later NRHP-listed HD. When these exist and overlap, it is usually appropriate to describe both in one wikipedia article.) --doncram 09:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering that you are representing yourself as having unique expertise regarding the HD, surely you have read about the local Historic Zoning Commission and the H-1 zoning regulations for the local HD. I am profoundly unmotivated to help you out with that, other than to provide those keywords and to suggest that you won't find very much about the local HD by searching under the name "Jonesboro". Additionally, since this seems to be the only historic district in Jonesborough, it appears that the local regulations call it "the Historic District" or "Jonesborough's Historic District." Regardless, in view of your intransigence regarding the 1969 name, I'm relieved to know that you don't plan to insist on two separate articles. --Orlady (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not representing myself as anything other than an editor concerned with facts and avoiding fabrications. --doncram 17:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to join in here by Orlady, because she knows I have lived in Washington County for some time and could give the perspective of a local resident. No one uses the Jonesboro spelling any longer, in any way shape or form, on anything. Yes, the original paperwork for the historic district does use the spelling of the town's name that was official at the time. Since then, as part of the effort to brand Jonesborough as the "Tennessee's Oldest Town," everything has been switched over the original spelling of the town's name.

As far as there being a local historic district with a different boundary, I am not aware of one. The town, as a whole, has branded itself as "Historic Jonesborough" per the header on the town's website and the name of the town's visitor center. The three organizations that have dealt with the history & preservation of Jonesborough (the Jonesborough Civic Trust, the Jonesborough/Washington County History Museum, and the Historic Jonesborough Foundation) merged together in 2001 to form The Heritage Alliance of Northeast Tennessee & Southwest Virginia which now has a regional focus, sharing the historic preservation experience & knowledge of the folks in Jonesborough with the rest of the Tri-cities region.

In short, common usage and every current source from the last 20 years, uses Jonesborough instead of Jonesboro. Insisting on an out-of-date spelling of the town's name, as part of some "official" name that no one uses any longer, makes no sense at all -- Foetusized (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that local perspective, Foetusized. Also, your comment about the regional scope of the heritage alliance helps to explain why the heritage alliance link on http://www.preserveamerica.gov/PAcommunity-jonesboroughTN.html no longer works! --Orlady (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy to see the comment, Foetusized. Sorry that you will have to see some negativity in past discussion back and forth here, between Orlady and myself. It is unpleasant to be involved in this for me, too. I note Foietusized's comment does corroborate the usage of "Historic Jonesborough" in the area. That is the marketing term for an area that happens to be different than the historic district which is subject of this article. --doncram 17:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, seriously, if the town's 4000+ residents showed up here and said the "Jonesborough" spelling is correct, you would tell them they are wrong. Bms4880 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

cleanup and whatever

Orlady added a Cleanup tag, which calls attention to here. Please do comment here on what you think needs improvement. Also, I restored Under Construction tag, indicating that an editor (me) is working on this article. I haven't made much progress as have been busy and as I do not have the hard-copy of the NRHP registration documents with me, often when I might add more to this article. --doncram 17:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In such a short article, it shouldn't be hard for an experienced Wikipedian to see the issues. I'd like the article to say something about the significance and history of the HD, but that's not strictly "cleanup" and I suppose that might be asking too much. Beyond that:

