This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iowa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Iowa 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.
"The district has some significance." I'll bite. What's the point of this statement? Are there NRHP districts that have zero "significance?" Bms4880 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree more detail needs to be added, but that doesn't give User:Orlady the right to violate 3RR and call the reverts vandalism. CTJF83chat 20:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "some significance" appears to be a peacock term. If it's too much trouble to find the statement of significance in the nomination form and summarize it, the phrase should be removed altogether. Bms4880 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
More can and should be added, I don't dispute that. But the fact that Orlady is violating 3RR calling a WP:GF edit vandalism is inappropriate and an admin should know better. CTJF83chat 20:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Are we in agreement that the phrase adds nothing but peacocking to the article, and should thus be removed? Bms4880 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
How bout u give me a day or 2 to look for more to add at the library. CTJF83chat 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not a peacock term. It implicitly calls for more specific development of the historical signficance of the district from the nomination. BMS4880 understood that correctly. It touches a nerve apparently for Orlady, who is bent on opposing a compromise among some editors that is basically working to settle contention on CT NRHP articles. The compromise for CT articles includes using a phrase like "significantly similar" with a citation needed tag, until someone gets the NRHP document or another source and adds a sourced alternative description of a relationship under question. In multiple CT articles, there is some back-and-forth that has gone on, while Orlady contends with the compromise wording yet does not lift a finger to develop a specific, sourced, improved phrasing, using the NRHP documents now available for almost all NRHPs there. Meanwhile I have added NRHP documents to many articles and another editor has also made specific improvements, but they are not all settled yet. I don't think anyone else needs to get involved in all that; it is winding down under supervision of an invited mediator.
Here, the NRHP document has been requested from the National Register, and will be used to develop the article further when Ctfj83 and i receive it. I think the phrase in the current article might possibly be supported more specifically from the MPS document referenced, but it will be easier and provide for stronger development when the individual NRHP document is used. It adds nothing for Orlady or anyone else to intervene, tendentiously, and in fact in violation of wp:3RR. I asked Orlady nicely enough at her Talk page to back off, to avoid the appearance of wp:wikihounding by following me to this article, unrelated to anything else. By the way, in at least the first edit that Orlady made, the edit changed the meaning / skewed the article to suggest one point was supported by a reference that did not support it. It seems like wikihounding / harassment to me. Thanks, ctjf83, for being helpful about this. --doncram (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm still waiting on the e-mail (who knows if I'll get one). Perhaps I'll just head down to the library, they might have NRHP documentation. CTJF83chat 21:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It is a peacock term. The peacock term page gives the example, "Brazil has a vigorous economy." You can argue that such a statement "implicitly" invites editors to write a more elaborate discussion about Brazil's economic growth, but that doesn't change the fact the sentence by itself adds nothing useful for readers. Doncram, do you really believe such phrasing adds useful information, or are you reverting these edits as a continuation of your ongoing disagreements with Orlady? Bms4880 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It served a role in the article. The article is brand new, under development, marked as a stub, only existing because I provided comments to Ctjf83 in a recent peer review, and Ctjf83 followed up to request my help in developing several NRHP HD articles in Davenport. It has nothing to do with Orlady's disputes elsewhere, and her interfering with this article here is not helping. In a sense it does have to do with ongoing disagreement by Orlady with me, in that she has extended it here. I did open a 3rr report on Orlady at wp:3rrnb about that behavior and i will follow up there but probably not further here. This situation is already a bit poisoned. Please note, Ctjf83 and I were just working cooperatively in developing articles on Davenport NRHPs. --doncram (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
OUTDENT and EDIT CONFLICT - All National Register listings are "significant." The nomination forms contain checkboxes for identifying the type(s) of significance they are judged to have. Saying "The district has some significance" is a placeholder (like a "fill in the blanks" statement, but without a physical blank) that means "I'm sure it's significant or it wouldn't be listed, but I haven't looked up the type of significance yet, much less documented what aspects of the district caused it to be judged 'significant'." This is not the only article that this contributor has written in article space with placeholder content like this, but that sort of placeholder content does not belong in article space. For part of the history, see User talk:EdJohnston/Archive16#repeated violation of editing restriction. --Orlady (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The CT NRHPs issues are being managed well enough by invited mediator Acroterion in a process in which Orlady is actively participating, as am i and User:Polaron (under the editing restriction at subject there). EdJohnston took some interest, and had a somewhat negative view towards me, expressed in tone there in the midst of a temporary flareup of conflict, but that is not representative of 7 months of contention and of views by other involved editors. I don't really want to invite others to get involved. Orlady, please give it a break, and cut the scope of your contention. I will try not to comment further here. --doncram (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyways....all I could find at the Davenport Public Library is a little on how it is significant locally, which I'm adding shortly. They have more details on specific properties in the neighborhood then on the neighborhood as a whole. CTJF83chat 00:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)