Talk:Gillette Castle State Park

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger request

There is currently a separate article Seventh Sister for the original tract of land developed by William Gillette. This is essentialy most of what is now the State Park. There is probably not a need to have separate articles. --Polaron | Talk 21:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at least for now. The proposal is premature. There is no information supporting the proposal in Wikipedia besides the proposer's assertion above. If we are to go by proposer's reputation alone, i would point out that the proposer has proposed multiple mergers of NRHP topics to other articles and has a poor track record. I believe the majority of formally proposed mergers like this (by this proposer, involving NRHP items in Connecticut) have been rejected in decisions by consensus of editors. And hundreds of non-discussed mergers forced by this proposer have been reversed by consensus of many editors in big RFD batches and otherwise. Maybe this is a more carefully chosen case, but there's no evidence here yet to suggest that.

Some good sourced development of both the articles should be done. Neither article mentions the other; I think neither article has any sources covering the other topic. I suggest closing this merger proposal and revisiting a year or two from now.

Also, while I appreciate this time the merger proposer put up proposal tags on both articles and added it to a merger issues list for wp:CONN, the title of this section is not of the default wording, so the proposal tags don't point exactly to this section. One way to fix that would be to customize the proposal tags. I'm trying just changing the section title in this edit, but i am not sure of the default heading either. --Doncram (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - need more data. I agree that there is not enough information yet to determine if they should be merged. Polaron, can you expand on this? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information here. The NRHP nomination form is also quite clear. --Polaron | Talk 18:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger, although the proposal didn't make any sense to me until I read the sources. It's clear to me now that this park is the same estate that is on the National Register as Seventh Sister. I added that info to the article, but minimally. Content about the castle from William Gillette#Gillette Castle should be merged into this article, too. --Orlady (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merger based on the park's brochure. I added a link on Seventh Sister to this article. Jllm06 (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]