• It looks like there might be some encyclopedic content in the infobox that isn't in the article text.
• I very much doubt that that the Tennessee Historical Commission "found 72 [properties] worth preservation," which implies that they declared that the others were worthless and should be torn down. Make sure that the wording reflects what was actually said.
• Then, notwithstanding my repeated assertions that the detailed metes and bounds of historic districts are not of intense encyclopedic interest, I find excessive use of abbreviations (and other issues) in "It is an area roughly bounded by Depot and College Sts., 3rd Ave., and jct. of Main St. and Franklin Ave., in Jonesborough, Tennessee."
• Finally, it's poor form for an article to consist entirely of one- and two-sentence paragraphs. (This one consists of 4 two-sentence paragraphs and 2 one-sentence paragraphs.) --Orlady (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i will try to address those points when i further develop the article. --doncram 15:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Four for, one against, and the arguments for outweigh the arguments against. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Jonesboro Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee) → Jonesborough Historic District — Should the article have the title of the district when it was created in the 1960s matching the town's name at the time, or should it be deemed to have been renamed when the town was? See above discussion for details, along with the prior discussion at WT:TENN#Jonesboro vs. Jonesborough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is your proposal? Stated as a question, I think this suggests you hope to mediate in the running discussion already going on. I don't think it is regular to have a RM with no requestor. I would prefer to develop the article, which I was expecting to do, and build out development of Historic Jonesborough in some way (likely in the Jonesborough, Tennessee article) and provide for treatment of the historic district (at its actual name) in context not yet in place. Rather than having a RM right now. Opening a RM is forcing a discussion right now, calling for outside editors to come in, when the situation would be clarified if some time went by. I don't want to have to repeat everything. I do appreciate the objective type wording of the question. But, SarekOfVulcan, could you please withdraw this RM, or clarify that you support this RM? --doncram 16:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC) --I acknowledge the RM is going on, though I would still like for SarekOfVulcan to take a position. --doncram 21:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support proposed move to Jonesborough Historic District, for reasons I have stated at length above and in the other linked discussion. The place name has been spelled "Jonesborough" for 28 years now, and the only sources that still call the HD the "Jonesboro Historic District" seem to be the NRIS database and websites/publications that scrape their content from that database. Moreover, it is not merely a National Register historic district, but also a local historic district regulated by an Historic Zoning Commission in the Town of Jonesborough. The common name of this place clearly includes the "ugh" in the spelling. (And if we want to treat information published in 1969 as sacrosanct, I guess Wikipedia would need to say that Richard Nixon is president of the United States.) No disambiguation will be necessary when the spelling is changed, as this is the only "Jonesborough Historic District". --Orlady (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support, for reasons stated above. The historic district is a local construct listed on the NRHP, not an NRHP construct that became a local district. Bms4880 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a state construct, i.e. created by the Tennessee State Historical Commission. The creation of "Jonesboro Historic District" turned out to be a big success in helping towards the historic preservation of what became Jonesborough. --doncram 22:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the impression that the state created the HD. In Tennessee, it's almost always up to local people to conduct and/or pay for the work to document historic properties for National Register listings, although the state has a little money to conduct general surveys. Also, according to the offline book "An Encyclopedia of East Tennessee", it was local people who initiated the Jonesborough designation and won approval for it (I don't remember the exact words). The Historical Commission's review committee meets 3 times a year in Nashville (about a 5-hour drive from Jonesborough), so it's a pretty big burden even to make a presentation to the committee. On the other hand, the town's Historic Zoning Commission that oversees the town's historic district meets twice a month to carry out its responsibilities.[1] --Orlady (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support move, per WP:COMMONNAME, as at this time, the former spelling of Jonesboro is not in current usage, neither for the town itself nor the historic district. It is the Jonesborough spelling which is in common use at the current time, and that should determine this article's title -- Foetusized (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not about the name for the Jonesborough, Tennessee article, which is properly located. For the district, there is no common usage so far established for any alternative to the proper noun name "Jonesboro Historic District", so it is correct to use that as the proper noun name for the district. Do you have any publications or other verifiable sources about a different name being used? I do hope you don't believe that any harm would follow from Wikipedia using the current "Jonesboro Historic District" to describe the buildings within the district and its borders and so on in considerable detail, with full context given about how the district is absorbed into the larger Historic Jonesborough area, which will be linked. --doncram 22:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The common usage of "Jonesborough Historic District" or "Jonesborough's Historic District" was established above, with Orlady posting a whole slew of links to various official websites and publications which used that spelling. I stand by my support for the move; "Jonesboro Historic District" has not been "current" for decades, and I'm not even going to try to follow your tortured arguements -- Foetusized (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

But Orlady's list of items documents that there is not a common usage different than the Jonesboro Historic District official name. For example, the first item in Orlady's list is to a town visitor's website, which describes the town as a whole, and mentions "The 1788 Christopher Taylor Home, Jonesborough’s oldest building, has since been restored and moved to Main Street’s Historic District." It also mentions "Jacob Howard’s print shop, now destroyed, stood on the corner of Main Street and First Avenue in Jonesborough’s Historic District." That does not provide a proper noun name for the district.

On the other hand, a proper noun name for the district is provided by the National Register listing and multiple related listings derived from that, including:

• LandmarkHunter.com [2]
• NationalRegisterOfHistoricPlaces.com'sWashington county list here
• HPDB.com's link here
• Search on "Jonesborough" in the U.s. National Register's PDF focus system here and you get "no results"; search on Jonesboro and you do find result.

