987:
article. Lvklock has, including a couple mentioned in this or another parallel merger proposal going on. And i believe that in all these cases
Lvklock has done a fine job. If Lvklock was the one to develop a good NRHP HD article about this place, i imagine that Lvklock would exercise great on-the-spot judgment about this place and how to present it in an article. Orlady has not visited this place and is judging from afar, how it should be treated. What is at stake here, besides meanness and potshots from non-contributors to this genre, is a basic right for some constructive future editor, probably not anyone present in this discussion, to develop a good NRHP HD article. I say Orlady in particular should have no right to say this should not be allowed (presumably to be discouraged by redirects and edit warring to prevent others starting or developing an article). Again, the NRHP HD is documented and wikipedia-notable, and it is just offensive sniping out of some control-freakish or god-knows-what motivation by seemingly NRHP-hating individuals (who IMO should just get lost), who are arguing against an NRHP HD article. If you don't like NRHP articles, which is evident in your repeated comments here and elsewhere, Orlady, just go away, please, work on what other stuff you like in wikipedia. Sorry to rant a bit along lines that O or others are free to claim is "uncivil" if you wish, but I do take offense, and I don't have to accept O's introduction of sarcasm into discussion here as civil, either. It is not required under wikipedia AGF guidelines for editors to ignore patterns of bad faith.
504:
unsourced, probably false assertions that the village is the same as the HD. It is the forced merger of NRHP HDs with crummy village articles that i object to. I personally would prefer for there to be no NRHP HD article, rather than a one- or two-sentence stub, so that new wikipedians could enjoy creating an article and getting a DYK, etc. However, when a redirect from the NRHP HD name has been created, that signals reliably that one editor will edit war against anyone creating an NRHP article, irregardless of facts and the absence of sources speaking to facts. So, if you or another administrator is not willing to delete the unhelpful redirects, the only way to clear the minefield for newer wikipedia editors seems to be to set off the mines by starting the stupid NRHP stub articles, and fighting to keep out unsourced statements, etc., until it is established in each case to some consensus that the NRHP HD is not the same as some unincorporated hamlet that one or two editors' wish for it to be the same as. What is reprehensible is not creating short, fully sourced (but i agree low quality otherwise) NRHP HD articles. Rather the unhelpful redirects and the predictable, uninformed, belligerent edit warring against orderly creation of NRHP articles is what is distasteful to me.
740:
one property apparently outside the village, overlooking it. It is conceivable that in current local usage, the school would now be considered part of the village, but it is equally or more conceivable that the village is the lower area, and the historic district is deliberately larger to preserve the character of the hamlet amidst its surroundings. I read the NRHP application document to most naturally support having a short article about the village which describes it as included in a historic district, and an article about the historic district which details the properties in the historic district. In this case, there is already a partial list of the district's properties in the NRHP HD article-in-progress, which is IMO best to leave in the NRHP HD article and not include in the hamlet article. These two are and can be complementary wikipedia articles. I don't understand the intensity of opposition to allowing there to be two articles.
844:
is still able to convey its historic context as a mill village." Anyway, I'm not clear on the significance to
Knowledge of the fact that the modern village no longer has some of the buildings that existed in earlier centuries. History is an important part of articles about modern communities and it is an important part of articles about historic districts. Furthermore, the basis for listing this village on the National Register is that it is "significant under National Register Criteria A & C as a largely intact and unified Vermont mill village." The fact that it was formerly industrial is relevant to both the topic of the village as village and the topic of the village as historic district. --
490:
celebrities grew up there) that is not embodied in the architecture of the historic district's buildings and other artifacts. So, like many other cases in which it has been argued without sources that a village and an HD are the same, I expect that it will prove useful to keep separate articles. In the meantime, it would be unacceptable to force a merger based on unsourced, combative arguments that the two are the same. The NRHP HD is clearly notable and documented, and the article can be kept clean of unsourced assertions; i don't know whether or not there is especially any merit in keeping the village article or not in wikipedia.
258:
910:" The district boundary is drawn to include those buildings in Hartford Village, on both sides of Hartford Main Street between the Second Congregational Church (#1) and School Street, as well as properties on Pleasant Street, Summer Street, Park Street, Mapleside Terrace, Christian Street and Elmwood Court." On google maps, Hartford's amorphous village also looks to include Paula, Truell, Ozzy, Campbell, Rogers, Hillridge, Meadow, Evergreen and Grapevine. Clearly, larger than just the district.
