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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Connecticut (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

MPS study of Southington's colonial houses[edit]

Many of the Southington NRHP items were covered in a 1985-1988 Multiple Property Submission study of the 25 colonial houses of Southington. New NRHP infoboxes created using the generator tool provided by Elkman gives an incorrect url in the MPS item in the infoboxes:

  | mpsub = [ Colonial Houses of Southington TR]

which needs to be changed to:

| mpsub = [ Colonial Houses of Southington TR]

Also the articles should include a full reference to the document, as here.[1]

  1. ^ Gregory Andrews and Doris Sherrow (June 1, 1988). "National Register of Historic Places: Colonial Houses of Southington TR" (PDF). National Park Service. 

I just updated the Barnes-Frost House article that way. --doncram (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


I've removed what-i-find-to-be-tedious mentions of asserted neighborhoods in this list-article, which were added by editor Polaron. They were readded. I will remove them again after explaining why here. 1. The neighborhood assertions are unsourced. 2. Their relevance is unclear, and IMO their mention takes away from the purpose of this list-article and how well it serves readers. 3. The assertions appear to be intended to cause/continue contention from other NRHP list-articles in Connecticut, which need not extend to here. That last is a judgement I make based on the history of other edits. I find it extraordinary the degree to which Polaron has devoted energy in the form of edit warring to add assertions, to create redirects, and to battle about article structure (merger vs. splits) ALMOST SOLELY UPON TOPICS where he has personal knowledge or sources which he chooses not to share. I observe ALMOST NO developement of non-contentious material on his part. The point, I eventually judge, is that he wishes to make assertions which he believes to be true, and to withhold sources, whether or not the assertions are relevant, so as to cause contention generally. Here, I am sure he believes his assertions are correct, but as with other cases he will not choose to link sources unless and until there has been several reverts, perhaps an wp:3rrnb case, etc. The general point also might be to build links and drive readership to articles about neighborhoods, articles which offhand usually seem pretty crummy to me. In the Plantsville case and most others, I am not aware of any accurate descriptions even establishing what the areas are. If the purpose was to develop those articles, Polaron could do so directly.

I believe the best policy is to challenge ( i challenge all of these! ) and to remove the unsourced assertions. If they are re-added with adequate sources, I will expect to remove them for being irrelevant, as a matter of copyediting.

This is about the 1,000th round, maybe in a serious of contentions that started with Polaron taking it upon himself, in 2008 and 2009, to redirect hundreds of NRHP redlinks to town/village/neighborhood articles. It's been a long slog to reverse almost all of that, given extraordinary obstinacy and ownership asserted over all things Connecticut. --doncram (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The other addresses are relevant because they do not have Southington, CT addresses. Plus, these are all verifiable from the NRHP nomination forms where they are indicated in the very first sentence of the descriptions. --Polaron | Talk 21:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, Polaron, are you saying that the Southington locations of many of these places is incorrect. I recall that it was you, Polaron, who revised all the town or other location information in all Connecticut NRHP list-articles to reflect towns, supposedly accurately. Please discuss to some clarity and consensus here. I am reverting, again, the irrelevant-in-my-view information, and restoring good stuff lost in your edits, and would like to continue to develop descriptive info about historic places in this list-article. --doncram (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The version of Polaron's latest edits, besides the fact there was some display error which prevented all references from being shown, included bare refs to some NRHP nom PDF docs that would not have been descriptive about the references (no author, no date, no title, etc.). Why not work to develop the articles about the individual places, first? And to create well-formed references to the NRHP nom docs there, where they are surely relevant. And, when all or most articles are created, creating more common knowledge about the places, have a discussion about the importance or not of discussion of neighborhoods, in this list-article. I tend to think alleged neighborhood info will not then be important, relative to info about the historical importance of the places. And, location info is crystal-clear, from coordinates in the list-article already. --doncram (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I am talking about the postal address. When one is looking for these places, one must know what the postal city is. These are all in the town of Southington but not all have Southington addresses. --Polaron | Talk 23:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to get myself into a the middle of a dispute that looks like it might have some history, but I do want to pass on some information which may be relevant. Some areas of Connecticut towns may be called neighborhoods or villages, such as Plantsville. However, unlike neighborhoods in other places, where the borders may be unclear, or more importantly, the name may have no legal standing—it is just a self-named area, these entities in Connecticut have more stature than neighborhoods elsewhere. For example SoHo is a neighborhood in NY, reasonably well defined geographically, but having no legal standing (AFAIK). In contrast, while Plantsville does not have a separate local government, it is a census-designated place and it has its own Post Office. If you send a letter to NYC and use SoHo as an address, it may not get there, but Plantsville is a legally accepted address. Often, they have their own Zip Codes. (Plantsville is 06479).

If you go to the US Postal Service site and enter SoHo, it will not find anything. Enter Plantsville, and it finds the Plantsville Post Office. So oddly, it may not be a legal location on a local level, but it is at a national level.--SPhilbrickT 02:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Valentine Wightman House[edit]

Item 25 on the list is listed at the Valentine Wightman House at 1112 Mount Vernon Rd.

If you go to the National Register, search for Wightman in Southington, you get two entries, one of which appears to be the Valentine Wightman entry link to pdf However, if you open the pdf, the Inventory refers to the Willard Homestead. It lists the address as 372 Willard Avenue in Newington. That property is NRHP ref # 86003461, while I think the Wightman ref # is 88003112. Looks like someone accidentally used the same scanned image for two properties. Any suggestions?--SPhilbrickT 22:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)