Those items don't demonstrate usage, since those are websites that scrape their content from NRIS. It's hardly surprising that they use the same spelling as NRIS. --Orlady (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to have a different opinion which can stand with or without further support. Your position is clear. But you haven't provided new evidence of what is the name of the district in common usage, and the weight of evidence as I review it, is that the official name is the only viable name to use for a Wikipedia article title. Thanks. --doncram 12:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment. If the issue is that you don't think "Jonesborough Historic District" should be rendered as a proper noun, that can be easily resolved by simply renaming the article to the common noun form "Jonesborough historic district." That would be fine by me. --Orlady (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, back on 5 April, I emailed you a print-screen image of the Jonesborough Historic District map from that book page that you can't see online (as discussed in the discussion above this one). This is one of the several sources cited in support of the spelling that includes the "ugh". You have not acknowledged the email (either here or by email). Did you not receive it? --Orlady (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose move, for reasons stated above and in the wt:TENN discussion. Briefly, the proper noun name is what it is, in the current National Register listing name and in multiple related sources. The district should not "be deemed to have been renamed when the town was renamed". There is not reliable evidence of any alternative name being an official name or a common name for the historic district, and some POV-type assertions otherwise have turned out to be overstated or outright false. Key evidence so far is that the principal local organization Historic Jonesborough avoids use of any name for the district in its publications, as do various other sources which refer to "Main Street's historic district" or "the historic district in Jonesborough" or similar. I presume that Historic Jonesborough does know what the name is and chooses not to dilute their advertising focus on the "Historic Jonesborough" term by showing a "Jonesboro" spelling, and/or that they don't want to promote mention of the historic district and its location/boundaries because they are now committed to supporting motel owners and restaurants and other businesses not located in the historic district proper. I do not respect the integrity of some of the arguments given already; there is POV going on that is clouding the judgment of an editor or two here, as in false accusations of wp:forum-shopping. The editor making such accusations actually has advertised this issue to others who might have a personal axe to grind, unrelated to the topic. Also, if it was such a wrong for Wikipedia to use the actual name for the district, then locals could take action and effect an official renaming of the district. Basically, I started this article, collected material to develop it, was taking steps to collect facts and sources including by inquiring to Tennessee editors, and I still want to develop it at the correct name for the topic. --doncram 21:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh -- please don't add Foetusized to your enemies list. I thought it would be helpful to have input from someone who is actually in the Jonesborough area, and when I happened to see his name next to an edit on my watchlist, I remembered that he lives in that county. Please note that I did not so much as hint at what his opinion should be. That's not the same thing as WP:CANVASSING or "advertising." --Orlady (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to your false accusations of wp:forum-shopping in previous discussion above and at wt:TENN, and to your mention of this issue at SarekOfVulcan's Talk page, which apparently brought him here. SarekOfVulcan opened this RM in an irregular way, IMO, in response to your negative comment at his Talk page and without taking a position on the merits here. I did not take issue with objective invitation to an editor with local connection. Your multiple references to Nixon and to an "enemies list" in this discussion seem to have to do with how you think, and have nothing to do with me, thank you. --doncram 12:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

under construction or not

What is the point of three edits this April 1 edit, [3], and this to remove "Under Construction" tag from the article? I had put the UC tag in to indicate that the article was/is unfinished, and note it is relevant for the RM now attracting multiple editors. What is the point of repeatedly removing it manually. Is the point to make an editor feel unwelcome? --doncram 22:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The point of the various edits removing the template is that the template is inappropriate. There is no evidence that the article is now undergoing major editing or reorganization. Moreover, the instructions in the template encourage users to remove the template (i.e., remove it "manually") if there has been no activity in several days. The following excerpt from Template talk:Under construction may help you understand why it does not belong on this article:

Purpose of this template

This template should be added to the top of an article when you are about to engage in a very major editing or expansion of the article, and for that purpose only. Be aware that this template encourages other people to edit during the time that you're working on it as well, and that you may be responsible for resolving edit conflicts. Please remove the template when you are completed with the major editing or expansion that you are conducting. Use this template only if you are in fact planning on actively editing/expanding for some duration; do not use this template if you will not be resuming your editing for a while.

As for using the template to attract other presumably disinterested editors to the requested move discussion, isn't that the purpose of the listing on WP:RM? --Orlady (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, evidence of work in process includes my having developed the article as far as it is, and my saying that i am developing it. The UC template would indicate to editors attracted by your comments elsewhere Orlady, and by the wp:RM, that this article is not put forward by anyone as being complete. It is tagged negatively by you with the cleanup bullshit, another element of trying to push in an insult. It seems fair that i should be able to indicate it is unfinished work. However, it is seeming hard to get to the article, actually. --doncram 00:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

An irresistible pun

I'm sorry, but of all the angry bitter venom-filled arguments I've seen on talk pages, this one is just so petty and color-of-the-bikeshed, it disgusts me.

Ugh. DS (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)