80:
53:
90:
183:
354:
336:
195:
22:
937:
unified
Vermont mill village." Elsewhere the nom adds that it is significant "for its associations with the development of the village center which grew in proximity to the industries along the White River." It is clear from the nom that it is listed as a whole village with a history, not as a collection of old buildings (the individual buildings are not individually all that significant). --
881:"In total, the district is comprised of sixty-nine (69) properties, including eighty-one (81) contributing buildings and twenty (20) noncontributing buildings (of which sixteen are noncontributing due to age and four are noncontributing due to alteration)." So, 20% of the buildings in the district are noncontributing, and therefore pertinent to the village, but not to the district.
364:
248:
227:
1018:
add the appropriate wikilinks, perhaps as redlinks to start. It is possible that there is an NRIS database error listing the church somewhere else, or something like that, but I think it is more likely the town website editor is mistaken. I expect that the church referred to is the contributing property church described in the NRHP HD application.
796:
those, unless in passing, while they could be pertinent to a village article. The nomination also characterizes the village now as largely residential, in contrast to the industrial past of the village. It is clear to me from reading the nomination that the village and the historic district are NOT AT ALL one and the same.
724:
covering a section of a larger town, and a name of one hamlet which is included is used in the NRHP HD name. Also, sometimes a NRHP HD will be defined specifically to aid in preservation of a hamlet, and it will deliberately include surrounding viewshed areas outside of the hamlet. It is arrogant or
986:
I think i've seen Orlady make that same crack about "forest" vs. "trees" in NRHP HD district articles before, and I interpret it as meant to be sarcastic and mean, and I take offense on
Lvklock's behalf. As far as I know, Orlady has not gone and taken pictures and developed a single NRHP HD district
843:
indicates that several industrial buildings burned down or were torn down. As a result, they are part of the story of the history of the village and of the historic district, but they are no longer physically present. The nom form also says "Despite the loss of the industrial structures, the district
1039:
Like you, I think it's likely that the church in question is the Second
Congregational Church that's discussed on the HD nomination form. From the HD nom form, it sounds like it is probably individually significant enough to qualify for a separate listing. It's rather common for people to think that
739:
Anyhow, the NRHP document (which is the definitive, reliable source here) describes a historic district that seems to include all of
Hartford Village, and also properties outside. The HD describes that it includes several streets outside the village. For example, Hartford Village Grammar School is
723:
In general I believe that some here are projecting, unsupportably, their views that New
England hamlets "ought" to be nicely self-contained and that historic districts "ought" to be drawn in nice lines to contain them. Rather, I think what often happens is that larger historic districts get created
951:
Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on how we "think of the HD". Nevertheless, it is just as clear to me that the district is NOT the WHOLE village, and that there are distinct differences between them. Whether the non-contributing structures are part of the district or not, they are not the
1017:
This hamlet article currently includes claim from the town website that the hamlet includes two separately listed NRHP places, the library and a church. That seems to be incorrect: the library is NRHP-listed but i can find no separate listing for a church. I looked into this before, in order to
795:
Once again, why if the village is amorphous, but the historic district is concretely defined, why would you force coverage of the concrete district in the amorphous village article? And, the nomination enumerates several non-contributing structures. The historic distrcit article would not address
466:
It also seems pretty clear to me (from the NRHP application) that the village and the historic district are essentially the same. IMHO, the two existing stub articles (one about the village and one about the historic district) might begin to become a useful article if they are were combined into a
671:
There is a small scale map of the historic district on one of the regional planning organization websites (I forget which one at the moment -- will link to when I find it). But then, how do you propose to determine whether an area is outside the village or not? The only official definition of the
648:
Note: I believe you and me and everyone discussing this are referring to the online extract from the NRHP application document, which notably does not include a map of the HD, sometimes also showing bounds of villages and how they differ, and exposing that various swathes of area are deliberately
717:
My opposition is sort of on principle, that proposers of mergers should actually read the NRHP application documents before being too adamant that a historic district is the same as some hamlet, when they have no personal knowledge of the hamlet and how locals use the term, and when there are no
771:
It may be true that there are some articles of the same situation merged (which I would have also been against), but it is equally true that there are MANY instances where BOTH articles exist in these circumstances. In my view, the way you want to do it EXCLUDES proper development of historic
936:
With this and many other historic districts, I'd like to suggest that it's important to think of the HD as a "forest" (i.e., a whole district), not as a collection of "trees" (i.e., individual structures). As noted above, this village was added to the
National Register as a "largely intact and
503:
Orlady, i agree in this case and in general that two separate articles are often not good. An important distinction is that the separate NRHP HD article is fully sourced, while it is hard to keep village/town articles free of unsourced trivia. And, crucially, a combined article would include
489:
If there is no definition for the
Hartford Village, then it will indeed be hard to find sources establishing that its geographic definition is the same as that of the NRHP HD. I do assume that the village has prior history and modern history, of both substantial and trivial nature (like which
733:
In this case, assuming the town website quote is exact, another interpretation is that the editor of that website stated, for simplicity or other editorial reasons, something that is more or less but not exactly true. The town website is not a wiki, so it does not get hordes of critical
830:"In the 19th century Hartford Village was the original center of business and industry in the area." This is the core of what the historic district represents. "Today, Hartford Village is largely residential" - reflects the present village which is different from the historic village.
