Talk:Old Natchez Trace segments listed on the National Register of Historic Places

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

new list-article[edit]

This new list-article was created in response to discussion about disambiguation of term "Old Natchez Trace". It was created by editors Polaron, Orlady, and/or Station1, merging in some text and at least 2 references that i had formed in separate articles. For background discussion leading up to this, please see Talk:Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation). For the record, I am basically fine with having a list-article like this, although I have some concerns. --doncram (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was Station1 who moved Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation) to this title to create this article. Doncram subsequently recreated Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation). --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of article[edit]

The title of this article is Old Natchez Trace segments listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but another contributor has starting adding content about some of the other National Register-listed properties located along the Trace. Since there are several dozen such properties (including several Indian mounds, Civil War battlefields, etc.), it is difficult to see what useful purpose that exercise will serve, other than creating a partial travel guide (not in milepost sequence, like a typical travel guide would be) to the Natchez Trace Parkway (but Wikipedia is not a travel guide). I propose that these items should be deleted and the original scope of this list maintained (if the page is to be retained at all). --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, it seems you are opposed to everything!!! What do you want, for there to be separate articles or for there to be a combined article or what. So far you have opposed every single alternative, and every little bit of information being added. There's no winning with you, it seems. I wish you would work on contributing content in wikipedia instead of this, frankly. --doncram (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is out of scope for this article, plain and simple. Those other things simply don't belong here. If they can be included elsewhere, that's fine. No offense, but you seem to think this article should serve as a catch-all for anything vaguely related to NT, and it simply should not be that way. WP:NOTDIRECTORY seems to apply in this situation. You were bold, it was removed, now discuss. All part of the cycle. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of 3 NRHP-listed places along the trace, from the time period of the trace or before, which would have been familiar to many travellers on the trace, is very appropriate in this article. I relabelled to characterize that these are from the time period of the trace clear. Orlady raised a spectre of dozens of sites being added. I consulted the linked county NRHP list-articles other than the Tennessee ones and identified just three items of this type which i added.
About BRD, I do not own this or any other article, but I am the principal author so far of this article. I developed most of the material that was pasted together at first, and then i have added coordinates and made other improvements. I don't see evidence that anyone else is seriously interested in developing material for this article; it seems the interest is all negative, part of a different-purposed game. I don't get the extraordinary interest here. I was just developing it, and the Bold move is the deletion of decent material, which I have Reverted. Please do discuss if you wish.
If the objection is that adding the 3 sites and possibly some more from TN renders the article name unsatisfactory, that can be discussed and remedied by a name change later. The article name and scope can be changed, according to how the sources turn out and how the writing goes. It seems best to allow me or others who are actually interested in the NRHP sites to develop the article. If there are Civil War battlefields upon the trace which preserve parts of the trace and evoke its history, it would possibly seem appropriate to mention them here, too. If there is a Port Gibson battlefield which has nothing to do with the trace, i.e. from the Union army landing and merely crossing and obliterating the trace or something, then I would leave that out. But the mounds were there for the travellers on the trace to wonder about, and the Col. James Drane House was a house of the era, probably serving travellers (tho article yet to be developed). The overall theme of NRHP listings is that the places are current sites which meaningfully evoke past history, given the right facts and interpretative information. NRHP sites which evoke the history of the trace during its use, are usefully covered together in a list-article. Please recall, the principal alternative is for there to be separate articles for each one, which has been violently opposed. --doncram (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are failing to abide by Bold, Revert, Discuss. Despite what anyone says, you keep re-adding material that others don't believe belong. This is very inappropriate behaviour Doncram. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't think you claim to own this article, but your words (e.g., "It seems best to allow me ... to develop the article") and your actions (e.g., repeatedly reverting the edits of every other person who has attempted to discuss the subject) tell us otherwise. As for the matter of historic elements surrounding the Trace, a few days back I quoted the Park Service[1][2] on the subject, including the fact that there are 21 National Register properties "on or adjacent to the Trace." Here's a longer version of the quotation:

"More than 180 separate segments of the Old Trace have been identified within the Parkway’s boundaries and represent 97 miles of the historic route. Other historic properties include structures, roads, Civil War battlefields and campsites, an open pit iron ore mine, historic inn sites, historic houses, and some 36 known cemetery sites on or adjacent to the Old Trace. Some of the most significant properties include the Mount Locust Plantation near Natchez, Mississippi; the John Gordon House in Tennessee; and the Meriwether Lewis Monument, also in Tennessee, which marks the grave of the renowned explorer. A complex of 35 dwellings built in the mid-1930s as a federal subsistence experiment, located near Parkway Headquarters in Tupelo, Mississippi, is recognized as a historic district in the National Register of Historic Places. More than 356 archeological sites are located on NATR lands, highlighted by six American Indian mounds interpreted for visitors. The most significant of these sites is Emerald Mound near Natchez, Mississippi, the second-largest ceremonial mound in the United States and a designated National Historic Landmark."

Ah, but why do I bother? You will do what you want because nobody else's opinion matters to you. --Orlady (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quote and pointing to that source. I inserted wikilinks into the quote. Yes, for a NRHP / Natchez Trace themed list-article, many of those mentioned sound very relevant to cover. I was just also glancing at the Tennessee county list-articles linked, and finding no immediate hits in the first 3 but several in Williamson County, including 1801-built Old Town Bridge (Franklin, Tennessee). Houses from 1846 and later may be past the Natchez Trace's own era. But, just to note, other Williamson County candidates for mention would include Natchez-Trace-on-or-near places Montpier, Beasley-Parham House, Old Town Bridge (Franklin, Tennessee), Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee), Knight-Moran House, Stokely Davis House. Going to have to think about it all, thanks for now. --doncram (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time I have provided that quote and those links on one of these talk pages. ;-) If you want to get inforamtion about properties on or near the Trace, I would suggest that you look in the "guide to the Parkway" publications produced by the National Park Service and other sources, rather than trying to do your own original research in NRIS. --Orlady (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: despite harsh words suggesting that i was doing invalid work, the places i identified just above, by scanning for "Natchez Trace" in the NRHP list-articles, turned out to include significant ones. Specifically the Old Town and Old Town Bridge articles which i started, identified the places as significant on the Natchez Trace. The bridge from 1801 was a bridge of the trace itself, on one branch of the trace that is not covered in the NRHP-listed segments already listed in this article. Orlady has gone on to develop the Old Town article more, using the MPS document reference that was included in the starter versions. So, i think those were unduly harsh words. It is often the case that by creating stub articles, and beginning to collect references such as the on-line available MPS documents that i and others worked to make available easily in new stub NRHP articles, often helps to break through and create substantial new information. It also allows locals to add pics and links to local historical society info and so on. It seems better, to me, for the scope of this list-article to be about NRHP-listed places associated with the Natchez Trace, including the bridge and other places then and there, not just the linear segment ones. --doncram (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Old_Natchez_Trace_segments_listed_on_the_National_Register_of_Historic_Places&oldid=1207377173"