638:
See my comment in opposition below, speaking to the point that the NRHP HD appears to include area outside the hamlet. I don't know for sure whether there is any part of the hamlet proper which is deliberately excluded from the HD, or not, but they are not the same
1109:
919:
The historic district article I would envision would perhaps include a table of all the contributing structures, with a short summary of the info in the nomination document. This kind of detail would clearly be inappropriate to the village article.
563:
I think I tend to favor separation of the two. Right now, the village article seems to be suffering, but that could change with a little attention. Stuff will go there (and the historic district) that is essentially irrelevant to the other, IMO.
952:
focus of the district, and specific, detailed coverage of them is not appropriate within the historic district article, while it may be in a village article. I cannot understand why it is so impossible to allow for development of BOTH articles.
649:
excluded from the HD. In most if not all NRHP HD applications, a map is included. So, this arguing for merger is uninformed by the basic map that is probably available, if only someone would put in a request for the stupid, free document.
1104:
318:
308:
1099:
858:
Yes, the past is relevant to both the the district and the village, but the modern building are NOT, nor is the detail that could be relevant to the historic district article relevant to the village article.
448:
What specifically says that? It seems clear to me that basically the entire village is the historic district. Note that
Hartford Village has no defined boundaries except the National Historic District one.
432:
Thanks Polaron for adding the NRHP app document, which, not surprisingly, makes clear that the HD is not the same as the village. As you wrote in an edit summary, "please read the nomination information".
546:
I realize that currently the Hartford village article seems a little bereft. But that could change with an additional of history, notables, roads, and other details that may be irrelevant to the Historic
284:
1040:
the key contributing properties in an HD are separately listed on the National Register. However, errors are also possible. Are there any "Hartford" listings misplaced into other Vermont counties? --
1074:
1021:
I note this now in part to point out that the town website editor does not necessarily have the perspective to give an encyclopedic-quality treatment of the village and NRHP HD's relationship.
271:
232:
603:. I disagree, for reasons the same as in other concurrent merger proposals, and the invited commenter whose comments appear in a section above also appears to disagree in this case.
543:. Unincorporated villages have amorphous boundaries in Vermont and Brownington "village" can be perceived as going beyond the historic district. So separating them seems reasonable.
120:
137:
618:
It is quite evident from the NRHP nomination that basically the entire village is the historic district. This is also borne out by the description of the Town of Hartford
1114:
1069:
173:
163:
1084:
1094:
1064:
263:
127:
694:. The village and the HD are one and the same. The town of Hartford's website says "The Village is on the National Register as a Historic District." --
132:
1119:
1089:
1079:
540:
718:
sources or ambigous sources. This case is unusual in that there is one other source, the town website, which more or less equates the two.
280:
103:
58:
596:
115:
772:
district articles, while the way I prefer it be done doesn't EXCLUDE village article development. That is what I cannot understand.
394:
111:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
208:
63:
377:
341:
33:
600:
890:
Almost all historic districts have noncontributing properties, but they are still part of the historic district. --
754:
In the same way, I am perplexed at the strong opposition to this merger. There are many merged articles created by
21:
728:
or worse to insist that an NRHP HD is the same as a hamlet, based on the name used in the NRHP HD title.
39:
532:, apparently a Vermont local, who commented at Polaron and my talk pages. Here are complete copies:
95:
393:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
283:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
569:
552:
79:
52:
1029:
992:
957:
925:
864:
817:
801:
777:
763:
745:
677:
654:
626:
608:
581:
509:
454:
438:
1045:
942:
895:
849:
699:
472:
390:
1049:
1033:
996:
961:
946:
929:
899:
868:
853:
820:
805:
781:
766:
749:
703:
680:
658:
629:
612:
585:
513:
476:
457:
442:
758:
that are the same situation as this and merging there does not seem to be a problem. --
755:
200:
1058:
565:
548:
529:
369:
276:
108:
1025:
988:
953:
921:
860:
813:
797:
773:
759:
741:
725:
673:
650:
622:
604:
577:
505:
450:
434:
182:
1041:
938:
891:
845:
695:
468:
353:
335:
619:
359:
253:
190:
85:
1110:
Start-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of Low-importance
107:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
840:
576:
The first at Polaron's talk, the second at my own. Please continue here.
247:
226:
467:
single article. Separately, both articles are rather pathetic. --
386:
382:
15:
1105:
Low-importance National Register of Historic Places articles
181:
293:
Knowledge:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
1100:
Start-Class National Register of Historic Places articles
296:
Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
275:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
1075:
Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
381:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
272:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
1024:Anyhow, is there a church that is NRHP-listed?
812:What specifically makes you conclude that? --
299:National Register of Historic Places articles
8:
264:National Register of Historic Places portal
19:
330:
221:
47:
1115:Start-Class WikiProject Cities articles
332:
223:
49:
1013:Town website accuracy / included NRHPs
1070:Low-importance United States articles
841:National Register nomination document
541:Brownington Village Historic District
539:My only experience has been with the
7:
672:village is the historic district. --
536:Where is the discussion being held?
375:This article is within the scope of
290:National Register of Historic Places
281:National Register of Historic Places
269:This article is within the scope of
233:National Register of Historic Places
101:This article is within the scope of
1085:Unknown-importance Vermont articles
148:Knowledge:WikiProject United States
38:It is of interest to the following
1095:WikiProject United States articles
1065:Start-Class United States articles
597:Hartford Village Historic District
151:Template:WikiProject United States
14:
734:reviewers/correctors like we do.
362:
352:
334:
256:
246:
225:
193:
88:
78:
51:
20:
313:This article has been rated as
168:This article has been rated as
1:
528:Polaron invited comment from
397:and see a list of open tasks.
287:and see a list of open tasks.
206:This article is supported by
1120:All WikiProject Cities pages
1090:WikiProject Vermont articles
1080:Start-Class Vermont articles
595:An editor has proposed that
403:Knowledge:WikiProject Cities
601:Hartford (village), Vermont
572:) 14:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
555:) 14:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
428:NRHP app doc -- please read
409:WikiProject Cities articles
406:Template:WikiProject Cities
1136:
319:project's importance scale
174:project's importance scale
524:invited comments received
347:
312:
241:
189:
167:
104:WikiProject United States
73:
46:
1050:02:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
1034:20:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
997:05:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
962:03:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
947:02:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
930:20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
900:02:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
869:03:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
854:02:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
821:19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
806:19:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
782:03:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
767:19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
750:18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
704:14:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
681:19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
659:19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
630:13:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
613:11:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
586:20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
514:18:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
477:16:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
458:12:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
443:06:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
109:United States of America
574:
557:
186:
154:United States articles
28:This article is rated
561:
534:
185:
96:United States portal
209:WikiProject Vermont
122:Articles Requested!
389:and various other
378:WikiProject Cities
187:
34:content assessment
425:
424:
421:
420:
417:
416:
329:
328:
325:
324:
220:
219:
216:
215:
1127:
411:
410:
407:
404:
401:
372:
367:
366:
365:
356:
349:
348:
338:
331:
301:
300:
297:
294:
291:
266:
261:
260:
259:
250:
243:
242:
237:
229:
222:
203:
198:
197:
196:
156:
155:
152:
149:
146:
98:
93:
92:
91:
82:
75:
74:
69:
66:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1055:
1054:
1015:
599:be merged into
593:
591:merger proposal
526:
430:
408:
405:
402:
399:
398:
368:
363:
361:
298:
295:
292:
289:
288:
262:
257:
255:
235:
199:
194:
192:
153:
150:
147:
144:
143:
142:
128:Become a Member
94:
89:
87:
67:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1133:
1131:
1123:
1122:
1117:
1112:
1107:
1102:
1097:
1092:
1087:
1082:
1077:
1072:
1067:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
914:
913:
912:
911:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
883:
882:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
832:
831:
827:
826:
809:
808:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
756:User:Swampyank
736:
735:
730:
729:
720:
719:
714:
713:
707:
706:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
664:
663:
662:
661:
643:
642:
641:
640:
633:
632:
592:
589:
525:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
482:
481:
480:
479:
461:
460:
429:
426:
423:
422:
419:
418:
415:
414:
412:
395:the discussion
374:
373:
357:
345:
344:
339:
327:
326:
323:
322:
315:Low-importance
311:
305:
304:
302:
285:the discussion
279:listed on the
277:historic sites
268:
267:
251:
239:
238:
236:Low‑importance
230:
218:
217:
214:
213:
205:
204:
201:Vermont portal
188:
178:
177:
170:Low-importance
166:
160:
159:
157:
141:
140:
135:
130:
125:
118:
116:Template Usage
112:
100:
99:
83:
71:
70:
68:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1132:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1103:
1101:
1098:
1096:
1093:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1073:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1062:
1060:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1019:
1012:
998:
994:
990:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
963:
959:
955:
950:
949:
948:
944:
940:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
927:
923:
918:
917:
916:
915:
909:
908:
901:
897:
893:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
880:
879:
870:
866:
862:
857:
856:
855:
851:
847:
842:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
829:
828:
825:Specifically:
824:
823:
822:
819:
815:
811:
810:
807:
803:
799:
794:
791:
790:
783:
779:
775:
770:
769:
768:
765:
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
747:
743:
738:
737:
732:
731:
727:
722:
721:
716:
715:
712:
709:
708:
705:
701:
697:
693:
692:Merge, please
690:
689:
682:
679:
675:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
660:
656:
652:
647:
646:
645:
644:
637:
636:
635:
634:
631:
628:
624:
620:
617:
616:
615:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
590:
588:
587:
583:
579:
573:
571:
567:
560:
556:
554:
550:
544:
542:
537:
533:
531:
523:
515:
511:
507:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
478:
474:
470:
465:
464:
463:
462:
459:
456:
452:
447:
446:
445:
444:
440:
436:
427:
413:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
379:
371:
370:Cities portal
360:
358:
355:
351:
350:
346:
343:
340:
337:
333:
320:
316:
310:
307:
306:
303:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
265:
254:
252:
249:
245:
244:
240:
234:
231:
228:
224:
211:
210:
202:
191:
184:
180:
179:
175:
171:
165:
162:
161:
158:
145:United States
139:
136:
134:
131:
129:
126:
124:
123:
119:
117:
114:
113:
110:
106:
105:
97:
86:
84:
81:
77:
76:
72:
65:
60:
59:United States
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1023:
1020:
1016:
792:
710:
691:
594:
575:
562:
558:
545:
538:
535:
527:
431:
376:
314:
270:
207:
169:
133:Project Talk
121:
102:
40:WikiProjects
391:settlements
30:Start-class
1059:Categories
547:District.
566:Student7
549:Student7
530:Student7
1026:doncram
989:doncram
954:Lvklock
922:Lvklock
861:Lvklock
814:Polaron
798:Lvklock
793:Oppose.
774:Lvklock
760:Polaron
742:doncram
674:Polaron
651:doncram
623:Polaron
605:doncram
578:doncram
506:doncram
451:Polaron
435:doncram
317:on the
172:on the
64:Vermont
1042:Orlady
939:Orlady
892:Orlady
846:Orlady
711:Oppose
696:Orlady
469:Orlady
400:Cities
383:cities
342:Cities
138:Alerts
36:scale.
726:wp:OR
639:area.
387:towns
1046:talk
1030:talk
993:talk
958:talk
943:talk
926:talk
896:talk
865:talk
850:talk
839:The
818:Talk
802:talk
778:talk
764:Talk
746:talk
700:talk
678:Talk
655:talk
627:Talk
621:. --
609:talk
582:talk
570:talk
559:and
553:talk
510:talk
473:talk
455:Talk
439:talk
309:Low
164:Low
1061::
1048:)
1032:)
995:)
960:)
945:)
928:)
898:)
867:)
852:)
816:|
804:)
780:)
762:|
748:)
702:)
676:|
657:)
625:|
611:)
584:)
512:)
475:)
453:|
449:--
441:)
385:,
62::
1044:(
1028:(
991:(
956:(
941:(
924:(
894:(
863:(
848:(
800:(
776:(
744:(
698:(
653:(
607:(
580:(
568:(
551:(
508:(
471:(
437:(
321:.
212:.
176:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
